Quote from: Panzerkraken;563132I 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:


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.

Not only does AD&D not have those rules that are that explicit, and certainly not on the level of 3.5, but if you look at the example dungeon crawl that starts on page 97 of the DMG, you'll notice that movement rates and distances of PCs is largely glossed over as a quick arbitrary ruling.

For example:

PC: "I rush over to attack."
DM: "Ok, roll to hit."

Notice there is no time spent making sure that the exact distance can be covered or even taking the time to move the minis on the map, nor is there time spent fiddling with rules like "Can I move half my rate and still attack?  What's a full action vs. standard action?' etc.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;563162If 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

Well, that would be quite the strawman, so no.  Go back and look at my post and reread what I had said.  All of it, not don't delete out relevant parts

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

OK, here's the bet.  If you want me to admit I'm a goddamn idiot, I will as soon as you show me those passages that answer my 4 points I submitted earlier.  Otherwise you admit you're a goddamn idiot.  Or don't you have the onions to practice what you preach?

QuoteI 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.)

That's because you're asking someone to agree with your strawman rather than what I actually said, because I have never said that "AD&D never has any rules for movement and combat in the same round."  Granted, I can't find them, but that's not the point.  The point is that I said this, in the context of comparing AD&D vs. 3.5:

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?

So show me.

You made the claim.  You back it up.  Show me in the AD&D DMG where it proves my 4 points wrong.

I'll wait.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;563149The 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.

Holy Batman!  Wall of Text. If you expect me to answer keep it short. I get bored, remember I am a girl with all that entails ..need I be obvious?

Sacrosanct just made this thread into time for...:popcorn:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;563165AD&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?

There are general movement rules, which is all a decent player needs, really.  Nothing specific for a separate kind of movement during combat, and absolutely nothing in terms of 'squares'.

So, there is one agreement.

Quote from: StormBringer;563177There are general movement rules, which is all a decent player needs, really.  Nothing specific for a separate kind of movement during combat, and absolutely nothing in terms of 'squares'.

So, there is one agreement.

"Squares" are for nerdy guys and 4e. Only one I like ...it's multiple choice even.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;563149Benoist:  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.

Yes, I'll agree it's a marketing move, and one they heavily influenced in the design of 3.X

I don't remember anyone demanding a hex map in 2E (well, except for overland travel), where it seems like the default assumption in 3.X

Quote from: Panzerkraken;563149Benoist:  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.

Well to me it's not an hypothetical in the sense that there is a strong perception out there that 3rd ed is the edition that requires miniatures to work, with the possible exception (i.e. perceived as requiring minis and grid even more) being 4th ed with its multitude of power effects like push, pull, slide, units in squares and so on.

I really don't think that 3rd ed is perceived that way "because people are stupid," as Justin believes. It's a dismissive answer because he's pissed at explaining always the same stuff, that you can play 3.0. without minis and such, but I really do think there are reasons for this perception to exist. Part of it lies in the very design of 3rd ed, how the tactical encounter supported by elements like CRs and ELs was built into the system at its core unit, which meshed with the idea of using a bunch of miniatures on the table to track attacks of opportunity, the metagame precision of feats and the like, the overall pedagogy of combat in 3rd ed and the like.

Though I think there is a case to be made about not using minis and grids with 3rd ed, I think that perception is very real, with actual reasons, in part because of the marketing of WotC, the development of the line that gave us 3.5 ultimately, but also because of the way the system itself was designed, of this multiple details that combine with each other to create the perception that 3rd ed indeed is best played when it is a tactical skirmish miniatures game played on a mat and so on.

Quote from: StormBringer;563177There are general movement rules, which is all a decent player needs, really.  Nothing specific for a separate kind of movement during combat, and absolutely nothing in terms of 'squares'.

So, there is one agreement.

After looking, I can find them now.  1 paragraph.  Know what it says?

