Kinda hard to make that work well when reactions can consume resources such as spell slots. You don't necessarily want to take every possible reaction in 5e.
You can always use cheat engine's speedhacks to speed-up the fights. Useful in any RPG be it TB or RTwP.
Did this guy even play BG with its well implemented RTWP? How about kludgy hacks like "let's turn pause off while in inventory" because they couldn't find a way to stop people from changing from plate into robes and back in split second or gulping eleventy potions at once?
When you talk about "primary role", you are not taking into account how skills and proficiencies works in D&D 5. A rogue and a bard can be both excellent "thieves". A cleric can be both a tank (even better than fighters, who are more damage dealers) and a healer.Is there any practical advantage of having maximum of 6 party members over 4 though (assuming the encounters are designed with the maximum possible party size)?- just like bg our game is about your party
- but you have 2 less party members
In all those games you need to have a tank, a healer, a thief and a spellslinger. Two extra characters allows you room for customization in your party set up. Who is gonna take a bard or a druid when a cleric or a thief are more efficient in their primary roles? But with a party of six, you can take anyone you want.
There's also the whole companion thing but it seems in this game they threw that out the window with that awful dialog shit lmao.
Ok, senile boomer. Remember the fight with oil slimes that they cut out from OS2? Now imagine every encounter being built like that, because they need to somehow challenge team of 6 characters,while staying true to the ruleset.
The ruleset gives the DM very simple and easy to use tools to build encounters for 6 characters. Having played the game for a long time, these encounters hardly ever last more than 5 or 6 rounds, so I really can't see any problem with a 6-men party.
We already have 100 pages of whining about the writing, but you are right, we can do more.
That is surprisingly even. 10-15 years ago we would get maybe 10-15% in favor of TB.
Stating opinion without actually trying the thing you are shitting on is a retarded decision as well.
It would be nice to have mechanics like this for fire arrows, though - position yourself adjacent to fire source and you can actually fire them ignited, otherwise they are just arrows with higher price and negative damage modifier.
It seems to reliably annoy retards, for one.
Jagged Alliance had an interrupt system where you could take an action during your opponent's turn (which made saving some action points useful).
I find that part to be ironic, because I remember when playing turn-based was considered less accessible approach than real time. How the tables have turned...
Not my fault "traditional PC gaming" can only muster one half-decent turn-based RPG per decade. Also, why so butthurt?
It would be even cooler with explosive arrows - you could basically have two kinds - one that needs to be "dipped" before firing to explode, the other that just explodes on impact, but might detonate in inventory if character (or container) falls, jumps from sufficient height, is impacted by sufficient blunt damage, is affected by other explosions or certain spells (*cough*, shatter, *cough*).
Writing would be bad, so why even discus it before we would see it?
