(3.5E) Aw, crap...
- Thread starter Mouseferatu
- Start date
Psyckosama
First Post
question: Why bother with a Battle Mat? Use a tape-measure.
1in = 1 square = 5 in game feet.
Combine that with paper Mini's and counters (you have PRINTERS PEOPLE!) and there is no problem.
What, does a tape measure and enough toner for some cheap-ass paper counters cost too much for ya?
1in = 1 square = 5 in game feet.
Combine that with paper Mini's and counters (you have PRINTERS PEOPLE!) and there is no problem.
What, does a tape measure and enough toner for some cheap-ass paper counters cost too much for ya?
Last edited:
Illuminae
First Post
Snoweel said:
I agree with you, except for the "troll" part.
All our math is based on the counting from 1 to 10. Why mess things up?
It is just like QWERTY and the ergonomic layout Dvorak...
QWERTY stayed cause of politics, money and the war... and regular people were used to it and thought that it would be hard to learn how to use another (much easier) layout...
But, at least, there is an ergonomic keyboard layout for you english-native speakers...
We, who write most in other languages...
As we say in Brazil... "now we sit down and cry"...
Last edited:
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
Gumby said:
I suspect you're entirely correct.
zero skill LPB
First Post
wait, what precisely is it that's being objected to again?
Is it the cost of the mats & minis or the time-intensive nature of tracking combat with that degree of granularity or the lack of mini use in 3.0?
The first point I wouldn't argue. We have the mats, but we often end up using dice or pente pieces for time/space/money reasons.
The second point... Yeah, it's more costly time-wise, but it's time well spent! It allows for a more grounded approach to tactically dismembering your opponents whether they be foul minions of the GM or pesky PCs. And being able to see it all laid out in front of you is cool. Especially when you can angle that lightning bolt *just so* or see that tumble opportunity open up.
That last point is the one that sticks with me. It's clear the rules assume the use of little-representations-of-the-characters-and-the-surroundings. Arguing that point is, um... truth-capable!
Is it the cost of the mats & minis or the time-intensive nature of tracking combat with that degree of granularity or the lack of mini use in 3.0?
The first point I wouldn't argue. We have the mats, but we often end up using dice or pente pieces for time/space/money reasons.
The second point... Yeah, it's more costly time-wise, but it's time well spent! It allows for a more grounded approach to tactically dismembering your opponents whether they be foul minions of the GM or pesky PCs. And being able to see it all laid out in front of you is cool. Especially when you can angle that lightning bolt *just so* or see that tumble opportunity open up.
That last point is the one that sticks with me. It's clear the rules assume the use of little-representations-of-the-characters-and-the-surroundings. Arguing that point is, um... truth-capable!
Aitch Eye
First Post
It's not the miniatures I mind so much as the horrible grid movement. If the rules were based around using rulers and pieces of string, that would be fine -- not something I'd want to use on every occassion, but I could see it adding something in some situations. But when I'm thinking in terms of moving pieces from square to square and can't just go the direction I want because of the grid layout, then the combat rules are no longer a way of dealing with what's going on in the setting, they're the point in themselves. I can enjoy that kind of dopey hyper-abstraction in a straight miniatures game, or Stratego, or Monopoly, but not in an RPG.
pogre
Legend
Mark said:Bah. I think the rules have always assumed you used minis, at least in your minds. They simply plan to be more explanatory about it, which is a good thing whether you use minis, counters, or nothing at all. IMO, of course...
This is certain - they were clear about intending to incorporate miniature use from the begtinning. It was part of WOTC's long term plan of sustainability for the game.
Re
I don't buy miniatures, but Combat and Tactics was made assuming the use of miniatures, and it didn't affect use of the rules in the slightest.
I know I won't pick up the books if I have to use miniatures. I am assuming that they mean that many descriptions will assume the use of miniatures.
They have to know that many gamers don't use miniatures, and that they will not shell out the cash for new books that require miniatures.
We use graph paper and pencil marks. That works fine for us. I do not intend to use nor have I ever used miniatures. Miniatures should not be a game requirement.
I don't buy miniatures, but Combat and Tactics was made assuming the use of miniatures, and it didn't affect use of the rules in the slightest.
I know I won't pick up the books if I have to use miniatures. I am assuming that they mean that many descriptions will assume the use of miniatures.
They have to know that many gamers don't use miniatures, and that they will not shell out the cash for new books that require miniatures.
We use graph paper and pencil marks. That works fine for us. I do not intend to use nor have I ever used miniatures. Miniatures should not be a game requirement.
Last edited:
I find miniatures limiting play. As others have said, they transform the game more into a wargame in combat, which I dislike. Instead of just stating your action you plan your move. Your position is limited by the number and placement of the hexes. Dense formations are impossible (shieldwall f.e.). I had better experiences with just descriptions and maybe a sketch of the enviroment and the players stating their intentions. "Can I place the fireball so that no ally is in the area of effect?" - "Yes/No/Maybe, make a check") is faster than letting the player count squares, and having "softer" distances makes the "I move to 61 feet and start shooting"-moves less appealing.
Similar Threads