Close to Striking Range:

This merely indicates that the party concerned is moving at base speed to engage the opponent.  The base speed is inches, indicating tens of feet in the dungeon or similar setting indoors, tens of yards outdoors.  All normal activity and bonuses are permitted when so doing.  This action is typically taken when the opponent is over 1" distant but not a long distance away.  Play goes to the next round after this, as melee is not possible, although other activity can, of course, take place such as that detailed above.

Noticeably absent are those rules that describe partial movements vs standard vs full actions.  Also absent are instructions on how to maneuver your mini on the game map.

No, what is there, is, "Usually more than 10 feet away indoors (or 10 yards away outdoors) is too far to move and make an attack, but that's just a guideline."

Which is in perfect alignment with the rest of the manual, and its repeated usage of words and phrases like "arbitrary" and "DM's discretion."  Like I said earlier, it was such a non-issue in AD&D that they didn't even mention movement rates in combat in the 3 page example of a dungeon exploration.  You simply didn't waste your time in AD&D making sure every 5' or 10' square was accounted for like in 3.5; you just went on the fly.  Which was sort of my point all along.

However, now I anxiously await Justin to provide me the pages in the AD&D DMG that details the rules I was looking for in my above 4 points.

Quote from: Benoist;563183Well to me it's not an hypothetical in the sense that there is a strong perception out there that 3rd ed is the edition that requires miniatures to work, with the possible exception (i.e. perceived as requiring minis and grid even more) being 4th ed with its multitude of power effects like push, pull, slide, units in squares and so on.

I really don't think that 3rd ed is perceived that way "because people are stupid," as Justin believes. It's a dismissive answer because he's pissed at explaining always the same stuff, that you can play 3.0. without minis and such, but I really do think there are reasons for this perception to exist. Part of it lies in the very design of 3rd ed, how the tactical encounter supported by elements like CRs and ELs was built into the system at its core unit, which meshed with the idea of using a bunch of miniatures on the table to track attacks of opportunity, the metagame precision of feats and the like, the overall pedagogy of combat in 3rd ed and the like.

Though I think there is a case to be made about not using minis and grids with 3rd ed, I think that perception is very real, with actual reasons, in part because of the marketing of WotC, the development of the line that gave us 3.5 ultimately, but also because of the way the system itself was designed, of this multiple details that combine with each other to create the perception that 3rd ed indeed is best played when it is a tactical skirmish miniatures game played on a mat and so on.

Can't you ever be concise?  You answered your own question.  It's quite literally a change in terminology combined with Wotc's business model.

Quote from: Marleycat;563192Can't you ever be concise?  You answered your own question.  It's quite literally a change in terminology combined with Wotc's business model.

That's called making an argument and developing one's thought so that the interlocutor, Justin and Panzer in this case, mostly, can understand what you have in mind, Marley.

This aside, I appreciate that you have a tendency to post whatever comes to mind before thinking it through, but that starts to annoy the fuck out of me, to be honest. The constant threadcrapping noise was fine when it was confined to the Wizard v. Fighter thread, but if you start brainfarting compulsively on every thread to boost your post count, that's not going to go over well with me. Just my two cents.

Quote from: Benoist;563193That's called making an argument and developing one's thought so that the interlocutor, Justin and Panzer in this case, mostly, can understand what you have in mind, Marley.

This aside, I appreciate that you have a tendency to post whatever comes to mind before thinking it through, but that starts to annoy the fuck out of me, to be honest. The constant threadcrapping noise was fine when it was confined to the Wizard v. Fighter thread, but if you start brainfarting compulsively on every thread to boost your post count, that's not going to go over well with me. Just my two cents.

Talk on then. I'm just asking you to get to the point so I can respond. Like now. Seriously I have no time or interest in bullet pointing my argument or view.  Get to point and defend it is my motto.

Quote from: Benoist;563183I really don't think that 3rd ed is perceived that way "because people are stupid," as Justin believes. It's a dismissive answer because he's pissed at explaining always the same stuff, that you can play 3.0. without minis and such, but I really do think there are reasons for this perception to exist.

...the way the system itself was designed, of this multiple details that combine with each other to create the perception that 3rd ed indeed is best played when it is a tactical skirmish miniatures game played on a mat and so on.

