Some newbie DM combat and miniatures questions...

[nethervoid]

I haven't played DnD for some time now, and have recently purchased core and, as of last night, arcana. I've noticed that combat is woefully complicated now. I'm even rather put-off by the adaption of miniatures.

What house rules have you guys adopted or seen adopted to make combat simpler without ruining the suspention of disbelief?

I was already thinking I want to drop AoOs because they don't seem to fit into real life combat*. Although this makes combat much simpler and more realistic, it changes a LOT of feats and balance, I think. I'll have to rebalance things quite a bit, I'm sure.

I've also read up on armor as damage reduction, and really like it, although it makes combat more complicated. At the same time, it gives a more direct meaning behind wearing armor, making it less theoretical.

I guess I'm looking to make combat more realistic, and less "videogamish", but at the same time, anything which simplifies it is even better.

And I'd also like to hear what poeple think of the miniatures system. It sounds like a big money sink.

Wow! A rather broad topic!



* I think it's more realistic because if you are allowed 4 swings per round, for example, how do you fit in AoOs? I don't think there's enough time in combat to fit the extra attacks in. They don't make much sense, martially.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Not to divert the topic, but my serious suggestion is:

If you haven't played it as-is, then try it for a while.

As people on these boards, we're predominantly DMs and predominantly Armchair Game Designers. We're the passionate ones, so that's why we take the time to spend our free time talking about this stuff.

But until you've tried it, it's easy to get turned off by stuff that might either A) Not be that bad or B) actually of some aid.

I liken it to opening up the processes tab on your computer and shutting down "stuff that's taking up memory". If you just start shutting down processes, you'll stop something that other processes depend on and the computer crashes. EXPLORER.EXE might use up alot of system resources, but it has to be running.

I didn't like the dependance on "visual representation" at first, either. The combat mat, minis, etc. But I tried it. Cheaply. First with graph paper and pencil dots, then with a play mat and counters, and now with tact-tiles and a combination of miniatures and counters. It really helped everyone visualize what was going on, so that my vision matched their vision. Everything doesn't have to be shown, it's really just a rough estimation of distances and orientation of rooms and objects.

The AoO may look like a simple thing to remove, that might add realism back into the game, but here's the thing: Other aspects of the game are built on the assumption that the AoO exists. Without it ... monsters with reach become weaker, worth less of their CR, and give more XP than they should. Reach weapons become redundant and useless. All feats that deal with AoOs need to also be removed, leaving gaps in stuff like Spring Attack and other feat chains. Some aspects of combat become more effective, like flanking, so rogues become better combatants and than their abilities were originally balanced to allow. Etc etc.

And as to the video-gamish elements ..., it's a game. Its so far outside of reality that nothing you do can really bring it back INTO reality. So removing AoOs is really just focusing on one gray thread in a sheet and deciding it isn't quite gray enough or is, in fact, too gray. Essentially the game is just that, a game. Same with damage reduction vs. armor class bonus. As a process, its one of those things that when you remove it, you need to be ready for a cascade effect of changes to the game. Stuff you might not be expecting, stuff which might cause problems you like even less than armor bonuses.

But, in the end, I suppose its a personal preference thing. You might want to look into other games: I know Castles and Crusades has a very stripped down combat system that doesn't include AoOs. Which isn't to say CaC is a better game, as many people have just as many problems with it, but it might be a game whose fundamental flavor suits your needs better than D&D 3.5.

--fje

 

[nethervoid]

Well since I've already spent over 100 bucks on just those four books, I guess I don't have much choice now. lol

I do agree that playing will give me a better grasp on how the newer system works, and how different rules affect different aspects of the game. I already know up front that changes in the rules will have a trickle down effect in practice, and so additional tweaks will probably be needed afterwards.

Also, to clarify the video game reference, what I meant by it is to remove the multitude of calculations on every turn of a corner. Something a computer and modern video games have no problem with, obviously, but with dice rolls, etc, it becomes a pain in the rump. This is more true as I want to run a more roleplay type of game rather than a hack and slash +4 +2 -1 plus this or that bonus kind of game. Maybe all the bonuses look like a lot more work in the book, and it will need to be something I've played in to understand the ease of them. Basically, I'd like to keep the focus on roleplay and really getting the feel of the moment than on levels, bonuses, etc.

