Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zaruthustran" data-source="post: 1007779" data-attributes="member: 1457">Re: Re: Minis and 3.5I think he's referring to the fact that the combat examples in the Combat chapter use top-view photographs of plastic miniatures on a battlemat. These graphics replace the black-and-white illustrated counters that were in the 3E books.What I don't understand is why there's any controversy over this at all. People have played D&amp;D with miniatures since before D&amp;D was formally introduced as D&amp;D! So what's the problem? Are people upset that the rule books provide clear rules for using minis in games, making it easier than ever to keep track of positions, cover, and spell effects?Seriously, maybe some folks are upset that D&amp;D--always a turn-based tactical fantasy combat game--is becoming even more of a turn-based tactical fantasy combat game. By this I mean that before 3E, movement was pretty generalized, there were no AoOs, and spell effects were kind of fuzzy. In 3E (and 3.5) movement and spell effects are very clearly defined, and the use of a grid makes the combat much more... defined. Maybe some players are worried that putting so much emphasis on the positions of playing pieces on a physical table, the game is pulling emphasis from the richly imagined battlefield in the mind.I know that happens to me. When I play D&amp;D without minis, I remember the battles like battles in a good book: dynamic, visceral, realistic. When I play D&amp;D with minis, I remember the battles as little pieces moving around on a table crowded with pop cans and cheetos.-z, suddenly undertanding the anti-mini view and realizing what he's been missing from &quot;the old days&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zaruthustran, post: 1007779, member: 1457"] [b]Re: Re: Minis and 3.5[/b] I think he's referring to the fact that the combat examples in the Combat chapter use top-view photographs of plastic miniatures on a battlemat. These graphics replace the black-and-white illustrated counters that were in the 3E books. What I don't understand is why there's any controversy over this at all. People have played D&D with miniatures since before D&D was formally introduced as D&D! So what's the problem? Are people upset that the rule books provide clear rules for using minis in games, making it easier than ever to keep track of positions, cover, and spell effects? Seriously, maybe some folks are upset that D&D--always a turn-based tactical fantasy combat game--is becoming even more of a turn-based tactical fantasy combat game. By this I mean that before 3E, movement was pretty generalized, there were no AoOs, and spell effects were kind of fuzzy. In 3E (and 3.5) movement and spell effects are very clearly defined, and the use of a grid makes the combat much more... defined. Maybe some players are worried that putting so much emphasis on the positions of playing pieces on a physical table, the game is pulling emphasis from the richly imagined battlefield in the mind. I know that happens to me. When I play D&D without minis, I remember the battles like battles in a good book: dynamic, visceral, realistic. When I play D&D with minis, I remember the battles as little pieces moving around on a table crowded with pop cans and cheetos. -z, suddenly undertanding the anti-mini view and realizing what he's been missing from "the old days". [/QUOTE]

Verification