The beautiful/terrible thing is everyone is right!  The 1e DMG is not a document one can really go btb without rolling a sanity check.  Think of it more like an actual mystical text that has layers, symbols and rituals and any different number of interpretations.

The fact that the 1e books are so low tech and 'DEMONIC" is rather interesting when one considers an observation by one of the artists at the NY Gallery show/followup presentation (Tavis was MC).  He did research on real world arcane tomes and demons/devils and noted that the art was really not that different, in style or polish between 1e and "real" magic books.

Quote from: Benoist;563183Though 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.

I agree.

FWIW my experience has been that 3e (and 3.5e, with slight tweaking) works fine without minis, and I've often used it for play by email, play by post etc games. However when I tried to run 4e D&D (online) without minis I ended up sketching the combat out on a grid just as if there were minis.  So IME 3e/3.5e does not require minis or equivalent visual presentation of combat, but 4e actually does.

Quote from: S'mon;564610I agree.

FWIW my experience has been that 3e (and 3.5e, with slight tweaking) works fine without minis, and I've often used it for play by email, play by post etc games. However when I tried to run 4e D&D (online) without minis I ended up sketching the combat out on a grid just as if there were minis.  So IME 3e/3.5e does not require minis or equivalent visual presentation of combat, but 4e actually does.

S'mon, I have dm'ed and played in 4E games withut minis or a grid extensively, what made you feel you had to use a grid?

I am curious.

Quote from: Bill;564715S'mon, I have dm'ed and played in 4E games withut minis or a grid extensively, what made you feel you had to use a grid?

I am curious.

I was running 'Rescue of Princess Sylvia' from 'B9: Castle Caldwell & Beyond' with 2 4e PCs, 5th & 6th level, in a chatroom game. When the Warlock PC started using area-burst attacks on the goblins, especially one that tore up the ground, I found myself calculating the terrain area effected by squares.  It was almost a psychic compulsion imanent in the ruleset. I never had that compulsion running 3e/3.5e online. 4e just seems to take place in a battlemat-shaped universe.

Quote from: S'mon;564821I was running 'Rescue of Princess Sylvia' from 'B9: Castle Caldwell & Beyond' with 2 4e PCs, 5th & 6th level, in a chatroom game. When the Warlock PC started using area-burst attacks on the goblins, especially one that tore up the ground, I found myself calculating the terrain area effected by squares.  It was almost a psychic compulsion imanent in the ruleset. I never had that compulsion running 3e/3.5e online. 4e just seems to take place in a battlemat-shaped universe.

Don't spells have specific grid area of effect in 3E/3.5? I don't see why the version of the game matters.

Quote from: StormBringer;564563And what is section D directly before that say?

Let's review:

(1) I cite the "close to striking" rules as being one rule which covers movement during combat.

(2) You claim that "close to striking" doesn't happen during combat.

(3) I point out that "close to striking" is step 4E of the "steps for encounter and combat", and that if step 4E isn't part of combat then step 4D (missile fire) must not be either.

(4) You then ask what section 4D is.

I mean, the only way that could possibly be relevant is if you were going to engage in some sort of bizarre goalpost-moving in which you claim that we were specifically talking about "melee combat" and not "combat" in general...

Quote from: Justin Alexander;564560I predict his next step will be to start moving the goalposts like crazy.

Quote from: StormBringer;564563So, 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?

Called it.

What a fucking moron.

At least he's stopped claiming that the word "miniature" isn't mentioned in the "USE OF MINIATURE FIGURES IN THE GAME" section. That was kind of embarrassing. Although he is still obsessing over an off-hand description not matching the text of the exact rule, although that probably has less to do with stupidity and more to do with mendacity.

Oh, you're back?  Great.  How about showing me where in the AD&D DMG it says how to move your minis during combat?

How about showing me in the DMG where it says what's a threatened area and what actions trigger an attack of opportunity (and no, the grapple thing doesn't count for reasons I already explained why it's not an AoO earlier)

How about showing me where it says that you can't apply your dodge bonus during your action in 3.5 like I gave the example for?  You called me an idiot for not knowing anything about the system for that, so show me where I was wrong.

How about showing me in the AD&D DMG where is explains the mechanics on how to figure out line of sight in a combat encounter with the grid?


Or maybe you'll just call someone another name and continue to fail at backing up your claims.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;564914Called it.

What a fucking moron.

I couldn't have said it better.   :rolleyes:

Quote from: Bill;564841Don't spells have specific grid area of effect in 3E/3.5? I don't see why the version of the game matters.

Nope. Templates are included for area effects if you're using grids, but all measurements for spells are in real world measurements. (And in 3.0 all measurements in the entire system are in real world measurements. This remains true in 3.5, although the miniature marketing occasionally obfuscates it.)

Quote from: Bill;564841Don't spells have specific grid area of effect in 3E/3.5? I don't see why the version of the game matters.