The removal of AoOs will definitely be a challenge, and holes will have to be filled, classes balanced, and reach tactics analyzed. Or I could minimize them, not sure. But I'll definitely be changing or removing them. IMO, they're one of, or the worst aspect of the current system. They seem, in most cases, to have no basis in what I think was mideval combat. Maybe I could change it so that if someone flanks a player or monster, that player or monster can decide to use one of their attacks this round to attack the flanker with some kind of a to-hit bonus rather than just getting an additional free attack that round. Hmm. That sounds pretty good.

I probably should have said I've played NWN for probably 6 or more months, which I know is a slightly different ruleset, but the majority of the 3.5 stuff is present. I know a lot about how feats and skills work in the system, as well as most of the combat rules. Playing NWN, I can see how the rules and style of current pen and paper adapt better to video games.

 

[kenobi65]

My experience has been: once you play the game for a while, the calculations do generally get to be easier / more intuitive.

Generally speaking, "easier" and "more realistic" tend to be a contradiction in terms when it comes to game design. D&D is, obviously, somewhere in the middle on that continuum. I have a few players in my group who like to gripe about "that's not realistic / how could that happen" from time to time...but they're generally the same people who have the most difficulty grasping the stock D&D combat system, so I'm sure not going to be adding any additional complexity for them.

 

[sniffles]

Speaking from experience, it is perfectly possible to play D&D combat without using miniatures. Naturally they want to push that aspect to encourage use of their other products, but it can certainly be done without. Or if you want visual aids without purchasing minis, use dice, tokens, or one of the other methods other respondents have mentioned.

As far as AoOs not being "realistic", I had that problem myself, but my fellow players have pointed out to me a simple way of viewing it. Don't worry about fitting in multiple attacks in a round - it's ridiculous to think that you could even execute 2 attacks in six seconds, let alone 4. D&D combat is not intended to simulate reality, and if you start worrying about that you'll just make yourself crazy.

Also, characters are not *required* to make attacks of opportunity. Just because someone provokes one doesn't mean you have to roll for the attack. Maybe that orc doesn't feel like taking his attention away from his immediate opponent to take a whack at PC #1 when he runs by. But aside from making some feats useless, removing AoOs is likely to annoy some of your players, unless your players are all newbies or you have a group that lets you do all the rules interpretation and no one else has access to a Player's Handbook.

 

[IronWolf]

When I first got back into the game it was with the 3.5 books. At first things seemed rather complex, but we played with it that way. And as others said soon it seemed to work pretty well. Sure I still have to look rules up along the way for some of the lesser used things, but heck, I had to do that in AD&D too, so not that much different in that regard.

I, myself, would have a hard time of knowing what to change and how to best change it without having at least seen it in action for several sessions. Then I would know even better what really just wasn't working for me and my game. With that knowledge I would be able to change things more effectively if that is the direction I wanted to go.

As for miniatures, its up to you if you really want to use them or not. They aren't required. Our DM placates us by using minis because several of us do like them. If it wasn't for that I am sure he would rather run combat without them. There are other folks here on the boards that get by just fine without miniatures. So there is that option too.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Mmmm, NWN is pretty far away from 3.5, as far as I know. The unpopular (but actually quite fun) ToEE game was closer, but still missing quite a few things.

Attacks of Opportunity, IMO, take about two sessions to "get" and then become all but a non-issue. They don't come up constantly because once you know what provokes them, you tend to avoid doing those things. So then they don't happen. It's really a mechanic for determining what is appropriate behavior WHEN ... I.E. the Rogue character doesn't skip past 14 skeletons, 1 ogre, 2 chimera, and a dragon to successfully Sneak Attack the enemy wizard on round 1 ... because there's no reason he can't.