The Combat chapter of the PHB in 3e starts out discussing the use of a combat grid and miniatures, and from there you get visual depictions of combat actions being resolved with a grid.

The DMG came with a perforated sheet with 1"x1" squares IIRC.

A regular ritual with a few of my gaming buddies back in our late 2e days was reading Skip William's Dragon column 'Ask the Sage' or whatever it was called, which was about adjudicating rules decisions in 2e, and it was our general perception that it was overly legalistic (now you could say it favored RAW over RAI heavily, but at the time we didn't know those terms) and that his style of play didn't mesh with ours for that reason.  That a lot of his rulings had things regarding 'drawing a line of effect' which implied a completely non-ad hoc/theatre of the mind way of drawing that line.  I'm positive that Skip didn't play 2e without minis.  More importantly, looking at those columns retrospectively, it lends itself more to the kind of game 3e became and he was one the lead designers of that edition.

So I don't think this was a calculated, business move on WotC's part entirely.  I think that while it's more associated with 3e, Monte, Skip and crew were very likely playing 2e and probably before as tactical skirmish wargames, and were generally a bunch of rules lawyers that needed a very specific, legalistic RAW ruleset to adjudicate at the table, which means no ad hoc decisions on terrain, distance, cover, visibility, et cetera.

You can definitely get away without minis in 3e though, so long as the classes with movement based features don't have a problem with it.  4e with its' compulsory movement is definitely more mini-mandatory though.  It was a neat idea, but way too many powers used the mechanic.  It's a headache even with the minis, because you are moving them too often, it becomes way too much a focus of the fight.  If something can only move on its' own initiative (for the most part) that's no big deal, but if you can go through multiple consecutive rounds of combat where half of the minis in the conflict get moved around, what pain in the ass that was.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;563165OK, here's the bet.  If you want me to admit I'm a goddamn idiot, I will as soon as you show me those passages that answer my 4 points I submitted earlier.

Okey-doke.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;5627581) AD&D doesn't have rules that specify movement rates that are solely dependent on miniatures on a battlemap.

Dungeon Master's Guide, pg. 10

QuotePerhaps you can show me where in the AD&D DMG is has rules for how far you can move and still attack?

Dungeon Master's Guide, pg. 66 (among other places; it's not a very well-organized rulebook)

QuoteCan you show men where in the DMG it says how to move your character as it is represented by the mini on the map?

Dungeon Master's Guide, pg. 10

Quote2) Can you show me in the AD&D DMG where there are rules for AoO attacks?

AoO, of course, is a term of art dating to 2E grouping together a number of mechanics which were previously ungrouped. But, as one example, you'll find the rules for AoO's provoked by unarmed grapplers on pg. 73 of the DMG. Armed opponents would be allowed to strike the unarmed grappler first, and if the attack was successful that "indicate that the attacker trying to grapple, pummel or overbear hos been fended or driven off, and the attack is unsuccessful. The weapon-wielder then has the opportunity to strike at the weaponless one "for real", if he or she so chooses." Sound familiar?

We're skipping three here because you didn't actually ask for a passage reference in that point.

Quote4) Where in the AD&D DMG does it state that you draw a straight line between minis to determine line of sight?

Nowhere. Nor did I claim that it did.

And now we all wait with baited breath for Sacrosanct to admit that he's a goddamn idiot.

(We, of course, know he won't. Why? Because he's a goddamn idiot.)

Quote from: Marleycat;563231Talk on then. I'm just asking you to get to the point so I can respond. Like now. Seriously I have no time or interest in bullet pointing my argument or view.  Get to point and defend it is my motto.

I don't need you to respond to what I'm saying, since it wasn't originally adressed to you. I don't have to care whether you answer or not. So you'll excuse me but I don't really give a shit if you feel like being lazy and don't read my posts. That one's on you, dear. You want to participate? Stop being lazy. Read. Then either (1) make a fucking point, or (2) shut the fuck up, instead of ranting like you've lost your marbles.

PS: Are you drunk right now, or are you just trolling for the lulz?