(3.5E) Aw, crap...

[KnowTheToe]

I think they are doing just what people asked for with Chainmail. Players were disappointed that it was not easily integrated with D&D and now it will be. As metioned many times above, I don't think there will be new mini required rules, after all, every example in the book uses a grid with counters on it. The game assumes you are already using something similar.

For games who don't use minis or counters, you have already modified the rules to better suit the feel and type of game you want. I don't forsee anything changing that. Many people are getting worked up without seeing a product. Find a hobby and relax

 

[Aeolius]

When WotC releases rules governing movement and combat in three dimensions, such as with aerial, aquatic, or planar adventures, and then devises the means to use miniatures in a three dimensional array (battlematrix?), then I'll take a look at using minis in my games.

Granted, as I only run games online, my need for miniatures is somewhat less than nil. Even if WotC devised a "combat sim" which depicted animated combat scenes using parameters set by the DM, they wouldn't release a version for the Mac platform, which would render it as less than useless to me.

I would be happiest if, in the revised 3e core rules, WotC approached combat in two ways; combat-lite, for people like myself, and combat-max, for folks who wish to use miniatures.

 

[Henry]

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's an age-old tradition

...what I end up with is an annoying trait of the game that isn't quite annoying enough to fix but is still annoying and therefore is ultimately more annoying for not being as annoying as something so annoying that I'd fix it... if you get what I mean?

Completely; I'd feel the same way if my games switched to metric system enitrely.

In fact, when we play d20 Star Wars, my players and I all still say, "5-foot step" instead of "2-meter step." we convert that game on the fly to Imperial system all the time. We play a bunch of Imperial-system-using Rebels.

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

But in regards to using miniatures, I want to be clear that they haven't SAID they were using facing now; some posters may have misunderstood me when I said IF they use facing, I'm ignoring it. But hopefully, only the examples will change. After all, d20 Modern uses the same level of mini's use that D&D does, and they have MUCH better-written examples, showing that the designers and editors learned a lot on how to write the combat section in the past two years.

 

[Eben]

Using the tactical rules in D&D adds a gritty sort of realism to your game. You see your foes closing in on you, flanking, hiding in cover, ...
DM description only gives me the impression that the DM is tailoring the flow of the encounter (which is a good thing for some people.) I like being placed for a challenge and trying to overcome it. I like thinking: should I risk an AoO to get a better position, I like considering if I should follow through or wait for support from the rest of the party, ...
For me miniatures are an added dimension and a chance to role play your figure in combat: does he take risks, is he a coward, dos he take on the hard foes, ...

I didn't like the idea of 3.5, but now...
Anyway: I hope it will still be of use to the people who don't use miniatures. But please: using minatures doesn't mean that combat is the most important part of an RPG. The narrative of the campaign is still the most important part of the experience.

 

[Zander]

I doubt this really makes a significant change -- the rules as written more or less assume you're using minis. Aside from adding some facing rules (which I'd argue against -- too complicated), what are they likely to do?

They'll probably make it more minis-friendly. For example, they might describe distances or areas in squares rather than feet. So instead of having a movement rate of 30', your PC might be described as having a movement rate of 6 (meaning 6 x 5' squares).

Hopefully, they'll make diagonal movement clearer. So that one diagonal square per round is equal to an orthogonal square, but 2 diagonals per round is equal to 3 orthogonals. They may even include a chart showing the orthogonal-diagonal relationship (i.e. 1 orthog = 1 diag, 3 orthog = 2 diag, 4 = 3, 6 = 4, 7 = 5, 9 = 6, 10 = 7 etc. or even better showing all the combinations {not permutations!} of orthogonal and diagonal squares for any given movement rate).

My guess is that they'll also have little face/reach diagrams for each monster in the MM. Each will be shown in terms of squares using different shades (maybe black and grey) or colours. They may also have a small diagram for each spell and other areas of effect.

 

[Marius Delphus]

Re: Metric vs. Imperial: While I hold some of the key conversion factors in my head, the Imperial system of weights and measures is *vastly* easier for me to visualize because I (and, I would guess, most Americans) have no practice with the metric system. I know what a gallon looks like through long experience (there's always one in my fridge); I know what a liter looks like only by reference to a gallon. Similarly, I know what a 10' x 15' room looks like because I'm in one roughly that size every day. As an American, I find, for better or worse, that the Imperial system is part of my daily life and the metric system is not. I find games using the metric system very cumbersome because I have to make on-the-fly conversions in my head just to visualize things. I can well imagine, if the situation were reversed, that I'd be seriously put out.

Re: Miniatures vs. No Miniatures: Since bygone OD&D days, I've made only sparing use of battlemats and minis. I know that as position markers they boast unequaled precision; used correctly, they can quell or even forestall debates regarding lines of sight, limits of movement, and exposure to the enemy. However I also find (*because* I use them only sparingly?) that they turn a D&D combat into something resembling a chess game, whereas I'd prefer to picture in my mind a Jackie Chan movie or the fencing scenes in "The Princess Bride," or something along those lines. I find myself focusing on whether *this* miniature can reach *that* square, rather than how darn intimidating it must be to watch the ogre mage fighter/duelist enter the room.

Another trouble I have with miniatures is the "suspension of disbelief" factor. In games where I've used miniatures, I've invariably had to mix (terrific ) painted minis, dice, Legos, scraps of paper, coins, and/or whatever else is laying around... because I have quite a few PC minis but nearly no beasties. Personally, I find a marker-lined battlemat strewn with such things looks a little strange to me, and I also find it a lot of work to extrapolate from such a mishmash to a "movie scene" or what have you.

I don't have a problem with D&D3.1 (I really think 3.5 is a misnomer, but I'm sure I've already lost that one ) clarifying and tightening up the rules for using miniatures with the combat system; in fact, I imagine it'll be a Good Thing(tm) all round. I'm a little fearful that the updated rules will make it quite inconvenient to *not* use miniatures as I usually choose to do, but of course realistically all I can do is wait and see. I certainly hope it'll continue to be just as easy to keep the battlefield in my head and conduct combats in narrative fashion as I'm accustomed to doing.

YMMV.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Miniatures vs. No Miniatures: Since bygone OD&D days, I've made only sparing use of battlemats and minis. I know that as position markers they boast unequaled precision; used correctly, they can quell or even forestall debates regarding lines of sight, limits of movement, and exposure to the enemy. However I also find (*because* I use them only sparingly?) that they turn a D&D combat into something resembling a chess game, whereas I'd prefer to picture in my mind a Jackie Chan movie or the fencing scenes in "The Princess Bride," or something along those lines. I find myself focusing on whether *this* miniature can reach *that* square, rather than how darn intimidating it must be to watch the ogre mage fighter/duelist enter the room.

That is exactly my gripe with minis based combat system RPGs as well, and the main reason I'm looking for ways to get rid of miniatures or counters and still have combat be interesting.

 

[Hollywood]

That is exactly my gripe with minis based combat system RPGs as well, and the main reason I'm looking for ways to get rid of miniatures or counters and still have combat be interesting.

And unless you are an extremely good storyteller as a GM that can give a clear picture of what is going on in the battle to all the players, it just falls flat on its face. Personally, in 20 some odd years of gaming [and I only started wargaming in the last 6 or so on and off] I've yet to run across a GM/DM/Storyteller/etc. that was that good.

Use of visualization props are up to the GM. I know GMs that like to use a ton of props by handing out printed letters, scrolled up maps, and what not. Use of miniatures and scenery [which our current group uses some of] is just another flavor of props. And the use of the prop is what the GM makes of it and/or allows his players to make of it.

 

[ForceUser]

I can't imagine trying to muddle through a 3E combat without minis. A mat with minis provides clarity, not to mention we find the wargame aspect entertaining as well.

Anyway, I'm with those who have said that 3E is already quite oriented toward using them, and can't fathom how the game would become more oriented toward using them. I hope they don't overdo it, whatever they do.

 

[Desdichado]

And unless you are an extremely good storyteller as a GM that can give a clear picture of what is going on in the battle to all the players, it just falls flat on its face. Personally, in 20 some odd years of gaming [and I only started wargaming in the last 6 or so on and off] I've yet to run across a GM/DM/Storyteller/etc. that was that good.

Great. In my 20 some odd years of gaming, I've never used miniatures or battlemats until 3e/d20 and I never saw it fall flat on it's face. Either we obviously have different priorities, or I've had consistently spectacular GMs relative to you.