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'.

For your edification, StormBringer, AD&D1 actually does talk about using miniatures in terms of squares.

DMG, pg. 10: "... having sheets of squares for encounter area depiction will probably be quite helpful. If you do, be certain to remember that ground scale differs from figure scale, and when dealing with length, two man-sized figures per square is quite possible, as the space is actually 6 scale feet with respect to length."

(It goes on from there to explain that two man-sized figures can only fit in a square if they're fighting a snake; if they're fighting a bipedal opponent they can't.)

And it does have combat-specific movement rules scattered around in various places. For example, the "Close to Striking Range" and "Melee At End of Charge" rules on pg. 66 of the DMG. And, of course, there are also the general movement rules in the PHB on pg. 102 (which include breaking down movement into both rounds and, for the purposes of combat, segments).

Anyone wanna take a bet that Sacrosanct doesn't even know what a segment is?

(We won't be able to settle it, of course, because he's apparently wised up and is now actually looking in the AD&D manuals before saying stupid shit about the game that isn't blatantly untrue at a casual glance. I count that as progress of a sort.)

Quote from: Benoist;563243I 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?

Neither, I think you're being a pissant and am in no mood for wordplay.  Given you basically called me drunk and stupid for real. It's really is that simple.  See, just a paragraph to say what I mean. Though I am sleepy but that is not an excuse, just fact. I have to work tomorrow so excuse me if I don't respond quickly to your reply.  Which likely will be more insults about me. Sad.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;563244For your edification, StormBringer, AD&D1 actually does talk about using miniatures in terms of squares.

You may not be familiar with this concept, but the appearance of the word 'squares' in a given paragraph doesn't mean the central idea of that paragraph is 'squares'.

QuoteDMG, pg. 10: "... having sheets of squares for encounter area depiction will probably be quite helpful. If you do, be certain to remember that ground scale differs from figure scale, and when dealing with length, two man-sized figures per square is quite possible, as the space is actually 6 scale feet with respect to length."

Care to include the first part of that sentence?  I mean, it's not like there is half a page the ellipsis is abbreviating.  You know what, it's ok.  I'll include it here:

"While you may not find it convenient to actually use such figures and floor plans to handle routine dungeon movement, having sheets..."

Whether that first part is included or not, however, it doesn't even approach the level of 'mild suggestion', let alone 'rule'.  If you want to dredge up this age-old and still incorrect argument, that paragraph is a remarkably weak place to start.

Quote(It goes on from there to explain that two man-sized figures can only fit in a square if they're fighting a snake; if they're fighting a bipedal opponent they can't.)

And following that with the most blatant misread in the history of the written language isn't a good place to be.
"This is meaningful when attacking a snake, dragon, etc. if characters are able to attack the creature's body length.  With respect to basically bipedal, erect opponents, scale will not be a factor."

In other words, attacking the broad side of a dragon allows for two people to stand next to each other in a six foot wide space.  When facing other humanoids, it doesn't matter because it will be essentially toe-to-toe.

Absolutely nothing about movement in relation to squares, and a pretty vague guideline for allowing two regular sized humanoids to stand next to each other and attack the same 'section' of a large creature.

QuoteAnd it does have combat-specific movement rules scattered around in various places. For example, the "Close to Striking Range" and "Melee At End of Charge" rules on pg. 66 of the DMG. And, of course, there are also the general movement rules in the PHB on pg. 102 (which include breaking down movement into both rounds and, for the purposes of combat, segments).

Under "Further Actions" we find...

QuoteClose 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 ore 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.

(emphasis mine)

Hence, not really a rule regarding movement during combat because it explicitly states this movement is to engage the enemy.  Also, this is in the section called Combat that begins on page 61, which is quite clearly a detailed breakdown of the various actions most frequently used immediately before or during combat.  "Further Actions" is very obviously a miscellaneous category, and the inclusion of 'Close to Striking Range' merely provides a shorthand for the players.  Again, this is barely a mild suggestion, let alone any kind of rule.

QuoteMelee At End of Charge:
Initiative is NOT checked at the end of charge movement. The opponent with the longer weapon/reach attacks first.  Charging creatures gain +2 on their "to hit" dice if they survive any non-charging or charging opponent attacks which occur first. Weapon length and first strike are detailed under Strike Blows.  

