Generic question on movement & combat rules...

[mvincent]

if I eliminated some of the more complex rules regarding movement during combat, would it throw the whole game out of balance?

Basically, yes. Here is a thread on the subject

I believe that it could be done without balance being a big issue, but it would definitely change how the game is played (which could hinder you if ever playing with other groups), so using the standard method is recommended.

 

[Question]

Its really not all that complicated. All you need is a simple map and basic markers(you dont need to buy the minis of course). Most of those rules are designed to be really easy to remember, and most are just common sense. Infact it rewards good strategy now, which isnt bad.

If you just want to say "I attack monster X with my sword till he dies or my HP drops low enough that i need to decide on another course of action", you CAN.....ive certaintly had DMs who couldnt be bothered to do even a half-way decent map and insisted on playing everything "by ear". The result was a complete mess. AoOs were as far as i can tell randomly awarded or maybe occasionally based on creative RP, NOBODY had any idea whether they were surrounded by monsters or they were 90 ft away in heavy armor, the DM never did anything without fudging it........the wizard just said "i cast fireball at the group of orcs charging up the hill at us" and VOILA, no worries about whether the fireball was too close to the fighter that was between the wizard and the orcs, the cleric in heavy armor was -always- close enough to use a move and standard action to cast cure spells, so on and so forth. Combat was a cake walk when formations, threat of AoOs, positioning, etc was all thrown away.

But to me i just dont find that interesting or exciting......all it boils down to is in effect, dozens of lines about how so and so slashed his sword in THIS particular way to try and gut the orc. You might as well not roll dice for damage or to hit anymore, and just award deaths randomly or when it strikes your fancy. Basically free form D20, no rules, just RP.

 

[Grossout]

Thanks again for all the comments...

Like I said, I haven't played for MANY years, but I know we never used minis or really even a map. The DM would describe the hallways/ rooms we saw and we'd tell him what we wanted to do. One of the players would keep a rough sketch of the description in case we wanted to backtrack to a specific place, but that was about it. There was nothing on the table that we used to represent the area or characters. To be honest with you, I think I need to actually observe a good game in progress, cuz I really don't get how it works. But again, thanks for all the responses. You've all been a big help and very polite.

 

[mikebr99]

To be honest with you, I think I need to actually observe a good game in progress, cuz I really don't get how it works. But again, thanks for all the responses. You've all been a big help and very polite.

That is probably the best suggestion you are going to get.

Where in the world are you?

Mike

 

[mvincent]

Like I said, I haven't played for MANY years, but I know we never used minis or really even a map.

Ah, that illuminates the situation. Yeah, D&D isn't really intended to be handled that way anymore. The default expectation is that it's more of a miniature based game now.

I think I need to actually observe a good game in progress

That is an excellent idea (I'm surprised no one suggested it before you). The RPGA or the upcoming D&D Game Day might be present good opportunities.

 

[Grossout]

What about these products...?

Do any of you think getting the Basic Game Box Set (I think that's what its called) with the included minis would help me learn the system. I understand the whole "idea" of DnD, I'm just stuck on, well, I guess the whole movement concept. What about the Player's Kit? Anything of value there? Thanks again.

 

[mvincent]

Do any of you think getting the Basic Game Box Set (I think that's what its called) with the included minis would help me learn the system.

Yup

 

[Zaruthustran]

You should definitely pick up the Basic game. It's got simplified rules, a bunch of minis, maps, even pre-made sample characters and an intro dungeon that's specifically designed to introduce 3.5E's concepts. You and your players will get a good deal of value from it, and after playing you'll know whether you want to try the entire rule set.

And if not, hey, it's only like 20 bucks. $16 on Amazon, at the moment.

As for observing a game: do you have any local game stores? They usually allow people to game at the store, and you should be able to drop by and take a look. Or you could go to local game conventions and introduce yourself around the freeplay areas. Most casual groups would welcome an observer and be happy to answer questions, especially to a person who played D&D back in the day.

