Does 3E/3.5 dictate a certain style of play?

[mhacdebhandia]

The big difference in 3E is that if you want to blow the feats, you don't have to wait for the DM to hand you a magic item: you just make it yourself. If that didn't happen in 1E and 2E it's because s that for all practical purposes, there were no rules for it at all.

Hell, I clearly remember the example of magic item creation in the Second Edition Dungeon Master's Guide. It involved several solo adventures (for instance, completing a dwarven rite of passage in order to be taught their secrets of metalworking), exotic components, et cetera.

Now that's all very well and good - it certainly establishes something of a mythic, legendary feel. On the other hand, is it practical in a game involving more than one player for the wizard to be off gallivanting around in dwarven dungeons just to make the fighter a magical sword?

 

[Raven Crowking]

While I don't think 3E dictates a certain style of play, I do feel that it encourages a certain style of play. There's quite a big difference between the two. If you prefer using a lot supplements to run your game I do think you'll find that these do nudge you in the "preferred" direction; an emphasis on fast-paced location-based adventuring that incorporates 3.5 "dungeonpunk" stylistic elements and archetypes, and employing battle maps and miniatures.

QFT.

 

[Crothian]

While propably not intending to do so, the mechanics can (not always) lead to some serious min/maxing.

You can min max in any game. D&D does not support it. If you don't want people to min max just tell them to stop or play with different people.

Minis and tactics. It's all in the PHB. Combat is now geared towards the use of minis and their positions on a map. I;ve seen some games where combat has become much like chess,

While some games are like this, it doesn't have to be. I've played entire campaigns without minis. It is just as easy to do as with or withour mins minis and in some ways easier and faster without. It's all about what the people want, not what the game wants.

 

[Thanee]

I wouldn't call it 'dictate', but the rules do support certain styles better than others.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Psion]

I draw lines on the battlemap the same way I always have: in my mind. None of this stuff is nearly as mandatory as people make it out to be.

For me, whether you can trace the lines mentally or not on the battlemat is not the point; the battlemat is still in the equation. The fact that the rules changed to hinge around the battlemat at all is a problem for me. The grid is artificial measuring tool. D&D is a game of the imagination. Making me imagine on a battlemat is, when it's not facilitating play, a cumbersome intermediate step. I, as the DM, prefer to tell you whether the orc is lurking behind a corner. I do not think it's the place of the battlemat to tell me.

 

[Thanee]

The only thing, that is a little difficult to adjudicate without the map, are AoO, or not?

I think when those are reduced to a minimum, playing without a map works just fine.

I like the map, though, and we used it long before D&D 3E already, mostly to give everyone the same base, because it did happen way too often, that the visualization resulting from the descriptions were quite a bit different to each other. The battlemap puts everyone on the same level.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Darklone]

My biggest problem while playing without a battlemap: How to get to the wizards

Is the big brute fighter in the way or not? Where's the archer...?

"Kill the mage first!" was the most important rule in D&D since I played it. How do I do that without knowing how to get there?

 

[Bacris]

Battlemats aren't the advent of 3E. I used battle mats in AD&D and 2nd Ed, as it made the scene a lot easier for the DM and players to absorb. Sure, I could say "You walk into a circular room with sconces lining the walls and the smell of sulfur. Three robed figures are standing around a circle made of chalk. In the middle of the circle is another figure chained to the floor." or I could have 3 robed minis standing around a drawn circle with another chained mini laying on the floor AND describe it.

I've always found that the battle mat makes it easier for everyone involved to have an unbiased view of the battle, as opposed to "I try to maneuver around the orc without drawing attacks of opportunity" and the DM deciding willy-nilly if he wants the orc to attack me or not. Vindictive DMs will say "there's no way to do that without drawing an AoO", while lenient DMs will say "ok" - the mat makes it objective as opposed to subjective. Is there enough room to do it? Let's take a look and see instead of off-the-cuff.

But this has been something since 2E, not 3E. 3E just introduced rules that cater to it.

I'm also more of one who believes that off-the-cuff rules make for problems as opposed to better games. The plot should be the focus, not determining how tripping or AoOs or Arcane Spell Failure or Turn Undead works in your game.

 

[Psion]

Battlemats aren't the advent of 3E. I used battle mats in AD&D and 2nd Ed, as it made the scene a lot easier for the DM and players to absorb.

Absolutely.

But when the rules move the battlemat from facilitating the action to dictating it, overruling the GMs conception about what the environment is like, it has overstepped it's domain.

 

[reutbing0]

"Kill the mage first!" was the most important rule in D&D since I played it. How do I do that without knowing how to get there?

I think this is very true. I see Psion's point when he says that the battlemat is an "artificial measuring tool", but on the other hand a person's mind and imagination are very subjective measuring tools. It all depends on how much you want emphasize the 'fairness' and explicit tactical elements of your D&D game.There's really no right or wrong answer.