You can then say: "You can't." but that becomes an ad-hoc judgement call on your part as the GM. Why can the rogue walk past FIVE skeletons but not TWENTY skeletons? What if the life of an NPC stands in the balance and the rogue WANTS to get to the Evil Wizard and is willing to have something bad happen to his character (or the chance of it) in order to be heroic and save the Damsel in Distress? What if it's the fighter in full plate instead of the rogue? What about the party wizard? Etc etc.

AoO is a mechanic to control those situations. The Rogue is allowed to get past many AoOs through use of the Tumble skill (another change that will occur when you get rid of AoO), but there is usually a chance that he will fail, and thus be open to an AoO. The Fighter can choose to walk past but he doesn't have Tumble ranks and thus will get attacked more often, but will depend on his HP and AC to protect him from the weak flailings of the skeletons. Etc etc.

Without AoOs, why wouldn't a wizard cast Magic Missile to hit the orc threatening him rather than swing with his staff or retreat? Why retreat when he could instead run right up to a frothing mass of Orcs and cast Flaming Hands in their faces? Etc etc.

Once the Dos and Don'ts of AoOs are known by the players, it's really then a mechanic for incorporating danger into dangerous actions. You CAN run up to the orcs and cast Flaming Hands, but you realize there is a hefty opportunity cost to that action. You CAN waltz past the defenders in a dead rush to get to the girl, but there's a cost on that action. Because of those costs the wizards will attempt to stay protected during spellcasting, the Rogues will devote some of their skill points to Tumble, and the Fighter may choose to take Mobility instead of Great Cleave.

There are arguments on both sides for AoOs as realistic or unrealistic, but in the end it comes down to introducing decisions and costs into the game. Just like Hit Points, Armor Class, Spells Per Day, and Sneak Attacks. Each of these offer options and costs associated with those options ... you have the option to stay and fight, or, knowing you have few/low hit points, you may choose to run because losing all of your hit points means you die. It's entirely gamist, but it's a game. Part of the fun is making choices that have costs associated with them.

As for modifiers ... they should usually be added up before the game begins. The Fighter should know what his Final Attack Bonus is with each of the weapons he uses, and he should be able to roll the dice, apply the number, and be done. Spells and effects are where -I- find most of the problems with Number Creep, but that's a whole OTHER bag of rocks to remove all of the spells and effects that add dynamic in-combat number changes. Bless, Fear, etc.

In general I find that about 1/3 of the time, the players forget some of the in-play bonuses. "I miss ... wait, we've got Bless ... I hit!" etc. But it isn't a big deal. If Bob forgets he's under the effects of Bless for the entire combat, it's just something that happened. If he forgets his BAB, that's a larger issue, but it's on the character sheet, and he should have that filled out before the game begins.

As to the "little things" like Darkness, Rain, Wind, etc. Just remember The GM's Best Friend. The Number 2. If you look, most of the penalties are either -2 or a number divisible by 2. This lets YOU forget everything in the book. What happens when they're fighting in the DARK in a tunnel full of WIND? Just give them a -2 penalty to all attacks and a -4 penalty to "ranged attacks" for the wind speed. Probably isn't right, probably what isn't in the book, but she'll do in a pinch.

I've found that players LIKE stuff like that. Alot. Make it complex. Complex combat != Bad Roleplaying, or even a focus on combat. Build fewer Set Piece combats ... a fight in a sloped tunnel with raging wind ... give everyone a -2 to Attacks, and a -2 to any Skill Check that YOU think might be effected by the wind. Or spice it up and give them a DC 10 Balance check every round or be knocked Prone. What's prone? Ohhhh, a little more severe so maybe -4 to attacks? Sounds about right.

Let THEM (the players) keep track of those numbers. For yourself, just note them on your pad of paper before you begin. If you forget, no huge deal. I actually like to make a note on the stat block ... if I know there'll be a windy gully fight, say, I'll edit the Attack Bonus of my major mook beforehand and neglect to make any Balance checks for the bad-guys and have one or two of them slip and fall at dramatically appropriate moments. Good story, fun gaming, no need to flip through the book repeatedly.

