(3.5E) Aw, crap...

[demadog]

Man, I can't wait to cast my first Firesquare spell.

Seriously though, it looks like they are trying to clean things up. However, I think placing facing back in can only server to make for some strange situations, which they will hopefully take into consideration. IMHO, the no-facing/flanking rules were one of the most inspired rules of the new edition. Not sure where they were inspired from, but I like them nonetheless.

As for the mini/no-mini debate, I wouldn't say that combat is any faster, more imaginative, or clearer with or without them. Still, using them keeps things more consistant. As my groups and combats get larger and/or more important to the campaign, consistancy with Hobgoblins and little Flinds becomes more important.

 

[buzz]

However, I think placing facing back in can only server to make for some strange situations, which they will hopefully take into consideration. IMHO, the no-facing/flanking rules were one of the most inspired rules of the new edition. Not sure where they were inspired from, but I like them nonetheless.

Not facing as in "what direction is the figure facing," but facing as in "how big a face does the figure present on the battlemap." The former will, thankfully, never be a part of d20.

Unless you're talking vehicle combat, of course...

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

And two humans present a 10' wide front in combat? Man, how stupid is that!

It's D&D, dude. If a medium size creature can take up five square feet in the bustle of combat, I can handle a large creature taking up ten square feet. Given the size of an average horse, this seems reasonable within the framework of 3e combat.

I'll be happy to debate this some more once the revised rulebooks come out. Untiul then, it's an exercise in panty-binding.

It's a moot point for me. I'm not buying the revised stuff so I'm just trying to make conversation.

 

[Madriver]

Question?

Is there anyone here who started out using mini's and then moved to description only? Just curious....

I've noticed a number of people who mention that they have never used mini's until recently (myself included) and really enjoy it. But I haven't noticed one person who started out with mini's and has switched over to the decription based game.

 

[kenjib]

Fahrenheit has no, and absolutly no practical basis, unless you grow up with the system. It was a guy who stuck a thermometer up his bum and then decided that that was 100 (and he even did that wrong!), then put another stripe on a completely arbitrary point on the same thermometer and said "That's zero". If there ever comes a reward for success through stupidity, it deserves to go to Fahrenheit postmortum.

Sounds almost exactly like how the meter was created. Oh, and all of the metric weights are based on the meter too.

 

[elbandit]

I honestly do not understand why so many people are up in arms about a revised D&D. Especially given the fact that all the changes are going to be in the SRD the week the books are released. It reminds me of that commericail about pants and the caveman...

"I will keep my bushes because I fear change"

My group also uses miniatures, since I am an avid painter and love to have excuses to paint something. Now, I have been know to use substitions when I could not find the proper minis and cardboard counters are not out of the question either. One day I am gonna to convert to a version with no grids... just inches and bases and templates and scenery.

Will my group all get the new version? Yep! I welcome the update becayuse I am tired of having the urge to add a lot of house rules to the game to fix it.

 

[herald]

At the rate this conversation is going, I wouldn't be surprised that there will be a John Doe' 3.5 D&D news.

then the 3es can snipe at the 3.5es just liek the 2es bated the 3.5es.

 

[Ravellion]

Sounds almost exactly like how the meter was created. Oh, and all of the metric weights are based on the meter too.

Wow! I am impressed with your abilities to ignore half of what I write in my posts! If you really want to dicuss this, I am very happy to discuss this by email... but perhaps you should read my previous posts again before you do.

Rav

 

[Darkness]

Guys, metric vs. imperial measurement, while certainly an interesting topic, is not really something to start an argument over - at least on an RPG board like EN World, anyway. So take it easy, okay?

I honestly do not understand why so many people are up in arms about a revised D&D. Especially given the fact that all the changes are going to be in the SRD the week the books are released.

Okay - so the corebooks will be updated freely.

But what about all the other books that are already out - e.g., DDG, ELH, splatbooks?
Most classes that will be revised will also need a revision of their epic-level progression. And if a standard pit fiend has ability scores that are as high as those of most deities, the deities will need a different stat baseline.

(Note: I'm likely to give D&D 3.5 e a try; I'm definitely not up in arms against it. However, I do see some practical problems that will need to be solved.)

 

[kenjib]

Wow! I am impressed with your abilities to ignore half of what I write in my posts! If you really want to dicuss this, I am very happy to discuss this by email... but perhaps you should read my previous posts again before you do.

Rav

Considering that I would have to remember everything everyone has said, as well as who said it, over the course of 169 posts made in a time span of 5 days amidst a high traffic board with dozens of active forums I do believe that you could be more understanding and polite in your correction. There is little need for such a hostile tone over such a simple oversight. I see your previous post now though and realize that you were not referring to measurement - only temperature. Point taken. Did I insult you personally somehow?

EDIT: Sorry Darkness, you ninja-posted me.