Quote from: Benoist;562729So, why do you think these perceptions exist in the first place, Justin?

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;562210That would be a correct assessment if you changed AD&D to something like Mentzer D&D.

Was it Ed Greenwood who said he couldn't deal with the sand-table slowness of BtB AD&D or something?

Quote from: Peregrin;562735Was it Ed Greenwood who said he couldn't deal with the sand-table slowness of BtB AD&D or something?

(nvm, threadcrap)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;562717My argument that it never happens is dumb because it never happens?

Holy fuck, dude. You're an idiot.

It's dumb because it's a waste of time because it's such a simple question no one would ever answer yes.  Just like this is a dumb statement:

"In order to be the president of the United States, you have to be alive.  Therefore, if you're not alive, you can't be president."

I'm sorry you're apparently so full of yourself that you can't see that, but instead need to resort to calling me names.

QuoteOkay, let's analyze what you're claiming here:

(1) AD&D didn't have rules for precisely measuring how far characters could move and attack.

(2) That you provoke AoOs in D&D3 by either entering a threatened area or for making a melee attack within a threatened area.

(3) That you declare your use of the Dodge feat after the attack against you has already been resolved.

(4) That AD&D didn't have rules requiring line of sight.

Every single one of these things is false, betraying a simultaneous ignorance of both AD&D and D&D3.

For someone who likes to call others idiots, I'd hope that you'd not resort to strawmen when trying to prove your point.  Rather, it's more like:

1) AD&D doesn't have rules that specify movement rates that are solely dependent on miniatures on a battlemap.  Perhaps you can show me where in the AD&D DMG is has rules for how far you can move and still attack?  Can you show men where in the DMG it says how to move your character as it is represented by the mini on the map?

2) Can you show me in the AD&D DMG where there are rules for AoO attacks?  Threatened squares?

3) This is a multi-fail on your part.  First and more importantly, the point was that there is such a thing as a dodge feat in 3.5 that is not static (thus making a manual adjustment, and like I said, more manual adjustments = more time to resolve) that does not exist in AD&D.  Secondly, the rules state that you declare who you're dodging against in your action.  Reread what I wrote, because when that action was declared, it was during the character's action.  The PCs action wasn't resolved yet was it?

4) Where in the AD&D DMG does it state that you draw a straight line between minis to determine line of sight?

QuoteEven if we ignore all the other stupid stuff in your "examples", I'm forced to repeat myself: Holy fuck, dude. You're an idiot.

Look in the mirror dude.  But before you do, you might want to actually provide some sort of data that backs up your point that AD&D combat is not faster than 3.5, other than making stupid claims and calling other people idiots.

Now, I can point out the several instances in the AD&D DMG that say things like "arbritrary", and "you'll never account for every modifier" in the context of movement and combat rules, but you were the one to make the claim in the first place that went against common thought, so it's on you to back it up.  I'm starting to wonder if you and Sommerasdfjfdkjfads are alike in that you both like to talk about AD&D but never actually play it.

Quote from: Benoist;562729OK Justin, I get what you're saying.

Now I'm going to try to move past the debate of whether 3rd ed requires minis and grid more than AD&D, because I think we're being bogged down into the rules minutia.

I think it's fair to say that there is a strong perception out there that 3rd ed requires miniatures and mats to play, and/or that playing 3rd ed without miniatures and mat is not playing it "by the book" or "how it was intended" and/or that creates a lot more trouble than it would be using another, prior edition of the game.

Now assuming the perception is actually wrong, it still exists nonetheless. It exists enough for you to constantly have to comment on such presumptions, Justin, and want to rectify these perceptions wherever they show up on a thread.

So, why do you think these perceptions exist in the first place, Justin?

There has to be a reason. What do you think that reason is?

I'm not Justin, but I'll answer anyway.

I think it was because of the illustrated examples, and because they started pushing out the starter kits and adventure materials with full size battlemats to promote the use of their plastic minis.  With relatively easy access to the minis (just not having to paint them was enough incentive for me to buy some) and with a ruleset in place encouraging their use, people got in the habit of thinking of them that way.