If you can't remember a modifier, just decide if it's Mild/Hot/Extra Spicey and give them -2/-4/-6 and keep rolling.

--fje

 

[Slobber Monster]

...
As far as AoOs not being "realistic", I had that problem myself, but my fellow players have pointed out to me a simple way of viewing it. Don't worry about fitting in multiple attacks in a round - it's ridiculous to think that you could even execute 2 attacks in six seconds, let alone 4. D&D combat is not intended to simulate reality, and if you start worrying about that you'll just make yourself crazy.
...

I don't think you realize how long a span of time six seconds really is. A skilled person, in real life, could easily make a dozen jabs with a rapier in that span. The combat round in DnD abstracts all those swings, parries, etc. down to one attack roll. As a character's BAB goes up and iterative attacks figure in, it mostly means that rather than swinging faster, their skill allows them to get more effective swings in that time. An AoO just represents a chance for one more effective swing during that time because your opponent did something that prevented them from trying to parry or dodge your blow.

 

[EdL]

AoO. Your complaint about this really had me scratching my head. If a charcter has 3 or 4 attacks in a round, where does the extra for an AoO come from? Well, if the character is only 1st level he only gets one attack per round. So where do the others come from when he's higher level? The same place the AoO comes from, except that the AoO is more instictive. (I would add a negative modifier instead of getting rid of it, but that's just me.)

Not using minis. I must confess that I've never understood that one. Ok, they can be expensive, but cheap counters will do. Human beings are visually oriented creatures. We get a lot more out of a glance at something then we often do from reading or listening to a description. (I susspect that this is the reason so many people are impatient with flavor text. Show them what you're talking about and they'll not only pay attention, they'll probably notice details that you might never even have mentioned otherwise. We're hard wired that way.) Yes, I've done the visualization bit, but often found that people were not on the same page when it came to exactly where everyone was at any given time. Sure, minor variation were no biggie, but in a grand melee that takes a while the amout of variation can become a considerable factor. But put out the minis (or counters) and everyone knows where everyone else is all the time. Simple, if a bit more time consuming.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I haven't played DnD for some time now, and have recently purchased core and, as of last night, arcana. I've noticed that combat is woefully complicated now. I'm even rather put-off by the adaption of miniatures.

First thing you need to do for moving to 3E rules - FORGET THE OLD RULES. They will NOT help you. There are plenty of things that may seem the same, but simply do not compare with Ye Auld Wayes.

I'd also suggest that you try playing the game as-is for a significant length of time first. It doesn't make sense to assume you already know what the deficiencies are when you don't yet even fully know the system. Learn it first, THEN start to make adjustements to the things that aren't working for you later.

I was already thinking I want to drop AoOs because they don't seem to fit into real life combat*.

Perfect example of jumping the gun. AoO's don't fit into 2E or 1E, but make sense and ensure a certain balance when used in 3E combat. It's if you REMOVE them that you'll need to rebalance combat.

I've also read up on armor as damage reduction, and really like it, although it makes combat more complicated. At the same time, it gives a more direct meaning behind wearing armor, making it less theoretical.

So, you open with a statement that combat is too complicated, and then follow up with wanting to work in a system that you know will... make combat more complicated...?

And I'd also like to hear what poeple think of the miniatures system. It sounds like a big money sink.

It depends on what you're buying, why you're buying them and how much you WANT to spend.

The 3E rules are written to work with miniatures but there's no reason you MUST use them if you don't want to. They're no more necessary now than they have ever been. That said, even if you're just buying the plastic minis for RPG reasons and not for miniatures competition you'll find them less expensive than metal but more problematic to buy. Because they're sold in quasi-random boosters you'll have to find a good online site that sells singles (there are plenty of such sites).

Myself, I bought 2-3 cases of each of the first several expansions and consider it money well spent to have a REAL collection of about 1500 miniatures (1200 of which are now plastic and painted) instead of only a couple hundred metal miniatures 70% of which are unpainted and have been for decades.