Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6518203" data-attributes="member: 42582">The equivalence consists in being departures from the system norms. The fact that the departures are potentially in opposite directions of deadliness (although not necessarily - it is quite possible to build a very deadly all-minion encounter) doesn't change this.Upthread I suggested that one mechanical feature of 5e relevant to the possible emergence of roles out of that system's combat mechanics is the short (2 to 3 round) mechanical duration of its combats. You replied by saying that combats in 5e aren't necessarily short - and then went on to elaborate that the typical non-double-deadly encounter lasts fewer than 4 rounds.I don't think that double-deadly encounters are typical for 5e. They are not the sorts of encounters the designers built the system around. (Just as all-minion encounters aren't the sort of encounters that the 4e designers built that system around.) So the fact that they lead to encounters lasting 4 or more rounds doesn't strike me as having much bearing on my initial contention: namely, that the typical combat length in 5e being 2 to 3 rounds is one mechanical feature of the system that is relevant to the emergence of roles in the system.To add to previous examples, here is another difference that might make: if combats are only 2 to 3 rounds long, a free round makes a huge difference. Hence, one might expect a role to emerge of being the "surprise enabler" (perhaps a scouting/stealth role, probably by default filled by a rogue, ranger, monk or illusionist). In 4e, by way of contrast, the mechanics do not engender such a role, in part because the surprise mechanics don't give a full free round, and in part because the greater mechanical duration of the typical encounter dilutes the impact of an initial free action.</blockquote>

Verification