Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 5211509" data-attributes="member: 53980">I agree that the complexity is higher, but I don't think it's much higher with regards to running without a grid.In 1e, you typically had to know who was adjacent to whom, for the simple reason that you have to be in melee range to make a melee attack.&nbsp; 3e/4e have the added complication of flanking, but that's fairly easy to work out.&nbsp; If the fighter is adjacent to the orc, the rogue asks &quot;Can I flank with the fighter?&quot;&nbsp; The DM will probably respond &quot;yes you can&quot;, &quot;no you're too far away&quot;, or &quot;yes but you'll take an OA.&quot;&nbsp; Not any more difficult, IMO, than determining whether the rogue could properly position himself for a backstab in 1e.Opportunity attacks?&nbsp; Fairly simple to figure out considering that you should already know who's adjacent to whom (as above).Burst and blasts?&nbsp; They had those and other area effects in 1e.&nbsp; IMO, they're actually a bit easier to resolve considering you don't have volume based fireballs and bouncing lightning bolts to contend with.Movement?&nbsp; At the end of any movement you should be able to determine a relative position based on other points.&nbsp; 'Next to the fireplace' or '10' from the fighter.'&nbsp; If you ever had an archer running around in a 1e game, you've almost certainly done this at some point.&nbsp; Unless the only reason you could run grid-less in earlier editions was because your combats were static, I can't see how this is a problem.&nbsp; More movement should not be a deal breaker for any DM experienced with dealing with movement.I won't deny that running combat without a grid (in any edition) is a skill.&nbsp; However, I do think that if you could do so competently in 1e, then doing so in 4e ought to be a negligible complication.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 5211509, member: 53980"] I agree that the complexity is higher, but I don't think it's much higher with regards to running without a grid. In 1e, you typically had to know who was adjacent to whom, for the simple reason that you have to be in melee range to make a melee attack. 3e/4e have the added complication of flanking, but that's fairly easy to work out. If the fighter is adjacent to the orc, the rogue asks "Can I flank with the fighter?" The DM will probably respond "yes you can", "no you're too far away", or "yes but you'll take an OA." Not any more difficult, IMO, than determining whether the rogue could properly position himself for a backstab in 1e. Opportunity attacks? Fairly simple to figure out considering that you should already know who's adjacent to whom (as above). Burst and blasts? They had those and other area effects in 1e. IMO, they're actually a bit easier to resolve considering you don't have volume based fireballs and bouncing lightning bolts to contend with. Movement? At the end of any movement you should be able to determine a relative position based on other points. 'Next to the fireplace' or '10' from the fighter.' If you ever had an archer running around in a 1e game, you've almost certainly done this at some point. Unless the only reason you could run grid-less in earlier editions was because your combats were static, I can't see how this is a problem. More movement should not be a deal breaker for any DM experienced with dealing with movement. I won't deny that running combat without a grid (in any edition) is a skill. However, I do think that if you could do so competently in 1e, then doing so in 4e ought to be a negligible complication. [/QUOTE]

Verification