Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 5209080" data-attributes="member: 53980">As others have pointed out, there's no contradiction here.&nbsp; IMO 4e has more movement based powers than earlier editions and you often don't have to choose between moving and attacking (for example, Dimension Door in earlier editions was a standard action whereas it's only a move action in 4e; prior to 4e you could - barring Quicken - teleport OR attack, whereas in 4e you can teleport AND attack).If you can handle mini-less combat you can presumably handle movement.&nbsp; After all, even before 4e you had character concepts (such as the archer) based around staying far away from the enemy.&nbsp; I don't think that anyone has suggested that, prior to 4e, combat always began at melee range and nobody ever moved.&nbsp; Just that certain aspects (like losing your iterative attacks in 3e) discouraged mobile combats to a degree.Similarly, if you could handle a gridless 40' diameter in an earlier edition, one would assume you can handle a gridless 35' diameter fireball in 4e.&nbsp; In any case, I really don't want to drag this into edition war territory by sounding overly critical of earlier editions, and I apologize if it's taken as such as that isn't my intent.&nbsp; My point is that, for the &quot;lesser and quick&quot; fights that were being discussed earlier (I think a crimelord's insane relative was mentioned at one point) I think that 4e could run perfectly fine without a grid (assuming the DM has a basic understanding of how to run gridless in the first place).&nbsp; Saying that every 4e encounter has to be a major one is another assumption I would question.&nbsp; Those are the encounters that I think it does best, and therefore I believe those are the types of encounters that have received the most attention.&nbsp; That doesn't equate, however, to simple encounters being nonfunctional in the 4e system.&nbsp; Just last game we encountered a pair of monsters in their den that died in the first round, less than five minutes of real time.&nbsp; It certainly wasn't an epic encounter, but our DM likes a good mix of encounters (from very hard to very easy) for the sake of &quot;realism.&quot;With respect to major battles with complex terrain, I would agree, I'm not convinced that 4e would run well without a grid (at least, it would require an exceptional DM to handle it well).&nbsp; For something like a simple encounter though, I think you could get away without it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 5209080, member: 53980"] As others have pointed out, there's no contradiction here. IMO 4e has more movement based powers than earlier editions and you often don't have to choose between moving and attacking (for example, Dimension Door in earlier editions was a standard action whereas it's only a move action in 4e; prior to 4e you could - barring Quicken - teleport OR attack, whereas in 4e you can teleport AND attack). If you can handle mini-less combat you can presumably handle movement. After all, even before 4e you had character concepts (such as the archer) based around staying far away from the enemy. I don't think that anyone has suggested that, prior to 4e, combat always began at melee range and nobody ever moved. Just that certain aspects (like losing your iterative attacks in 3e) discouraged mobile combats to a degree. Similarly, if you could handle a gridless 40' diameter in an earlier edition, one would assume you can handle a gridless 35' diameter fireball in 4e. In any case, I really don't want to drag this into edition war territory by sounding overly critical of earlier editions, and I apologize if it's taken as such as that isn't my intent. My point is that, for the "lesser and quick" fights that were being discussed earlier (I think a crimelord's insane relative was mentioned at one point) I think that 4e could run perfectly fine without a grid (assuming the DM has a basic understanding of how to run gridless in the first place). Saying that every 4e encounter has to be a major one is another assumption I would question. Those are the encounters that I think it does best, and therefore I believe those are the types of encounters that have received the most attention. That doesn't equate, however, to simple encounters being nonfunctional in the 4e system. Just last game we encountered a pair of monsters in their den that died in the first round, less than five minutes of real time. It certainly wasn't an epic encounter, but our DM likes a good mix of encounters (from very hard to very easy) for the sake of "realism." With respect to major battles with complex terrain, I would agree, I'm not convinced that 4e would run well without a grid (at least, it would require an exceptional DM to handle it well). For something like a simple encounter though, I think you could get away without it. [/QUOTE]

Verification