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: 6857821" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think 4e is basically the same as 5e in these respects. I think 3E probably is as well, but I don't know it so well and so am not quite as confident in making that judgement.For me, there is no particular resemblance to card games as opposed to (say) board games, but I don't think much turns on that.I like the 6 second round, in so far as it generates movement and positioning that are interesting and, in general terms, plausible for the entities involved, and yet don't involve moving distances that become hard to keep track of in visual terms. But in some respects I think the 1 minute round was a better compromise. It puts less pressure on the verisimilitude of the action economy in the sorts of ways you point to (though perhaps puts more pressure on that verisimilitude from the point of view of character mobility).I think the tarrasque issue that you raise is easier to change (if desired) than the PC build/abilities issue. I think the PC issue might be a bit more pointed in 5e than 4e because 4e is a bit more relaxed in its articulation between mechanics and fiction. For instance, it doesn't have anything analogous to spell components, and so what exactly is going on when a bard casts a spell is left a bit looser; the game is also a bit looser in its expectation as to how much using a standard action spell on this occasion will, in the fiction, resemble or be identical to using a standard action spell on that occasion.This "looseness" of fit - I see it as something of a combination of the AD&D 1 minute round looseness with the 6-second turn-based initiative of 3E - is a recurring subject of conversation in regard to 4e, and like many things something that some find to be good/helpful and others find to be bad/disruptive of verisimilitude.</blockquote>

Verification