Only one charge move can be made each turn; thus an interval of 9 rounds must take place before a second charge movement can be made.

Wow, that is intricate.  I mean, setting aside that it doesn't mention miniatures or 'squares' at all, it only comes up once every ten rounds (a turn) at most.  I am not seeing this adding a whole lot of handle time to combat.

Quote(We won't be able to settle it, of course, because he's apparently wised up and is now actually looking in the AD&D manuals before saying stupid shit about the game that isn't blatantly untrue at a casual glance. I count that as progress of a sort.)

You might want to double check who is saying stupid shit.  I fully understand the double whammy of gainsaying the Almighty Justin Alexander when he makes an easily contradicted statement and stating 3.5 is not complete perfection written by no less than Christ Himself will completely shut down your ability to interact with reality.  But just this once, you might want to take a step back and perhaps re-assess your general opinions that 'Justin Alexander is never wrong', and '3.x is the pinnacle of game design'.  You have started out with an incredibly bizarre reading of the passages you note, and it will just be downhill from here for you.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;563234The 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.

While I agree that it was probably the direction that the senior speaking members of the D&D community were going, I think that the specific decision to take 3.x more in the direction of needing minis was a business decision.  We're talking about the game company that went from publishing Talisantia to being sued by Palladium to finally being sold to Hasbro for more than a quarter billion dollars, so it's reasonable to assume that they have some experience with recognizing trends and exploiting them for their profit.  And I'm pretty sure that the minis line has been very, very profitable for them, although nothing by comparison to MTG and Pokemon.

So maybe they just saw that people were leaning that way and decided to give them a shove.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;563241Okey-doke.



Dungeon Master's Guide, pg. 10

Stormbringer already explained why this is fail.  Not to mention, where on page 10 does it give rules for moving a mini on a battlemap?  Since we're comparing it to 3.5, where are the rules that say how many squares you can move, direction, etc?

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

Fail #2.  I already mentioned this (see above.)  That's not exactly a rule.  And again, as we're comparing this to 3.5, where does it state exactly how far you can move for a partial action vs a standard action vs a full action?  It gives just a vague suggestion, not a hard rule.  Words like "typically" should be a tip off for you.

QuoteDungeon Master's Guide, pg. 10

Where?  What sentence says how you move your mini on the map?  Fail #3.

QuoteAoO, 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?

Fail#4.  No, because they are completely different.  Where to start?  Oh, maybe about how there is none of those rules tell you that an opponent gets a free attack whenever an enemy moves within a threatened radius.  It's extremely specific to grappling rules for one, when the defender has a weapon, and when that defender is being attacked by the grappler.  How often does that come up in game play?  How often does AoO come up in 3.5?  That is not a attack of opportunity anything like in 3.5.  Do defenders have threatened squares in general? Or get free attacks on anyone moving into them?  Or when a caster cast's a spell or a PC drinks a potion?

Holy Cow...

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

Oh, so you say I fail to know anything about 3.5 because that's not how dodge works, I point out to you that yes, in fact you can, and you're response is to just "I'm skipping that part."?

I'm beginning to see a trend in your integrity here.

QuoteNowhere. Nor did I claim that it did.

You made a strawman, saying I was an idiot for believing that AD&D didn't have rules for line of sight.  Well, if I was wrong, where are those rules in the AD&D DMG on ensuring that line of sight is met?  Remember, we're talking about comparison to 3.5, and the entire context is how 3.5 has rules that lengthen out combat that AD&D doesn't have.  Rules like line of sight.

QuoteAnd 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.)

You sure are a certain kind of special, aren't you?  You haven't provide one thing that actually proves me wrong, and yet continue to call names.  What are you, 12?

Quote from: Panzerkraken;563259While I agree that it was probably the direction that the senior speaking members of the D&D community were going, I think that the specific decision to take 3.x more in the direction of needing minis was a business decision.  We're talking about the game company that went from publishing Talisantia to being sued by Palladium to finally being sold to Hasbro for more than a quarter billion dollars, so it's reasonable to assume that they have some experience with recognizing trends and exploiting them for their profit.  And I'm pretty sure that the minis line has been very, very profitable for them, although nothing by comparison to MTG and Pokemon.

So maybe they just saw that people were leaning that way and decided to give them a shove.

