Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 1311797" data-attributes="member: 1465">If rules forum is not the most appropriate place, please move this thread away  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT:- how you like miniature's skirmish combat rules compared to core PHB combat rulesWHAT THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT:- how you like miniatures or how you like the new D&D line of miniatures- how you like the Miniatures Handbook- how you like playing a combat-only game instead of a full RPGLet's think we are about to play combat only, either as part of a full roleplay game or otherwise as a completely stand-alone game, eventually (but not necessarily) using the MH's rules on how to create the two sides of the battle. We actually don't need to be using miniatures at all.It happened to me a couple of times that I just wanted to "exercise" with friends on combat rules*, so we quickly created two bands of PCs and/or monsters, put them against each other on a map and played a fight to death with the normal PHB combat rules (3.0 at the time, but it's the same). It worked very well.* to be honest, it happened because too few players showed up to play a real campaign sessionSo, if you want to run a combat, do you think MH rules are actually any better than PHB rules? Are they both as good and do you wish to play some of both? Are PHB rules still the best? Or do you prefer MH rules so much that you even want to use them in a full RP campaign?The easiest way to answer is: I will use PHB rules when I play D&D and MH rules when I play miniatures. Actually, we do so mostly because we are told to do so, if they were switched from the start we would probably play them the other way around.You can answer now without reading my further opinions...----------------------------------------------------------------------------What it seems to me is that more or less the skirmish ruleset tries to simplify the game in the following ways:1) reduce the options in character creation2) reduce the options in combat manoeuvres3) reduce the number of dice rolledthese are supposed to speed up learning how to play, setting up a game and playing itself.First of all, it doesn't seem to me that the rules are actually easier at all. Some things got simplified but there are new rules which bring new stuff to learn as well. 1) Reducing the options in character creation helps the new players, but we all know that what keeps WotC working on D&D is the sheer amount of crunchy-bits-based books we buy all the time to actually INCREASE our options. However, according to what this thread is about, we can even imagine we will play with whatever PC or creature we wish (and not just the existing miniatures).2) This is the whole point of why I still consider PHB combat rules superior. The skirmish rules offer IMHO a much less strategic flexibility. Biggest example is the actions you can do only at the closets enemy.3) It speeds up game and reduces random factor. The latter could either be seen as a positive or negative thing.</blockquote>

Verification