Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wingsandsword" data-source="post: 2321929" data-attributes="member: 14159">I always saw the movement/AoO like this:5 foot step: A bit of careful movement, waiting for the right moment to take a step and adjusting your position a little.Normal Move Action: quickly trying to move around a battlefield, too far to move subtly and without enough time to move very carefully, more focused on getting there than not getting hit.Withdrawal: Doing nothing but getting away as quick as you can, waiting for the right moment to try and slip away and break away from the fight.ECL is a big sight better than what there used to be.&nbsp; Back in 2e you could play a friggin hatchling (now called wyrmling) dragon at 1st character level (Council of Wyrms), you just had a really steep experience point table.Oh, and as for the art thing.&nbsp; The art of each edition reflects the era it was made in.&nbsp; Corny cartoonish drawings in the 70's that seem kinda groovy, second edition had the 80's look with big hair, (chainmail) bikinis, and looked like the 80's fantasy movies (Conan/Red Sonja et al), except the art in the players handbook which generally sucked (although the plain B&amp;W illustration of a Shadow in the 2e Monstrous Manual always creeped me out, and the painting of Emirikol the Chaotic in the Players Handbook was cool).&nbsp; In the 90's we had a more &quot;extreme&quot; look and edge, and 3e was released in 2000, and in development in the 90's, reflecting the time.&nbsp; I remember when it came out, and the original idea behind the look was, oddly enough, practicality.&nbsp; The idea that a character might begin with a matched suit of clothes, but then find a magic gauntlet and wear that, or tear something hand have to have it patched with fabric that doesn't match, and wear a helmet that has sentimental value that doesn't blend with everything else, the idea that characters weren't perfect and their equipment would have a &quot;lived in&quot; look.&nbsp; Personally, I miss the Elmore works of the 80's and a lot of that just defines &quot;D&amp;D Art&quot; to me, but I'm not offended by Dungeonpunk.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wingsandsword, post: 2321929, member: 14159"] I always saw the movement/AoO like this: 5 foot step: A bit of careful movement, waiting for the right moment to take a step and adjusting your position a little. Normal Move Action: quickly trying to move around a battlefield, too far to move subtly and without enough time to move very carefully, more focused on getting there than not getting hit. Withdrawal: Doing nothing but getting away as quick as you can, waiting for the right moment to try and slip away and break away from the fight. ECL is a big sight better than what there used to be. Back in 2e you could play a friggin hatchling (now called wyrmling) dragon at 1st character level (Council of Wyrms), you just had a really steep experience point table. Oh, and as for the art thing. The art of each edition reflects the era it was made in. Corny cartoonish drawings in the 70's that seem kinda groovy, second edition had the 80's look with big hair, (chainmail) bikinis, and looked like the 80's fantasy movies (Conan/Red Sonja et al), except the art in the players handbook which generally sucked (although the plain B&W illustration of a Shadow in the 2e Monstrous Manual always creeped me out, and the painting of Emirikol the Chaotic in the Players Handbook was cool). In the 90's we had a more "extreme" look and edge, and 3e was released in 2000, and in development in the 90's, reflecting the time. I remember when it came out, and the original idea behind the look was, oddly enough, practicality. The idea that a character might begin with a matched suit of clothes, but then find a magic gauntlet and wear that, or tear something hand have to have it patched with fabric that doesn't match, and wear a helmet that has sentimental value that doesn't blend with everything else, the idea that characters weren't perfect and their equipment would have a "lived in" look. Personally, I miss the Elmore works of the 80's and a lot of that just defines "D&D Art" to me, but I'm not offended by Dungeonpunk. [/QUOTE]

Verification