Rules Lawyers needed!

[Juggernaut]

Sunder... You ask for the difference in someone trying to hit your shield, and you using your shield to block his blow. Try to picture this... I am trying to hit YOU and you throw up your shield and block my sword, hence catching it in mid swing and diverting the force of it in another direction. Then picture this... I have a pretty good feeling that you are going to throw that shield up at my sword trying to deflect my sword so instead I plan in hitting your shield as you throw it up instead of trying for you. So I am putting the full force of my blow into your shield and where it will be positioned a the exact time of my swing. So its all about where the attacker is planning on hitting and when and where he is planning on making the force of the blow. Planning on hitting the shield is obviously going to do more damage to the shield then planning on getting around the shield and "accidentily" hitting it because the defender stuck it in the way.


Initiative... Don't look at the round in the way you are looking at it. Player A does not complete all of his actions before player B starts. Player A gets the jump and starts his action a split second before player B. The six second rule means that there are six seconds from the time that each player starts their actions until the time that they start their next round's actions. Which is why the "roll initiative every round" rule doesn't really make sense.

Spellcasting... A DM I used to play for had similar concerns to yours I believe. So he interpretted the rules (or House ruled) a little differently than most I have played with. Say player A is a spellcaster he wins initiative and casts Mage Armor on himself in round 1. The other PCs and NPCs act and throughout round 1 Player A takes 4 points of damage. In round 2 player A wishes to cast Magic missile, in order to do so he must make a Concentration check with a DC of 12. He does so and hits the kobold. Round 3 comes and the spellcaster wishes to cast Magic Missile again at the kobold, in round 2 he took 2 points of damage and as he declares his intention, the kobold who held action to shoot him as he casts again hits him for 4 more points of damage as he casts the spell causing player A to make a Concentration check at DC 15.

In simpler terms, any damage that a spellcaster takes in the round prior to casting a spell counts as continuous damage listed in the PHB. I'm not saying that it is or should be as the rules are written but this is the way that a former DM treated it. I'm not saying it is perfect... or even correct, just throwing out options.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hi knifespeaks,

I suppose here is a way to answer questions 2 and 3. Remember this is simplified and makes several assumptions. Hopefully though, it allows you to apply some sense of logic to the 3.0/3.5 initiative format.

The only time where "initiative" reaction really counts is at the very beginning of combat. As such, you can catch enemies unaware who have not yet acted. Once everyone has acted though, it is all happening and so initiative counts for little as everyone responds to what's occuring.

As for Full Round, Standard and Move Equivalent actions, here's an explanation that may apply.

If you don't have to concentrate too hard on doing anything else you can move double your movement (or more if you run). However, in doing so, you give yourself little chance to think about doing anything else. If on the other hand you wish to do something that requires a certain degree of concentration, you can't move quite as far. Note that this assumes that the move equivalent action and the standard action happen at the same time, not one after the other. In fact, I think that if you assume that actions either happen at pretty much the same time or overlap, your understanding of actions will improve.
However, if you wish to perform a full round action, it takes up so much concentration that one could not even possibly move more than a step whilst trying to do it.

Of interest, feats such as quickdraw, combat reflexes and so on allow you to do their actions without requiring much thought, they are assumed to be instinctive.

Hope this helps.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[knifespeaks]

Thanks Juggernaut and Herremann - most informative.

I think I understand why you have to have miniatures or some other grid-type tactical representation for combat though - with the sheer volume of different situations available in a combat where everyone is moving at their own pace, it is no wonder it seemed like a nightmare

And, despite the reasonable rationale you have put forward, this is a major stumbling block for us. Half the group is female, and they ain't really into the whole battle grid thing - like me, they prefer a simpler system which allows participation in a less formal sense. And, being blunt - I really prefer having females in a roleplay group as it adds so much to a gaming session. I don't think 3.5 combat would be a satisfactory swap for losing them!

Good gaming, thanks for the responses

 

[AuraSeer]

And, despite the reasonable rationale you have put forward, this is a major stumbling block for us. Half the group is female, and they ain't really into the whole battle grid thing - like me, they prefer a simpler system which allows participation in a less formal sense. And, being blunt - I really prefer having females in a roleplay group as it adds so much to a gaming session. I don't think 3.5 combat would be a satisfactory swap for losing them!

