D&D 3.0/3.5 is the Greatest! But How Come... ?

[Azlan]

Common sense (Ok, Jim, your dwarf runs past the barbarian? He gets an AoO)

But how do you know the dwarf ran past the barbarian, within the reach of the barbarian's weapon?

The same way I did back in 1E and 2E? Radius of the blast, compared to where people are standing.

But how do you know, exactly, where people are standing? All you really have is a rough idea. But even if you do determine, somehow, who is caught in the blast, your determination is arbitrary, which was my caveat.

Common sense, and remembering where people were.

It's not like us that play without a mat just randomly attack and hit from a nebulous void... We still have characters that have positions and stuff. We just dont limit them to a nice even, artificialy construct like a grid.

One of the things I really like about using miniatures/counters and a combat map with 1"=5' grid is how everyone playing the game always has a clear, same view of what's going on. This way, there are never any disagreements over who or what is where, at any given fragment of time, within the combat encounter.

 

[Azlan]

We may be a minority these days (though I'm not convinced of that, honestly), but we're still a sizable portion of the market.

I've played and watched lots of different 3.0/3.5 games, during the past three years, and I think you guys are definitely in the minority. Even so, you do seem to be quite vociferous, for such a minority.

 

[Mouseferatu]

One of the things I really like about using miniatures/counters and a combat map with 1"=5' grid is how everyone playing the game always has a clear, same view of what's going on. This way, there are never any disagreements over who or what is where, at any given fragment of time, within the combat encounter.

Nobody I've played with as ever had much problem envisioning things through description, and in every game I've ever played, using the grid slowed things down. Nothing annoys me more than "square counting."

I know the dwarf ran past the barbarian because the player of the dwarf said "I'm running past the barbarian."

A great many players don't care if the effects are accurate to the inch, so long as the DM is fair and judges things based on a reasonable sense of proximity and fairness.

There's nothing wrong with using mats and minis, of course. But it's a mistake to assume they're necessary, or that they add to everyone's enjoyment, when neither is true.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I've played and watched lots of different 3.0/3.5 games, during the past three years, and I think you guys are definitely in the minority. Even so, you do seem to be quite vociferous, for such a minority.

So have I. Less than half used minis.

It's all a question of who you game with.

 

[Azlan]

*shrug* We still use D4s, D6s, D8s, D10s, and D12s too. "D20 System" doesn't mean "D20 Exclusive".

Right. But those other dice are used in gameplay only for determining damage. For everything else -- attack rolls, skill checks, saving throws, etc. -- the d20 is used. Hence, the "d20" System (tm).

If you try to make my game so gamist as to call units of motion something so abstract as "squares", particularly when I wont touch a combat grid with a 10 foot pole, I would stop playing DnD.

But you don't have a problem with units of time called "rounds"?

 

[Aaron L]

I hate minis. Gaaaaaaaaaaaah!

 

[Azlan]

So have I. Less than half used minis.

It's all a question of who you game with.

While less than half of the many different games I DM'd, played in, or watched could afford the use of miniatures, most of them used some substitute, such as counters or dry-erase markers.

 

[Mouseferatu]

While less than half of the many different games I DM'd, played in, or watched could afford the use of miniatures, most of them used some substitute, such as counters or dry-erase markers.

Heh. Okay, my bad. I wasn't clear.

I was using minis to mean "counters of any sort." Less than half the games I played/DMed/watched used mats or counters, except on very rare occasions where combats involved dozens of opponents.

 

[Azlan]

Nobody I've played with as ever had much problem envisioning things through description

In my 20 years of RPG'ing, the problem is not with the DM's and the players' ability to envision what's taking place in combat; the problem is with their ability to agree on what, exactly, they're envisioning. And given the exacting nature of D&D 3.0/3.5 (especially with things such as reach and AoE's), this is a matter of considerable consequence.

There's nothing wrong with using mats and minis, of course. But it's a mistake to assume they're necessary, or that they add to everyone's enjoyment, when neither is true.

My original point was not that minis and mats are absolutely necessary, or even that they make any RPG better, but that D&D 3.0/3.5 is, in fact, based heavily on the use of mini and mats, and that the rules should be consistent in this regard. Thus, my wondering why ranges and movement are represented in increments of "five feet" instead of "squares", in the rulebooks.

 

[Tsyr]

But how do you know the dwarf ran past the barbarian, within the reach of the barbarian's weapon?.

Um, because Jim said "Ok, my dwarf runs past the barbarian.", when he was previously standing very close to him?

But how do you know, exactly, where people are standing? All you really have is a rough idea. But even if you do determine, somehow, who is caught in the blast, your determination is arbitrary, which was my caveat..

Start of round-
DM: Ok, Jim, you just ran past the barbarian, your behind him. Bill, your elf mage moved off up the hill. Hank and Sally, you two were still flanking that cleric. Right?

Group: Yup, sounds right

DM: Ok, the Barbarian's pet owlbear closes in to attack you Jim. And Hank and Sally, the Cleric is moving towards the barbarian... hes about ten feet from him now, though you are impeding his movement because your fighting him.

See? It's not like it's totaly abstract. We just, like I said, don't limit outselves to an artificial gridwork like some perverse mockery of LEGO.

One of the things I really like about using miniatures/counters and a combat map with 1"=5' grid is how everyone playing the game always has a clear, same view of what's going on. This way, there are never any disagreements over who or what is where, at any given fragment of time, within the combat encounter.

It also, IMO, loose a lot of the drama, style, and mood, replacing it with gamism and a level of metagame tactics I don't care to see in my games, in my experience.