3.5 Backwards compatibility

[Enkhidu]

Quite simple, really.

Minis are representations of creatures. And creatures are not square. Once minis fail to represent the creatures they supposedly represent, you have defeated one of the primary purposes of having them.

I am reminded of the "spherical cow" joke:

http://wildlink.com/humour/spherical_cow.htm

I don't think you're right on this one - in 3.5 minis are not representations of creatures, they are representations of the amount of area that creature takes up when that creature spins in a circle.

Basically, the problem is that long and thin creatures are inherently incompatible with a combat system that does not allow for facing. Square bases go a long way toward fixing that problem.

 

[BryonD]

It seemed that way to me, too. I like what we've heard is coming, but it did seem early. On the other hand, it strikes me as appropriate that they call it 3.5. That is, most of the changes seem to be the result of 3 years or so of playtesting by the general public. I imagine most of the bugs that really are bugs have been located, and necessitate at least a new printing. New printings should incorporate the corrections. So, looking at it as a new printing with corrections, it doesn't seem all that early. What makes it all the more palatable is that the changes will be freely and legally available who don't want to buy new books.

Yep, If this was a computer game this would be a patch and we would all be SCREAMING that it had taken way way way to long.

 

[Psion]

I don't think you're right on this one - in 3.5 minis are not representations of creatures,

Could have fooled me. My fighter mini looks a lot like a fighter. That mind flayer looks a lot like a mind flayer. A dragon, a dragon, etc.

Representing the creature is the ENTIRE point of minis. Representing a mini's reach is a separate issue that already has been taken into account by the sytem.

they are representations of the amount of area that creature takes up when that creature spins in a circle.

So the cow is spherical!

Basically, the problem is that long and thin creatures are inherently incompatible with a combat system that does not allow for facing. Square bases go a long way toward fixing that problem.

Doing so is putting the cart before the horse. If, for you, facing is so pressing that you have to make minis not represent things anyomore, you have defeated the purpose of minis. If it comes between facing and making minis or chits NOT properly represent the creature that they are supposed to represent, then add facing rules, by durn!

Things like flying rules and the "run" action have sort of an implied facing anyways; that they have abstracted away facing wherever possible does not justify abstacting away creature shapes.

Not that I think this is a genuine problem at all. AFAICT, this is all to facilitate their "minis line" thing and/or someone on R&D is REALLY proud of chainmail. Like I said, I never heard complaints about "counter shape" before, and as there is no hit location in 3e, whether you hit the horse in the arse or the head is immaterial.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Psion, could you pop over to the judges forum if you get the chance?

 

[Goobermunch]

Not that I think this is a genuine problem at all. AFAICT, this is all to facilitate their "minis line" thing and/or someone on R&D is REALLY proud of chainmail. Like I said, I never heard complaints about "counter shape" before, and as there is no hit location in 3e, whether you hit the horse in the arse or the head is immaterial.

You've got a good opinion there. I even agree with some of it.

However, my group often has discussions that go off along the lines of:

X: "If the Purple Worm just charged past me to chew on the cleric last round, how can I be the subject of a bite attack? I'm all the way over here."

X
____________
.......................C

Group: "There is no facing in Third Edition."

X: "Oh yeah."

By converting that long, thin purple worm to a square base, it makes it easier to envision the purple worm coiling up and striking at everything in reach. It more clearly shows which squares the worm is likely to be using as it makes its melee attacks.

To my mind, this basically makes the monsters more effective in combat and helps to improve the verisimiltude of the game.

I'll admit that we never really complained about it, but viewing the problem in light of the solution, it detracted from the game. So I'm in favor of the new shapes.

--G

 

[Ranger REG]

Re: Wasn't 2e updated?

Did 2e really last 11 years? Seems like a long time to me. I never transitioned from 1e to 2e, so I'm a bit out of the loop when it comes to changes to the system.

Considering that the 2e debuted in 1989, it feels like an eternity.

But I distinctly remember someone claiming that 2e had several minor/medium revisions during its lifetime, as well as the Skills&Powers update, and stuff like that.

Anyone care to elaborate on that? Or wait... I should just drop it? Oki...

The "black book" revision first appeared in 1995, about six years after the 2e debut. Some people think they're optional core rulebooks, but they're confusing them with the Player's Option series, which is either a replacement for the Complete Handbook (the faux "brown leather" cover) or just another supplementary rules option.

That's why for some of us think that the revision for 3e is a bit too early. Then again, we are now living in a rapidly changing world with the internet to bring our distant voices directly into the Wizards' company servers, and telling them what we think of the current ruleset, looking for instant rules clarification or errata, along with comments and feedback via e-mail.

Nevertheless, up until now, I thought that PnP games are more cost-effective than a typical electronic game software. In the span of 2nd edition era in the 90's, the rules can still be played without having to buy a new version as opposed to software that is only good for 18 months before they come out with say, Might & Magic II or III, etc.

 

[Olive]

Re: Re: Wasn't 2e updated?

That's why for some of us think that the revision for 3e is a bit too early. Then again, we are now living in a rapidly changing world with the internet to bring our distant voices directly into the Wizards' company servers, and telling them what we think of the current ruleset, looking for instant rules clarification or errata, along with comments and feedback via e-mail.

Not to mention the fact that, at least at the moment, tons of people are playing 3e. And heaps of those stopped playing under 2e because of the revisions but more importantly the rule bloat of a system that was problematic to begin with.

On the square abse thing, it actually makes sense to me that in a fludic combat system a creature can turn at will to thretern any thing in its area. However, I'm not so sure about the purple worm. A horse, i get. something as long as a purple worm i don't...

 

[Goobermunch]

Well, as long as they define the purple worm's base as being less than its total length, I think it'll be okay. They've got to come up with a reasonable middle ground between allowing a 60' long worm to attack anything within a square 60' to a side, and representing horses with a 5x5 square.

As long as the new facings make sense for the creatures, I'll be happy.

--G

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Not that it's probably a completely representative case, but the big critter with a dungeon on its back in Dungeon 100 (I forget the name off hand, k- something) had a 60' by 60' facing -- even though the dungeon on its back was over 100' long. Purple Worms and the like may be the same.

 

[coyote6]

Re: I'll concede the point

Ah, I wasn't aware of that rule. Could you point out the relevant passage in the Supreme Ruler's Handbook where it states the correct number of years between revisions?

It's four or seven years, 12 at the outside.

Or possibly six. Maybe 20 or 52, but that's only for Aztec or Mayan RPGs, IIRC.

23 years is right out, as is 5.

what else can WotC do (apart from canning the revision completely, that is)?

Free books? Free pizza? Free money!

No, wait -- a state-of-the-art gaming table, with built-in dice trays, a hub & laptop connections for the LAN (heck, throw in a server, too), lights, speakers for the stereo (or the laptop, or both), licenses for e-Tools/PCGen/etc., built-in battlemat, and really comfy chairs. Oh, and cupholders, well away from the gaming area.

Yeah, that'd do.

PS: Seriously, I think 3.5e is about a year too soon; four years between Olympics, presidents, and editions sounds good to me. Then they'd have had another year that they could have used to playtest those metamagic alternatives they mentioned . . .