Most of my group would be offended at this paragraph. Like you we have equal numbers of males and females, yet we use a battle grid in every session. The women don't problems with it any more than the men do, and I'd probably get booted from the game if I offered to make the game simpler (or "less formal") for their sake.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Heck, my group's got three women in it (all wives / fiancees of other members, so the ration is slightly less than 50 / 50), and they're among the most ardent supporters of having the battlemap laid out appropriately, since, more often than not, they're playing warrior-types.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Most of my group would be offended at this paragraph. Like you we have equal numbers of males and females, yet we use a battle grid in every session. The women don't problems with it any more than the men do, and I'd probably get booted from the game if I offered to make the game simpler (or "less formal") for their sake.

Seriously. I've noticed no pattern of preference for crunch vs. fluff between male and female gamers that I've played with. The only gender difference I've seen is that the female players take 10 times as long picking out a miniature, and for my own safety I'm going to chalk that up to an overabundance of scantily-clad female minis, and not any stereotypes about women and clothes.

But, to the point, I've played games that run the gamut from simple 'I go, you go' with no attempt to account for simultaneity, to systems that got down into fractions of a second. I think 3.5 does a pretty darn good job of acknowledging the existance of simultaneous actions without getting so detailed that combats take hours of real time to play out 30 seconds of game time. Plus, I think the refinements that have been made (eg 'swift' actions) have corrected some of the problems.

One thing I've noticed is a real drop in the amount of player-DM arbitration over what players can accomplish in a round.

As far as spellcasting, in 3.x a wizard's spells are largely pre-cast. The standard action represents the utterance of the last syllable (and every syllable is important, Ash), the last gesture, the consumption of the material component. It's not instantaneous, but it is quick, and takes no longer than a warrior takes to swing his weapon. Thus it is harder to disrupt the caster's concentration, and the need to ready an action so you can throw him off at the critical moment.

This is a 'fluff' change in 3.x that is sometimes overlooked by 1st and 2nd ed players. In previous editions, the memorized spell was cast and forgotten. Now, the spell is 'mostly cast' and finished. The net result is the same: I can't cast the spell again, either because I have to re-memorize it, or 'mostly-cast' it again when I get the time.

Spells that have full-round casting times still provide ample opportunity to mess with the caster, as well.

 

[knifespeaks]

Auraseer - I'm not generalising and saying ALL women find the battle grid difficult! I am saying the ones I play with do - and I am married to one of 'em! Also, I dislike the battle grid and miniatures as well Simplicity is what we prefer, and first edition satisfies our needs in regard to combat.

Anyway, thanks for the responses - as I said at the start, this wasn't an attack on 3.5, merely attempting to clarify some points which have been cleared up.

 

[MerakSpielman]

No solutions. You either play 1st ed (or 2nd ed rules) or 3.5 rules. They are not compatable systems. Mixing them together will yield a less than acceptable game from a mechanics system since too many things will be changed to allow the advantages of either system to survive.

This is the best advice in this thread.

The systems don't mix well.

You're bound to make things more and more complicated with little or no Fun Benefit as a result.

The real problems here are all in your head. You don't like the way 2nd edition does something, so you'll toss in something else. You don't like the way 3.x does something, so you'll keep using 2nd ed. rules for that feature.

I don't mean this as a personal attack or insult, but I think the real problem isn't that the systems are put together poorly, but that you don't understand what the rules are trying to accomplish.

 

[knifespeaks]

double post, oops

 

[knifespeaks]

I give up! I tried to be nice

Comprehension > you - I have never played 2nd edition, so I have no idea why it is being brought up

Also, the systems work well - first edition combat annihilates 3.5's clunky, super-hero inspired flashy action. MY GROUP AND I prefer the simplicity and ease of first edition combat without the 'hollywood' of 3.5. Is that a crime around here?

I was trying to clarify some issues, which a couple of posters clarified - thanks to those that responded constructively - the rest of you are terrible advertisements for the game