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

[Tsyr]

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.

Because it's a pointless change that would benefit nobody and only serve to annoy those people who don't like the gamist approach of battlemaps or for some other reason don't use them.

Besides, doing things like the range of a spell or arrow or something in "squares" is bloody awkward if you ever want to make a shot that doesn't happen to not be at either a 90o angle or a 45o angle... and even 45o requires a little finigling. With range in feet, you can always pull out a tape mesure (Assuming 1 square = 5 feet, and 1 square = 1 inch.).

Also, with feet, you can do something off the grid... you know, long distance stuff. 400 foot range stuff. Most battlemaps I've seen aren't really suited for that type of distance work, but it's nice to be able to figure it out.

Also, as an abstraction, it's bloody hard to visualize. Say "100 feet" and I got a good idea what your talking about in my head instantly. Say "20 squares" and I draw a blank at first, and even though the math is easy, it's still kinda awkward to visualize.

 

[Tsyr]

Also, re: rounds.

Actually, to a point, the concepts of rounds does bother me on a certain level, but it's an abstraction I'm willing to tollerate in light of the fact that DnD's attempt to simulate combat is turn based, and no concept of a "turn" exists in real combat. In other words, maybe it's not perfect, but its a needed evil.

There isn't any similar reason to drop the term "feet" in favor of "squares"... feet work just fine in both the game and the real world.

 

[Azlan]

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.

I'll agree with you there, Tsyr. And during periods when I'm inclined to play an RPG with more emphasis on drama, style, and mood, and less emphasis on combat and tactics, I'd rather play with a system such as Ars Magica or Mage: The Sorcerers Crusade. (Unfortunately, the vast majority of players out there are only interested in 3.0/3.5 D&D, and so I don't get to play those other systems as often as I'd like.)

 

[Emiricol]

My players generally prefer combat on mats or equivalent. And since they are as a group some of the most creative, entertaining players I have ever had, I don't really think anything is lost in the translation. I would venture to guess they don't think they are limiting themselves, certainly not in a perverse mockery of LEGO. But hey, as the old saying goes about opinions - everyone's got one.

As to feet versus squares, I really dislike listing things in squares. Personal preference. Give me listings in feet, so at the very least I can use a different scale of map without difficulty. I don't mind the listings in both feet and squares, though I don't look at the squares column usually.

 

[applenerd]

I've heard some of the uproar. But the fact is, D&D 3.0/3.5 is based heavily on the usage of miniatures (or cardboard counters) and combat maps with 1"=5' grids. Yes, you don't have to play the game using those, but such an unconventional playing style requires you to work around or outright do without many of the 3.0/3.5 rules and concepts.

For example: Without miniatures/counters and without combat maps with 1"=5' grids, how do you see if and when attacks of opportunity are applicable? How can you non-arbitrarily determine exactly how many opponents are caught in a fireball? How do you determine whether the current distance between yourself and an opponent allows you to move and attack, or just to move, during your turn? How can you see if and when you should take a 5' step?

We played without grids using 2e all the time and it seemed to work ok. Basically if you wanted to know if a fireball hit you, you would ask the dm. I've played 3e without a mat and it works pretty much the same way. If you want to know if you get an ao, you ask the dm. It works pretty well as long as everyone is used to it and the dm is cool. And I have to say the game moves a heck of a lot faster! Sometimes we'll kind of go halfsy and just draw the room out on the whiteboard. We don't use any grid or anything, just outlines of the rooms and the first letter of a characters name where the characters are. I've found it to be a good compromise.

 

[Gez]

I personally would not object to squares used for movement. As long as the conversion unit from square to feet is present, this change nothing -- multiplying by 5 is so easy you can do it even at three-o'-clock in the night, when most of your neurons have decided to go to bed without your approval.

Of course, I may be biased because "feet" are a abtract and arbitrary unit. (They all are, sure, but the ones you use in daily life seem more concrete.) And I already have to convert to meters. 5 ft. = 1 square = 1.5 meters.

 

[Numion]

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

Because the DM previously said where the barbarian was standing. You have to imagine the situation. And because the DM said so.

How do you know in an RPG, for example, that your character actually is in a tavern? Because the DM said so.

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.

It doesn't have to be any more arbitrary than placing counters or minis on the grid. Those aren't completely accurate either - or is the fantasy world such a strange place that people automatically position themselves in neat rows and columns? I know I haven't since the army.

Minis can't replace your imagination completely anyway.

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.

That's nice. Everyone has a same view and idea. If thats always for the better, how come people read books? Those don't usually have extensive visual aids, and people rarely get confused, even though the experience is very individual. Now, whats good for novels isn't necessarily good in a game, but this is just to illuminate my opinion.

I've never used minis or counters. And never will. Waste of money, and would make the combats less imaginative.

 

[Mystery Man]

The only things that annoy me is percentile dice. They should never be used in game, only for optional random stuff generation (loot, monsters, cities, etc. Things that happen out of game and where the DM may pick and choose rather than roll).

I love percentile dice!

I think they are a neccessary part of gaming in any edition. There are some things that you just can't do without them. Like to hit a mirror image or invisible foe etc.

But I'm old school.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I think the main reason to use % is for odds that should not be able to be altered by spells, feats, skills and magic items. In effect blind fight does halve the miss chance but (annoyingly and thus house-ruled) does not reduce the 50% number.

Also X armour has Y% arcane spell failure and that is that, you have to get over it (unless we introduce mithril breastplates).

I heard Monte Cook or someone say something to this effect and I have to agree that there should be certain mechanics that aren't able to be altered.

 

[diaglo]

they still use Fort save, will save, reflex save

they still use hit dice, hit points, class, race, alignment,etc...

these are elements of the game. if you want to exclude those terms that is fine. but when the core rules use them it is a "Common" Tongue so all will understand.

oh, and as for the title or this thread

Original D&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.