Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[Crothian]

Are you saying in the specific case we are discussing this is true? If so...please expound... I'm trying to think of how this could be true... I have more movement, and movement effects to adjudicate as well as keep up with within a round... yet it hasn't gotten any more difficult to do so.

I don't find it more difficult. Some DMs have different skill sets then others so what one does with no increase of difficulty other might find more difficult. It is also something that practice helps, so if one has not tried it before then they might see it as difficult but after they get used to it they might find it is just as easy as before.

edit: In response to the XP comment: Practice does not make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect.

 

[Imaro]

I don't find it more difficult. Some DMs have different skill sets then others so what one does with no increase of difficulty other might find more difficult. It is also something that practice helps, so if one has not tried it before then they might see it as difficult but after they get used to it they might find it is just as easy as before.

I find this suspect... it's like saying... "Because I can add two single digit numbers and remember the answer... it's no more difficult to remember 10 sets of two single digit numbers and remember all 10 answers. You may be able to do it, but objectively it is more difficult. As far as "practice"... again things get easier with practice for an individual but that doesn't make the objective difficulty of something lower through you practicing... you just learn to deal with that level of difficulty better.

A similar example...Hey a 5th grade math test isn't more difficult than a kindergarten math test because I can finish both within 15 minutes is a false statement... the 5th grade math test is objectively more difficult regardless of how fast you can finish both or how much time you spend practicing with the 5th grade math.

Edit: Why do people keep chiming in with "Mini-less can work in 4e"... that's irrelevant and not what's being discussed.

 

[Scribble]

Edit: Why do people keep chiming in with "Mini-less can work in 4e"... that's irrelevant and not what's being discussed.

I think because for many of us, "Mini-less can work" is how we would describe ANY edition of D&D.

 

[Imaro]

I think because for many of us, "Mini-less can work" is how we would describe ANY edition of D&D.

Whose arguing it's wrong... what we are discussing is the difficulty of going mini-less, not whether it is possible or not.

 

[Crothian]

I find this suspect... it's like saying... "Because I can add two single digit numbers and remember the answer... it's no more difficult to remember 10 sets of two single digit numbers and remember all 10 answers. You may be able to do it, but objectively it is more difficult.

I don't think it is objective. 2+2 is just as easy as 4x4. Multiplication might be taught later then addition and for kids just learning it it might be more difficult to grasp the concept of multiplication. But for college kids taking calculus they are one is no more difficult then the other. It depends on the person if it is actually more difficult.

 

[Scribble]

Whose arguing it's wrong... what we are discussing is the difficulty of going mini-less, not whether it is possible or not.

Yes, but it's related in the same way.

The possibility of going mini-less means giving up a certain level of precision in any edition of the game.

Giving up that precision means forgoing a certain number of rules that utilize that precision.

In any edition ignoring stuff is easy. You just ignore it.

So I think the real question is if certain editions give more incentive NOT to ignore it. In which case, I believe 4e does.

But that doesn't mean it's harder to ignore those rules, if the incentive doesn't catch your interest.

 

[Imaro]

Yes, but it's related in the same way.

The possibility of going mini-less means giving up a certain level of precision in any edition of the game.

Giving up that precision means forgoing a certain number of rules that utilize that precision.

In any edition ignoring stuff is easy. You just ignore it.

So I think the real question is if certain editions give more incentive NOT to ignore it. In which case, I believe 4e does.

But that doesn't mean it's harder to ignore those rules, if the incentive doesn't catch your interest.

Ignoring stuff is easy... unless it's important. A Warlord built around numerous movement based powers is not as easy to adjudicate in a grid-less game as a 3e fighter would be...

So I think the question is how integrated is positioning in the system and what parts of the system does it effect when ignored on both the DM and Players side.

 

[Scribble]

Ignoring stuff is easy... unless it's important. A Warlord built around numerous movement based powers is not as easy to adjudicate in a grid-less game as a 3e fighter would be.

The fact that the Warlord has powers built around movement is an incentive to track that precise movement.

Just like knowing if I get to a rock on my turn in order to get a -10 bonus to my armor class in 2e is an incentive to track precise location.

In either case if I don't care about the effects caused by not knowing the precise details I can ignore it just as easily.

 

[IronWolf]

Whose arguing it's wrong... what we are discussing is the difficulty of going mini-less, not whether it is possible or not.

I've been keeping out of this thread for the most part as I was having a hard time if we were still talking 4Ed or not - since it seems we are simply talking going mini-less, I can weigh in on that.

It's not hard going mini-less. We very, very rarely use minis in our regular 3.5 game - in fact, I don't think we've used minis yet in this current campaign. The scene flows without having to break and move a little plastic figure around and it's easy to know where you are in relation to enemy combatants using a mental image.

Characters in this campaign use trip attacks, sunder attempts, grappling and attack of ops happen just as if we had a full battle map setup. It all flows pretty naturally, as mentioned, probably faster than if we were moving pieces of plastic all around. I don't believe anyone in our group would consider it more difficult.

Now this style of play may not be for everyone - but it works for us and I feel we do it without losing out on any number of "special attacks" or combat options that are available to us through the 3.5 rule set.

 

[Imaro]

The fact that the Warlord has powers built around movement is an incentive to track that precise movement.

Just like knowing if I get to a rock on my turn in order to get a -10 bonus to my armor class in 2e is an incentive to track precise location.

In either case if I don't care about the effects caused by not knowing the precise details I can ignore it just as easily.

Wrong, one is the basis of player's character, which if ignored... can neuter the character (It is not an incentive, but something that intrinsically ties positioning into the game rules.)... the other is something the GM may or may not place in an encounter and thus if ignored does not directly affect the viability of a character... The are two different things.