Eventually, with the transition to 4e, they transitioned from "Five Foot Square/Hexes" being to standard to just "Squares" as the unit of measurement for the game.  

In my games, most of the players were wargaming vets, so they were used to using the hexes and mini representations, so it actually took more work on my part to keep everyone on the same page when it came to not using them during combat.  I would give a brief recap of what was happening around them at the beginning of every round, which would help out.

With the clarification of the 'withdrawal movement' and tumble checks to avoid aoo's in 3.5, as long as someone wasn't blatantly ignoring an opponent during the combat the aoo stopped being as much of a factor and became more of a flavor thing that only came up once in a while.  It was too easy to assume that anyone trained in combat wouldn't reasonably just turn their back on opponents and jog off begging for a hit in the shoulder blades.

House-rulewise I changed the withdrawal action to allow you to move through any number of threatened hexes without provoking an attack of opportunity against you as long as you could see the opponent and hadn't made any attacks yourself.  Also, you could withdrawal as a move action if combined with total defense, including losing your own aoo's and gaining the extra AC bonus.  The reason for the change was that I used a LOT of guardsmen with pikes in formations, and while I wanted to make them realistically dangerous, I didn't want to murder the PC's every time they showed up, so I wanted to allow them to perform a fighting withdrawal without becoming pincushions for the phalanx.

I like that  rule I'd use it but Fantasy Craft removed AoO's and iterative attacks and uses a simple action economy of 1 full move or 2 half moves.

Nice and simple and more akin to 1/2e which makes it easy to use miniatures and grid or not or something in between.

In translating Living Steel/Phoenix Command (a wargame system if there ever was one) into d20, I wound up splitting the actions up even more, to where the average person had 3 actions, of which two could be movement.  The game focuses more on ranged combat though, so making sure the mechanics for archaic melee combat were fully representative wasn't one of my priorities.  They're there, to be sure, but when the choice is to run up and hit them vs shooting them with your laser rifle at 200m...

There is something to be said for the effects of a power-armored boot to the head though.

The actions had to be split, IMO, to retain some of the feel from the original system; the tracking of 'Do you have your weapon shouldered?  How about pointed at the target?  How much effort do you want to put into aiming it?' was one of the things that I found satisfyingly realistic (which is a personal taste).

In the spirit of where Ben was leading the conversation, however, even in my bastardized wargame varient of d20 for use with modern combat, I didn't have much adherence to 'OMG, we need minis' either.  Especially in terms of ranged combat, it's less of a concern exactly how far you are from a given target, since you normally just need to lump them into a range band and decide if there's any cover to be had.

Quote from: Benoist;562729So, why do you think these perceptions exist in the first place, Justin?

3.5

Also, there are a lot of stupid people in the world. One thing I've noticed about stupid people who play RPG's is that they interpret every option as a mandate. You can see the same stupidity in people who say things like "there are too many supplements for this game".

So when you present a rule system which rewards miniature use without requiring it, these same stupid people interpret it as a requirement.

Sacrosanct seems hellbent on demonstrating this sort of stupidity for all of us in this thread.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;562758Perhaps you can show me where in the AD&D DMG is has rules for how far you can move and still attack?

I mean, seriously. How stupid is this guy?

It's pointless to waste the time necessary to reply to this stuff. Is there really anyone else reading this thread who believes that AD&D didn't have rules governing movement during combat?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;5630383.5

Also, there are a lot of stupid people in the world. One thing I've noticed about stupid people who play RPG's is that they interpret every option as a mandate. You can see the same stupidity in people who say things like "there are too many supplements for this game".

So when you present a rule system which rewards miniature use without requiring it, these same stupid people interpret it as a requirement.

Two questions.

Are you saying that the perception that 3rd ed required miniatures to play did not exist before 3.5 was published?

Are you saying that only stupid people would perceive 3rd ed as requiring miniatures?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;563038I mean, seriously. How stupid is this guy?

