Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 3289620" data-attributes="member: 20239">Since I specifically referred to spell &quot;ranges&quot; in my original post I thought it was clear that I wasn't talking about areas of affect, but whether the target of a spell was within the spell's listed range.&nbsp; Using saving throws to adjudicate that seemed very strange to me; thus, my question.&nbsp; Obviously you were misunderstanding my original comment when you brought up saving throws.I'm using the word &quot;right&quot; in reponse to Falstaff's use of the word &quot;correctly&quot;.&nbsp; It seems to me that accurate application of the facing rules, spell ranges, etc. in AD&amp;D &quot;depend on knowing where the PCs and their attackers are at all times&quot;.&nbsp; As you point out, so do many rules in 3e.&nbsp; I don't see the difference between the two situations.&nbsp; In both games you are either applying the combat rules strictly and completely or you are handwaving spacial relationship stuff that is cumbersome to track without some sort of concrete physical representation.&nbsp; IMO, both games require the use of minis/counters and a battlemat/ruler to run &quot;correctly&quot; (where we're defining correctly as making complete and accurate use of all the rules at all times - which is, I assume, the meaning Falstaff was attaching to the word) but both games function just fine if the DM replaces minis/counters and a battlemat/ruler with on-the-fly adjudications and reasonable estimates.&nbsp; Minis and a battlemat are only &quot;more necessary&quot; in 3e if the players aren't willing to handwave the exact same types of things that you seem to be saying you're more than comfortable handwaving for AD&amp;D.&nbsp; I don't see the difference between handwaving AoOs and handwaving the shield/facing rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ourph, post: 3289620, member: 20239"] Since I specifically referred to spell "ranges" in my original post I thought it was clear that I wasn't talking about areas of affect, but whether the target of a spell was within the spell's listed [u]range[/u]. Using saving throws to adjudicate that seemed very strange to me; thus, my question. Obviously you were misunderstanding my original comment when you brought up saving throws. I'm using the word "right" in reponse to Falstaff's use of the word "correctly". It seems to me that accurate application of the facing rules, spell ranges, etc. in AD&D "depend on knowing where the PCs and their attackers are at all times". As you point out, so do many rules in 3e. I don't see the difference between the two situations. In both games you are either applying the combat rules strictly and completely or you are handwaving spacial relationship stuff that is cumbersome to track without some sort of concrete physical representation. IMO, both games require the use of minis/counters and a battlemat/ruler to run "correctly" (where we're defining correctly as making complete and accurate use of all the rules at all times - which is, I assume, the meaning Falstaff was attaching to the word) but both games function just fine if the DM replaces minis/counters and a battlemat/ruler with on-the-fly adjudications and reasonable estimates. Minis and a battlemat are only "more necessary" in 3e if the players aren't willing to handwave the exact same types of things that you seem to be saying you're more than comfortable handwaving for AD&D. I don't see the difference between handwaving AoOs and handwaving the shield/facing rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification