Generic question on movement & combat rules...

[Grossout]

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

I haven't played for many years. Never played 3E. Just looking over things about the rules, and noticed that I don't care for some of them. Generally everything w/ movement during combat seems to be so cumbersome. Attacks of Opportunity seems like just too much. Overall, it seems like there's just too many options! Now, in general, I'm excited to start playing again. I just remember a simpler time when if you decided to attack a monster, you basically just threw everything you had at him or ran away when he got the best of you! I guess my question is, if I eliminated some of the more complex rules regarding movement during combat, would it throw the whole game out of balance? I mean, I'd still like to be able to sneak around as a rogue and all, but could I just eliminate all the other rules with flanking and such. I guess I don't really need a super-detailed description of battle in my game. I just need to know who I'm fighting, how many, and what they're throwing at me. I'm not too into "battle-tactics". So, could I still enjoy a balanced game if I just nixed some of the more intensive combat rules? Thanks.

 

[Musrum]

So, could I still enjoy a balanced game if I just nixed some of the more intensive combat rules? Thanks.

This is a tough one. You may find you spend more time thinking through the adjustments you need to the rest of the game, than you would just learning the combat rules.
What do your players think?

 

[Dross]

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

I haven't played for many years. Never played 3E. Just looking over things about the rules, and noticed that I don't care for some of them. Generally everything w/ movement during combat seems to be so cumbersome. Attacks of Opportunity seems like just too much. Overall, it seems like there's just too many options! Now, in general, I'm excited to start playing again. I just remember a simpler time when if you decided to attack a monster, you basically just threw everything you had at him or ran away when he got the best of you! I guess my question is, if I eliminated some of the more complex rules regarding movement during combat, would it throw the whole game out of balance? I mean, I'd still like to be able to sneak around as a rogue and all, but could I just eliminate all the other rules with flanking and such. I guess I don't really need a super-detailed description of battle in my game. I just need to know who I'm fighting, how many, and what they're throwing at me. I'm not too into "battle-tactics". So, could I still enjoy a balanced game if I just nixed some of the more intensive combat rules? Thanks.

There are a couple of things to consider (and others will tell you more I'm sure).
Where are poeple standing during the fight? is anyone flanking (or will you remove that aspect as well?)? What happens to the rogue's sneak-attack ability, is it usable in fights anymore, how do you plan to adjudicate it?

Who is in an area of effect of any given spell (from fireball to bless)?

Does the advantage of reach get negated? If so then any monster with reach will possibly need a CR change.

Soft cover from allies/foes and ranged attacks, or simply being behind a meat sheild, is there any point if you can get to them regardless of obstacles?

My experience with 3E is that you need someway to know where everyone is just to see where everyone is and who affects/can hit what.

 

[nittanytbone]

I've DMed both AD&D and 3.5.

AD&D works under the "electron cloud model" of combat. You don't know exactly where everyone is at every second, but you know generally what area they're in and who they're fighting. The combat round is 1 minute which allows for a lot of "fudge factor" in determining how long things take to do.

3.5 requires you to track the exact location of each character at all times. Many feats/abilities/spells/rules only come into play in certain situations (for example, Rogue Sneak Attacks work when flanking, or you can only charge in a straight unbroken line, or you can only make an Attack of Opportunity if you actually threaten the target square, etc...).

I found it easier simply to revert to 1E when I wanted the "fast and loose" feel than to try to reinvent 3.5.

 

[Grossout]

Thanks for the comments...

I don't know. Maybe I'm in over my head. I just remember playing and the DM (who at the time may have been completely simplifying the rules himself!) would describe who or what was in front of us. If there was an attack, it was more or less assumed that the 2 parties met head on. We'd slash, they'd swing, hit points were lost. Everyone was fair game unless we specifically said we were "staying back". I think he pretty much just winged it (wung it?) in regards to some area affect spells and such. For the most part, a fireball was gonna hit one person, while sleep would require dice rolls to determine who. If you were in the room, you had to make a save on that one. I guess we just generalized a lot of stuff. It seemed to work at the time (of course I wasn't the DM). I think my main concern would be, if you took away some of these combat tactics, would it make some monsters a lot less/more difficult challenges? Thanks again.

 

[Bad Paper]

whew. Don't know what to say, except:
1) Maybe you should be playing 1st ed. It's all still out there; just scour eBay.
2) Break your first post into a few specific examples of changes. Go over to the House Rules forum. Post your ideas. Solicit feedback.

I never played 2nd ed. I played 1st ed "fast and loose" like you. Walked away from the game for ten or fifteen years. Started up again with 3.5 ed. It's a tremendous learning curve, I mean really immense, especially since I became the DM in our incipient group. For the most part, it's great, and I recommend learning all the rules before throwing any away. There are a few that will smack you as tedious (most people hate grappling) or arbitrary (I hate massive damage), but you have to go discover them first. Also, you should note that this is a completely different game from 1st ed, e.g. I am irritated that clerics truly own this game. You'll probably find high-level play less rewarding, hence, start at the bottom and see where that gets you. And use the 1" graph paper. It brings the rules alive. You will eventually stop using it all the time.

 

[wedgeski]

In my opinion, the tactical combat sub-game is part-and-parcel of version 3 of the D&D game (to the good, if you ask me). I will always recommend that you resort to an earlier edition than start messing with it.

 

[Particle_Man]

You might want to try Castles and Crusades. Simplified rules but still a d20 system.

 

[werk]

I guess my question is, if I eliminated some of the more complex rules regarding movement during combat, would it throw the whole game out of balance?

You have to understand a process completely before you can 'improve' upon that process.

Beware!

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I'm not a fan of C&C, but it sounds alot like what you want to play.

--fje