It's pointless to waste the time necessary to reply to this stuff. Is there really anyone else reading this thread who believes that AD&D didn't have rules governing movement during combat?

So that's a "no" then?  I mean, you seem to be content to sling insults rather answer some simple questions.

Grow a pair and back up your assertions rather than act like a 6 year old.  It's not the difficult.  If all you claim is true, then I'd hope you could show me where these rules are.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;563092So that's a "no" then?  I mean, you seem to be content to sling insults rather answer some simple questions.

Grow a pair and back up your assertions rather than act like a 6 year old.  It's not the difficult.  If all you claim is true, then I'd hope you could show me where these rules are.

Actually me too. But it's well known I'm stupid and play dumb games like Mage and Fantasy Craft but it's cool remember I'm stupid.  Talk slow and explain please.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;563092So that's a "no" then?  I mean, you seem to be content to sling insults rather answer some simple questions.

Grow a pair and back up your assertions rather than act like a 6 year old.  It's not the difficult.  If all you claim is true, then I'd hope you could show me where these rules are.

I don't have my 1e books here, and haven't played it recently enough to remember specifics from the books, but I have a digital copy of OSRIC, which seems pretty much true to the concept, so:

The answer is:  Up to double your movement and attack (charge).  Otherwise you can't move and attack.  (pg 121 of OSRIC)

Also, AoO's in 1e/OSRIC:

Quotefleeing from combat: Often, discretion is the better part of valour, and the characters will choose to exercise the said discretion at top speed. If a character is in melee combat and runs away, his or her opponent(s) may make an immediate additional attack at +4 to hit.

Again, I'll qualify those answers with 'They're from OSRIC', but afaik those are both aspects of the game that would result in a significant change to the original system if they didn't include them as closely as possible to verbatim.

Sounds exactly as I remember 2e and run FC. You get a +4 if your opponent just decides to run willy nilly, with no thought of personal defense.  Makes sense, see Marley actually reads books, yes? So explain to me the NOT obvious. Which for the uninitiated is EXACTLY how FC runs. Any other questions?

The NOT obvious?

All the conditions that we see in 1e (10' standard movement distance, cautious movement into combat, charging into combat to create an opening to attack, automatic attacks on a fleeing opponent, etc) are designed around making sure that the general feel of a mass medieval combat are brought into skirmish scale units.

Because the rules were designed by historical wargamers who had read fantasy novels and wanted to tell their own stories.  So, in its ancestry, 1e was developed off a miniatures game, then expanded to allow for more character driven action, at which point the minis game became less of the focus.

Overall, I think that the constant bombardment of 'no really, do you think you need minis for this game?' is silly.  If motivated, you could run Warhammer 40k without any minis and be just fine.  On the same token, if it enhances the game for the particular group, you could run Vampire with a full hex sheet and minis.  Everything is going to depend on what the group wants to do and what they're comfortable with, and there's no valid way to say that a particular game requires minis or not.

Benoist:  I'm not trying to derail the theoretical line you're on, I still stand by my assertion that it was created as a marketing move by WotC, but the meta-questions you're asking keep getting lost in the static.

Quote from: Benoist;563042Are you saying that the perception that 3rd ed required miniatures to play did not exist before 3.5 was published?

No. I've met people who claimed that 2nd Edition couldn't be played without miniatures. It just requires a slightly denser level of stupid than if you're reading the miniature marketing material in 3.5.

QuoteAre you saying that only stupid people would perceive 3rd ed as requiring miniatures?

Yes.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;563092So that's a "no" then?  I mean, you seem to be content to sling insults rather answer some simple questions.

If you're willing to:

(a) Acknowledge that you actually believe that AD&D lacked rules governing how far characters could move in a round of combat; and

(b) Admit that you're goddamn idiot if you're wrong about that

I'll look up the page reference for you.

Otherwise you're just wasting our time with your stupidity.

I will also look it up if literally anyone else in this thread is willing to stand up and say: "I agree with Sacrosanct. AD&D didn't have rules telling you how far you can move and attack in a round." (I'm fairly confident no one else is that goddamn stupid, though.)