I'm pretty sure their minis line was a huge flop, and aren't they discontinued now?  Their minis came randomly assorted, which makes buying them not even an option.  I'd have to spend hundreds of dollars to get a group of the same low level monster, when I could just buy most of those monsters from some Warhammer army or some other wargame.

Although, yes I'm sure there was an economic incentive, I also think that it catered to the playstyle of WotC's devs.

I'll chime in by giving my 2 cents, based on my experience from BECMI to Pathfinder:

YAWN

Quote from: Marleycat;563249Neither, I think you're being a pissant and am in no mood for wordplay.  Given you basically called me drunk and stupid for real. It's really is that simple.  See, just a paragraph to say what I mean. Though I am sleepy but that is not an excuse, just fact. I have to work tomorrow so excuse me if I don't respond quickly to your reply.  Which likely will be more insults about me. Sad.

Girl, I travelled for two days over half British Columbia. Then I twisted my back trying to cut my dog's nails. I've been having three shitty nights in a row. I'm moving around like a headless chicken visiting family, shopping, going for appointments with the vets and doctors and shit.

AND I manage to actually fucking make sense when I post.

So your rant is really nice and all, but kindly go fuck yourself. Call me when you decide not to be a lazy poster who doesn't read other people's posts and somehow has the gall to blame it on them and demand respect afterwards.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;563241And 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: Sacrosanct;563299You sure are a certain kind of special, aren't you?

Called it.

Although demanding citations of particular types of rules from AD&D and then complaining because those rules aren't identical to the rules in D&D3 does require a special breed of stupidity. So congrats on selecting that from your intellectually dishonest attempt to move the goal-posts yet again. And bonus points for being upset that I failed to cite something for you point #3 despite your point #3 not requesting a citation of anything.

For a goddamn idiot you are at least creative in your idiocy.

Quote from: StormBringer;563258Whether that first part is included or not, however, it doesn't even approach the level of 'mild suggestion', let alone 'rule'.  If you want to dredge up this age-old and still incorrect argument, that paragraph is a remarkably weak place to start.

Ah. Right. I'd forgotten that you were the moron who thinks the only way a rulebook can include rules for miniatures is if the rulebook mandates the use of miniatures and cannot be used in any other way.

QuoteHence, not really a rule regarding movement during combat because it explicitly states this movement is to engage the enemy.

... and apparently also the moron who doesn't believe that combat doesn't start in AD&D until melee happens. (What? Ranged combat doesn't exist in AD&D according to you?)

See, Benoist? These are the types of stupid people I'm talking about.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;563503Called it.

Called what?  That I should admit to the strawman you created because I never actually said it?  Fuck that noise.

Fact:  You made claims
Fact: I asked you so show me the pages and quotes since you were apparently so smart
Fact: You couldn't back up anything, and instead provided only vague references that weren't even close proving what I was asking for.

And now you're claiming victory?

Wow.

QuoteAlthough demanding citations of particular types of rules from AD&D and then complaining because those rules aren't identical to the rules in D&D3 does require a special breed of stupidity.

They weren't even close.  Screw identical.  You resort to strawmen and red herrings, and when called on it, you fall back on personal insults?

You have a serious problem dude.  And you're not convincing anyone here any different.

Ah the joys of free speech at the RPGSite . How it engenders the free and frank discourse of ideas and through Socratic dialogue creates a fuller and more complete knowledge of our hallowed hobby.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;563503Ah. Right. I'd forgotten that you were the moron who thinks the only way a rulebook can include rules for miniatures is if the rulebook mandates the use of miniatures.

Well, having the rulebooks specifically talk about miniatures is a better place to start than assuming that using the word 'squares' means it can only be referring to miniatures.  So, checkers is a game that uses miniatures, according to your view.  Further, because there is a section describing handguns, we can assume that AD&D is actually a game about the old west?

And I have no idea who you are referring to with that last sentence, but you quoted my post.  You might want to double check that and see if the other person is interested in engaging in that line of argumentation.  You can probably do a member search for 'strawman'.

Quote... and apparently also the moron who doesn't believe that combat doesn't start in AD&D until melee happens. (What? Ranged combat doesn't exist in AD&D according to you?)

Hmmm...  You seem to be unable to scroll back and read your own posts, or recall what you typed earlier.  I'll save you the trouble:  the section you were talking about is called "Close to striking range".  As in, moving towards an opponent before combat begins in order to engage them in melee.  Missile combat is a separate section.

