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

[Mercule]

How come, with the standard now being that 1" square on the combat map is alway 5' across, how come movement and ranges are given in increments of 5', instead of simply giving them in "squares"? Wouldn't it be quicker and easier for, say, a longbow's range to be "20 squares", rather than "100 feet"? Sure, I know that not everyone who plays D&D 3.0/3.5 uses miniatures (or cardboard counters) and maps with 1" (5') squares, but those players who don't are the exception, not the norm.

Ick, ick, ick.

Right up front, let me say that I love using minis and a grid for combat. When your character's life is on the line, the unambiguous nature of the grid is great. And, since I play with a group that has agreed not to count squares ahead of time (oops, not enough range on that spell? crap), it doesn't slow down play for us.

I do, however, think that even 3.5 has moved too far in the direction of using "squares" to talk about distance. As someone who played 1st edition, with the constant measuring of everything in inches, I don't want to go back there. I love miniatures games -- the ones you need to bring a tape measure to play. In an RPG, though, I want real measurements, in the character terms, not game constructs.

 

[Fanog]

"Square pole" is not a pole, but a plank.

A quick question: How would you call squares that are not square, but of indefinate shape ? Looking in a dictionary I see box, compartment, hut, pigeonhole and square, but no one seems appropriate.

A rectangle?

In the group that I'm DM'ing, we (almost) always use a battle mat. Often though, I find myself wishing we didn't. Counting squares to determine the optimal path, taking a couple of minutes to figure out the precise spot a fireball has to be aimed at, etc... Ugh!

Having a battle map often reduces the ability (or will) to envision a 'real', fantasic battle, and makes (some) people go into 'turn-based computer RPG mode'. It's quite (incredibly) slow, which leaves me yearning to mapless (or at least gridless) play quite often. The players seem to enjoy the security of grids, though...

Fanog

 

[Henry]

Really neat suggestion someone gave me:

Stick with the rough scale (1 inch square is five feet) and cut up several 6 inch long strings, and use a piece of tape to tape them to the miniatures (or just use them when needed and take them off the board otherwise). Then tell your players they can move to the length of that 30' string and still attack. Judge Op Attacks by how close the string can come to other mini's without getting too close. Create spell templates (paper rings and triangles that fit to the same size), and have the player pick their center points. With a few minor adjustments, you can eliminate the grid entirely, and create a much more "hazy" feel to exact distances.

 

[Tsyr]

Really neat suggestion someone gave me:

Stick with the rough scale (1 inch square is five feet) and cut up several 6 inch long strings, and use a piece of tape to tape them to the miniatures (or just use them when needed and take them off the board otherwise). Then tell your players they can move to the length of that 30' string and still attack. Judge Op Attacks by how close the string can come to other mini's without getting too close. Create spell templates (paper rings and triangles that fit to the same size), and have the player pick their center points. With a few minor adjustments, you can eliminate the grid entirely, and create a much more "hazy" feel to exact distances.

Which is basicly just going back to the tape measure approach; a system I like a lot more than the chess-board approach.

 

[maddman75]

My view is that minis are a tool, and should be used when appropriate. A lot of fights I won't pull them out. I mean if the good guys and bad guys are just going to rush and start hacking, what's teh point? But if there's a lot of foes, or special terrain, or other factors then we'll pull them out. For me it's all about keeping the game moving, and when you reach the point where the unambiguousness of minis creates more of a gain than the cost of hauling out the figures, drawing the mat, etc. then it's time to use them.

 

[drnuncheon]

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.

Yeah! And why do they have all those silly lines on a football field? Wouldn't it be better if the experience of the game was individual for everyone?

J

 

[just__al]

In all seriousness, I think wether you use a map and some kind of mini/counter/pebble/penny to show creatures depends on your group.

The group I play with has people who without the grid & counters would slow down the game discussing to death where they were and what physically happening. For us, "clearing the table" drawing in the map, and placing counters saves the time lost discussing "I wouldn't have done that if I knew he was that close/far away" Getting through combat quicker leaves more time for RP.

However, if we had a little more floor space, just placing mini's and terrain on the floor and breaking out tape measures and wire frames could be wicked cool...

 

[Azlan]

Yeah! And why do they have all those silly lines on a football field? Wouldn't it be better if the experience of the game was individual for everyone?

ROTFL!



Seriously, though: Imagine the many, many arguments the football players and the coaches would get into with the referees, without those gridlines on the field.

 

[Steverooo]

How come we're still using percentile dice for some things, especially since percentage chances are always given in increments of 5, which can just as easily (if not more easily) be determined with a d20? I'm talking about how percentile dice are used to determine "miss chance" (for concealment) and arcane spell failure chance. It is the d20 system, right? So why aren't these chances given in ranges like "1-5", used with a d20, instead of "25%", used with percentile dice?

For miss chances, they should be! It USED to be that attacking something you couldn't see was a simple -4 penalty, and Blind-fight reduced it to -2... Now, we have a more complicated system of "Detecting an invisible opponent requires a DC:20 Spot check, and if you spot it, you still don't know where it is (Huh?!?), unless you beat the DC;20 by 20+, or DC:40+!" If you spot something, you should know where it is, doggone it! The rules make it impossible for a normal PC (as opposed to one maxed out for Spot) to have any chance to spot an invisible before 13th level, assuming they have an 18 WIS and Spot as a Class skill, maxed out. (Yes, yes, they could have Feats and magic items - be a "Maxed out for Spot" character - but I said a NORMAL PC).

Likewise, -1 per 5% cover is a perfectly good rule, but the rules have been "simplified, for your convenience".to remove this. Spell Failure chances could also have been done on a D20, but percentage chances are just rolled on percentiles... No good reason, it's just easier.

So... In other words, it could have been done "your" way, it just wasn't. No really good reason for it.

 

[Steverooo]

How come we have AC (armor class) for attack rolls, but DC (difficulty class) for all the other d20 rolls? Why this one exception for the difficulty class determined by a target's defense, used against attack rolls? (And, anyway, there's considerably more that goes into a target's defense beside his armor.) I mean, do we have TC (trap class) for Disarm Device checks? Do we have LC (lock class) for Open Lock checks?

Well, you could do either one of those, actually... You could have an "Attack Roll of DC:10", or AC:10, Lock Class:10, Ground Class:15 on your Tracking Check and Move Silently, etc. Or, you could mix and match, which is pretty much what we have now...

Tasks involve skills, and have DCs. BAB is not a skill, it is a "Class Feature". If BAB ever became a skill, then "AC" would become a DC.