One thing I want to echo is that 3.5 is very much a tactical miniatures combat game. The roleplaying bits are, largely, just means to an end. If you're looking for the game experience you enjoyed with 1st or 2nd ed, then you'll be much happier just playing 1st or 2nd ed. 3.5 is a whole new (miniatures) game.

-z

PS: I too am an old-school D&D gamer, and really enjoyed the free-form experience. I'd probably still enjoy it. That doesn't change the fact that I also really, really enjoy the more precise and tactical gameplay of the current edition.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I haven't played for many years. Never played 3E. Just looking over things about the rules, and noticed that I don't care for some of them. Generally everything w/ movement during combat seems to be so cumbersome. Attacks of Opportunity seems like just too much. Overall, it seems like there's just too many options!

Part of your problem is likely because you are still clinging to Ye Auld Rules from AD&D and it messes with your sensibilities. What I kept telling people several years ago when everyone was still making the adjustment from AD&D to 3E is that you must UNLEARN much of what you learned. When you approach 3E from the position of what IT'S rules are telling you rather than what the AD&D rules USED to tell you then you'll immediately start to have fewer issues. Rules like flanking and Attacks of Opportunity are cumbersome when you're still thinking in AD&D terms, but in 3E terms they make much more sense and fit with what the 3E system is doing. Making direct comparisons between 3E rules and AD&D rules just doesn't work. The systems are too different to draw much more than general comparison. It will likely be 6 months to a year of playing before you really become decently familiar with 3E and I would encourage you to give the system AS-IS that much time. You need to learn 3E much better before you start gutting it for house rules.

3E DOES have more options, which can make it SEEM to be more complex and cumbersome, but it's rules are VASTLY better integrated into a unified whole. AD&D just seems quicker, easier, and more streamlined because you are intimately familar with it and just beginning to come to grips with a significantly new and different approach to fundamentals of the game.

I guess my question is, if I eliminated some of the more complex rules regarding movement during combat, would it throw the whole game out of balance?

In a word, yes. The game was designed and extensively tested with these rules that you're prepared to just throw out.

So, could I still enjoy a balanced game if I just nixed some of the more intensive combat rules?

Well if the PLAYERS are still learning the 3E system as well you're really not doing anyone any favors. If you play regularly for a year I all but guarantee that your concerns will be completely moot. Attacks of Opportunity and Flanking rules will be second nature to you and your players. You might have OTHER issues at that point, but when you look back you won't be able to understand what your problem had been anymore.

 

[Ranger REG]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't played for many years. Never played 3E. Just looking over things about the rules, and noticed that I don't care for some of them. Generally everything w/ movement during combat seems to be so cumbersome. Attacks of Opportunity seems like just too much. Overall, it seems like there's just too many options! Now, in general, I'm excited to start playing again. I just remember a simpler time when if you decided to attack a monster, you basically just threw everything you had at him or ran away when he got the best of you! I guess my question is, if I eliminated some of the more complex rules regarding movement during combat, would it throw the whole game out of balance? I mean, I'd still like to be able to sneak around as a rogue and all, but could I just eliminate all the other rules with flanking and such. I guess I don't really need a super-detailed description of battle in my game. I just need to know who I'm fighting, how many, and what they're throwing at me. I'm not too into "battle-tactics". So, could I still enjoy a balanced game if I just nixed some of the more intensive combat rules? Thanks.

Meh. That's what happened when a game have been going for more than 30 years. There are 30 years' worth of houserules to fill in the wide gaps made by the earlier editions, especially when the options are very limited in AD&D. As you said, in an AD&D combat round, either you attack or you flee. You don't go into specifics like how you attack and what kind of benefit or penalty for executing such an action.

The most convenient solution is to go back to the earlier editions. In time, either that is your group's comfort level or your players may get bored because of the lack of options, in which you may have to implement your own houserules.

I know that most role-players even today don't think much about tactics and maneuvers as old-school wargamers like me.