QuoteSee, Benoist? These are the types of stupid people I'm talking about.

From the one who can barely comprehend the most basic of passages from the DMG:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;563244(It goes on from there to explain that  two man-sized figures can only fit in a square if they're fighting a  snake; if they're fighting a bipedal opponent they can't.)

I mean, that takes a real effort to misunderstand things that completely.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;563351I'm pretty sure their minis line was a huge flop, and aren't they discontinued now?  Their minis came randomly assorted, which makes buying them not even an option.  I'd have to spend hundreds of dollars to get a group of the same low level monster, when I could just buy most of those monsters from some Warhammer army or some other wargame.

Although, yes I'm sure there was an economic incentive, I also think that it catered to the playstyle of WotC's devs.

While they are discontinued now, there was a period of 2+ years where WotC did not produce any RPG material, but instead rolled out successive waves of Star Wars Mini's, because they were far, far more profitable (the license was tied to "games", and didn't make a distinction between Mini's and RPG's, though it specifically forbade "electronic media", as a separate license).

It eventually folded (seriously, how many Unique Darth Vader's do you think players want? I have 8...), but for a time, it was a better money-maker than print.

Quote from: StormBringer;563517

Quote

QuoteHence, not really a rule regarding movement during combat because it explicitly states this movement is to engage the enemy.

... and apparently also the moron who doesn't believe that combat doesn't start in AD&D until melee happens. (What? Ranged combat doesn't exist in AD&D according to you?)

I'll save you the trouble: the section you were talking about is called "Close to striking range". As in, moving towards an opponent before combat begins in order to engage them in melee.

At this point, of course, it's clear that you've never actually played AD&D. But is it possible that you don't actually own the book you're talking about?

Flip to page 51 and we read:

Quote from: Dungeon Master's GuideThe steps for encounter and combat are as follows:

1. Determine if either or both parties are SURPRISED.
2. Determine distance, if unknown, between the parties.
3. If both parties are unsurprised, or equally surprised, determine INITIATIVE for that round.
4. Determine the results of whatever action are decided upon by the party with initiative:

A. Avoid engagement (flee, slam door, use magic to escape, etc.) if possible.
B. Attempt to parley.
C. Await action by other party.
D. Discharge missiles or magical device attacks or cast spells or turn undead.
E. Close to striking range, or charge.
F. Set weapons against possible opponent charge.
G. Strike blows with weapons, to kill or subdue.
H. Grapple or hold

5. Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the party which lost the initiative (as per A. through H. above)

6. Continue each melee round by determination of distance, initiative, and action until melee ends due to fleeing, inability to continue, or death of one or both parties

Emphasis added.

You fucking moron.

Quote from: StormBringer;563517Well, having the rulebooks specifically talk about miniatures is a better place to start than assuming that using the word 'squares' means it can only be referring to miniatures.

For those of you who don't own the 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide, I want you to really appreciate that he's claiming that a section titled "USE OF MINIATURE FIGURES WITH THE GAME" doesn't use the word "miniature".

Of course, since we were actually talking about the use of miniatures and/or grids, this guy is also claiming that "squares" don't equate to "grids".

What a fucking moron.

I predict his next step will be to start moving the goalposts like crazy. He is, after all, just as stupid as Sacrosanct is.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;564560Emphasis added.

You fucking moron.

And what is section D directly before that say?

So, while it's probably a better idea for you to get back on your medication first, did you want to talk about melee or missile combat?

QuoteFor those of you who don't own the 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide,

I am pretty sure you are a member of this cohort.

QuoteI predict his next step will be to start moving the goalposts like crazy. He is, after all, just as stupid as Sacrosanct is.

Between charging, closing to striking range and missile fire, you have been doing a fine job of moving them all over the place.

Speaking of, did you have an explanation for this:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;563244(It goes on from there to explain that  two man-sized figures can only fit in a square if they're fighting a  snake; if they're fighting a bipedal opponent they can't.)

... or did you want to keep hoping no one would notice?

Look, you hit gold once with your assessment of 4e.  Rest on those laurels, because you clearly don't know one fucking other thing about D&D in general, and AD&D specifically.  If your interpretation that the number of combatants that fit in an area with a 6ft face depends on whether or not they are fighting a snake, I have serious doubts your apprehension of English is very strong, either.