Grossout
First Post
I posted once or twice on this site about a year ago, trying to get advice on whether or not 3E was for me. Folks were generally very helpful with advice and insight, but the consensus was that it would be a good idea to pick up the starter box set (or whatever it was called) to give it a try. So I did. It came with the complete players guide in soft cover as well as some minis and other stuff. Nice stuff. I checked out the complete set, reading the PG twice over and came to the conclusion that no, D&D 3.5E was not for me.
See, I haven’t played since 2E and even then, I guess it was a “stripped-down” version of 2E, though at the time, I didn’t know it. I was pretty young and just showed up to play my character. By “stripped-down”, I guess I mean that we didn’t use minis or worry too much about encumbrance, among a lot of other things that I now realize were part of the rulebook. The thing is, I had blast with it.
Combat was so simple and fun. We didn’t worry about being flat-footed, or having multiple attacks. I’d pretty much just declare who I was attacking, and which weapon I was going to use. Then I’d roll. Most of the time, my only other option was to run. Sure, we would try to “surprise” a group of monsters on occasion, but once the fight started, most of the combat tactics that I read about in 3E were nonexistent. I guess those concepts and tactics consisting of being able to move X amount of “squares” gives no excitement to me. If I’m fighting, I’m swinging my weapon or casting my spell. And if I’m losing, then I’m running. DM rolls to see if we’re pursued. I hate the exactness of squares. They're good for the DM's personal map, but seem to take away from the storytelling of the fight, not to mention a chore.
From what I can remember, if a battle lasted a long time, it was because the monster and/or the party were rolling low and missing – not because we were fanatically maneuvering around the room to gain a combat advantage. While I can see how some people would enjoy that part of the game, to me it’s a little too much like chess. I don’t want to think a whole lot while I fight.
Anyway… what am I getting at? It’s funny, but I couldn’t be more excited for 4E! I keep reading that the goal is to make it much easier to learn and run. Sounds like a great idea. The problem is, I still see that a lot of the concepts that turned me off about 3E are resurfacing (the rogue’s new “three step shift” move?). Ugh.
What I’m hoping for is a game that is completely playable without minis or stand-ins of any kind. A game I can play completely with my imagination. I thought that was the point in the first place? I’m not saying that the “chess-like” parts of the game should be removed, as they’re obviously not going to be. I would just like to play the game minus that stuff without throwing off the balance of the game. After all, if you take away all those moves, what fun would it be to play a rogue?
Couldn’t I still use some cool moves without being so specific about squares? Couldn’t I just declare to my DM that I’d like to “hide in the shadows and try to backstab the biggest orc?” Then he’d say “okay, roll for it and we’ll see if he notices you.” Instead of the “three step shift”, couldn’t I just declare that I’d like to “quick retreat” or whatever – maybe it could still be called “three step shift - without having to visibly see it on the table. Example: The orc is kicking my butt. I’m gonna use my quick retreat move to get out of the way, so he doesn’t get a free attack on me as I turn my back. I roll for it. It works. I’m out of the melee. Why do I need squares? I hate squares. Anyone agree with me, or am I way too out of touch? Anyone at least see where I’m coming from?
I guess I’m interested to see just how Wizards is going to make the game easier and faster. I don’t know how anyone could not be in favor of that. I like the concept of D&D enough that I would LOVE to DM sometime, something I’ve never done in any edition before. There’s no way I could run a 3.5E game. Here’s hoping squares or no squares, 4E is for me.
Any thoughts?
See, I haven’t played since 2E and even then, I guess it was a “stripped-down” version of 2E, though at the time, I didn’t know it. I was pretty young and just showed up to play my character. By “stripped-down”, I guess I mean that we didn’t use minis or worry too much about encumbrance, among a lot of other things that I now realize were part of the rulebook. The thing is, I had blast with it.
Combat was so simple and fun. We didn’t worry about being flat-footed, or having multiple attacks. I’d pretty much just declare who I was attacking, and which weapon I was going to use. Then I’d roll. Most of the time, my only other option was to run. Sure, we would try to “surprise” a group of monsters on occasion, but once the fight started, most of the combat tactics that I read about in 3E were nonexistent. I guess those concepts and tactics consisting of being able to move X amount of “squares” gives no excitement to me. If I’m fighting, I’m swinging my weapon or casting my spell. And if I’m losing, then I’m running. DM rolls to see if we’re pursued. I hate the exactness of squares. They're good for the DM's personal map, but seem to take away from the storytelling of the fight, not to mention a chore.
From what I can remember, if a battle lasted a long time, it was because the monster and/or the party were rolling low and missing – not because we were fanatically maneuvering around the room to gain a combat advantage. While I can see how some people would enjoy that part of the game, to me it’s a little too much like chess. I don’t want to think a whole lot while I fight.
Anyway… what am I getting at? It’s funny, but I couldn’t be more excited for 4E! I keep reading that the goal is to make it much easier to learn and run. Sounds like a great idea. The problem is, I still see that a lot of the concepts that turned me off about 3E are resurfacing (the rogue’s new “three step shift” move?). Ugh.
What I’m hoping for is a game that is completely playable without minis or stand-ins of any kind. A game I can play completely with my imagination. I thought that was the point in the first place? I’m not saying that the “chess-like” parts of the game should be removed, as they’re obviously not going to be. I would just like to play the game minus that stuff without throwing off the balance of the game. After all, if you take away all those moves, what fun would it be to play a rogue?
Couldn’t I still use some cool moves without being so specific about squares? Couldn’t I just declare to my DM that I’d like to “hide in the shadows and try to backstab the biggest orc?” Then he’d say “okay, roll for it and we’ll see if he notices you.” Instead of the “three step shift”, couldn’t I just declare that I’d like to “quick retreat” or whatever – maybe it could still be called “three step shift - without having to visibly see it on the table. Example: The orc is kicking my butt. I’m gonna use my quick retreat move to get out of the way, so he doesn’t get a free attack on me as I turn my back. I roll for it. It works. I’m out of the melee. Why do I need squares? I hate squares. Anyone agree with me, or am I way too out of touch? Anyone at least see where I’m coming from?
I guess I’m interested to see just how Wizards is going to make the game easier and faster. I don’t know how anyone could not be in favor of that. I like the concept of D&D enough that I would LOVE to DM sometime, something I’ve never done in any edition before. There’s no way I could run a 3.5E game. Here’s hoping squares or no squares, 4E is for me.
Any thoughts?
