Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Have We Lost Our Way? Two masters on combat and alignment
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Funksaw" data-source="post: 1623035" data-attributes="member: 20181"><p>I think that D&D 3.5 is too grainy to abstract combat, yet the rules tend to rely upon you abstracting combat.</p><p></p><p>Take, for example, two-weapon fighting. </p><p></p><p>If I want to fight with two-weapons, there's a very specific rule for that. I can't just say "I'm attacking him with two weapons" and make a *single* attack roll at no penalty. The <em>tactical</em> aspects of the game prevents me from much variance in my <em>roleplayed descriptions</em> of attacks. </p><p></p><p>Similarly, if I'm fighting with a quarterstaff, I can't say that I'm hitting the guy provoking an AOO from me in one adjacent square with one end, and the guy in the other adjacent square with the other end without a penalty. I have to describe my character hitting them with <em>only one end of the quarterstaff</em> otherwise I get a penalty. </p><p></p><p>This is in a situation where hitting the guy with the left or right of the quarterstaff makes no tactical difference other than the penalties involved. </p><p></p><p>I have no problem with tactical-oriented play, what I have a problem with is that D&D has gotten too granular. "Two Weapon Fighting" should really be labled "Double Attack" and Improved two-Weapon fighting should really be labeled "Improved Double Attack." The fact that you're weilding two weapons doesn't provide the advantage - the fact that you get to attack twice in the same round with less of a penalty <em>is</em>. </p><p></p><p>At the same time, Hit Points are highly abstracted - sometimes losing hit points means a scratch, sometimes it's a miss that takes you off guard, sometimes it's a close call, and sometimes it's an actual hit... </p><p></p><p>This does not mesh well. </p><p></p><p>It's the little things like that that make D&D a nightmare for me to visualize in my head when I'm playing. When you're using a combat map, you're not using the "headspace" - you're visualizing little pewter people on a map. But if you're trying to imagine what your characters actions look like and try to capture a feel of heroic action and epic struggle - it's a problem.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Funksaw, post: 1623035, member: 20181"] I think that D&D 3.5 is too grainy to abstract combat, yet the rules tend to rely upon you abstracting combat. Take, for example, two-weapon fighting. If I want to fight with two-weapons, there's a very specific rule for that. I can't just say "I'm attacking him with two weapons" and make a *single* attack roll at no penalty. The [i]tactical[/i] aspects of the game prevents me from much variance in my [i]roleplayed descriptions[/i] of attacks. Similarly, if I'm fighting with a quarterstaff, I can't say that I'm hitting the guy provoking an AOO from me in one adjacent square with one end, and the guy in the other adjacent square with the other end without a penalty. I have to describe my character hitting them with [i]only one end of the quarterstaff[/i] otherwise I get a penalty. This is in a situation where hitting the guy with the left or right of the quarterstaff makes no tactical difference other than the penalties involved. I have no problem with tactical-oriented play, what I have a problem with is that D&D has gotten too granular. "Two Weapon Fighting" should really be labled "Double Attack" and Improved two-Weapon fighting should really be labeled "Improved Double Attack." The fact that you're weilding two weapons doesn't provide the advantage - the fact that you get to attack twice in the same round with less of a penalty [i]is[/i]. At the same time, Hit Points are highly abstracted - sometimes losing hit points means a scratch, sometimes it's a miss that takes you off guard, sometimes it's a close call, and sometimes it's an actual hit... This does not mesh well. It's the little things like that that make D&D a nightmare for me to visualize in my head when I'm playing. When you're using a combat map, you're not using the "headspace" - you're visualizing little pewter people on a map. But if you're trying to imagine what your characters actions look like and try to capture a feel of heroic action and epic struggle - it's a problem. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Have We Lost Our Way? Two masters on combat and alignment
Top