3e/3.5e spell aoes are eg "a 20' radius burst", which is then translated into squares on a grid. 4e spells are boxes covering a specific number of squares, eg a "burst 3" is a 7x7 square box. It's a subtle distinction but I find it has a big effect on play.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;564914Let's review:

(1) I cite the "close to striking" rules as being one rule which covers movement during combat.

(2) You claim that "close to striking" doesn't happen during combat.

(3) I point out that "close to striking" is step 4E of the "steps for  encounter and combat", and that if step 4E isn't part of combat then  step 4D (missile fire) must not be either.

(4) You then ask what section 4D is.

I mean, the only way that could possibly be relevant is if you were  going to engage in some sort of bizarre goalpost-moving in which you  claim that we were specifically talking about "melee combat" and not  "combat" in general...

Then perhaps you shouldn't talk about melee combat specifically:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;563244And 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).

I assume you were just going to wait until you got backed into a corner to start talking about missile fire, then.

"Called it."

But yes, let's review:

Quote(3) I point out that "close to striking" is step 4E of the "steps for   encounter and combat", and that if step 4E isn't part of combat then   step 4D (missile fire) must not be either.

Step E and later could be part of 'combat', while step D and earlier could be part of 'encounter'.  There are some pretty dangerous consequences to firing into a melee, which are detailed elsewhere.  Hence, after close quarters combat is joined, steps A through D are not often needed, except towards the end.  Or did you think that avoiding combat was also a part of combat?  Perhaps it's your considered opinion that a pack of short sword wielding goblins 200yds out who are being peppered with heavy cross-bow fire are engaged in combat in some meaningful way.

For bonus points, you could maybe describe how "Close to striking range" and "Melee at the end of charge" are related to your now expanded argument that includes missile fire, discharging magical items, casting spells, and turning undead.  Because you didn't say anything about those before.

Here is the list in full:

Quote1. 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 actions 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.

I assume you had a paragraph or two where it says section 4 must absolutely be resolved in the order listed.  In other words, weapon attacks must be resolved before grapple or hold attempts are made, and before weapon attacks can be made, the party has to decide whether or not to set for a charge, correct?

Also:

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.)

Moving on:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;562069The AoO-like mechanics in AD&D1 were more complicated, more diverse, and more difficult to apply. This appears to be one of those "if we ignore the rules in AD&D, then..." arguments.

a) Point out the AoO-like mechanics in AD&D.
b) Point out the AoO mechanics that apply to missile fire.

And...

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.)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;564914Called it.

What a fucking moron.

Says the one who thinks opponents determine how many figures fit in a square:
 

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.)

Care to run over your explanation on this yet?

QuoteAt least he's stopped claiming that the word "miniature" isn't mentioned in the "USE OF MINIATURE FIGURES IN THE GAME" section. That was kind of embarrassing. Although he is still obsessing over an off-hand description not matching the text of the exact rule, although that probably has less to do with stupidity and more to do with mendacity.

You really need to start responding to the posts that are here rather than the ones in your head.  You also might want to look to yourself in obsessively making an 'off-hand description' of squares mean AD&D combat is more complicated than 3.x and later.

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.)

Didn't someone already point out the AoO like dealie with free attack on retreats from 1e?

Quote from: Teazia;565097Didn't someone already point out the AoO like dealie with free attack on retreats from 1e?

Sure, page 70, "Breaking off from melee":

QuoteAt such time as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and flee the melee. To do so, however, allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a stunned opponent. When this attack is completed, the retiring/fleeing party may move away at full movement rate, and unless the opponent pursues and is able to move at a higher rate of speed, the melee is ended and the situation becomes one of encounter avoidance.

So, we might call this the spiritual ancestor of attacks of opportunity.  Nonetheless, more of a common sense rule than an attempt at codifying 'attacks of opportunity', wouldn't you say?

A specific action that comes up pretty rarely would hardly add significant handle time to a combat session, yes?  Actions that trigger AoO in 3.x are generally intuitive, but there are a few that don't spring instantly to mind.  I will grant that they don't add much to handle time individually, but they do require a bit more processing time to verify if an unusual case comes up.

So, this one very specific instance can hardly be compared to the wide array of codified AoO in 3.x.  And I can't even begin to imagine a world where 'if you turn your back on someone, they get a free attack' could even remotely be described by:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;562069The AoO-like mechanics in AD&D1 were  more complicated, more diverse, and more difficult to apply.

That's complicated?  That's difficult to apply?  And I have no idea what 'diverse' is even supposed to mean in that sentence, let alone why it would be bad.

Quote from: S'mon;5649543e/3.5e spell aoes are eg "a 20' radius burst", which is then translated into squares on a grid. 4e spells are boxes covering a specific number of squares, eg a "burst 3" is a 7x7 square box. It's a subtle distinction but I find it has a big effect on play.

It has no effect on me, but I can't speak for others.

5' is 5' with or without a grid.

I don't really do anything differently with or without a grid.

Grids do allow for a more precise tracking of where things are, but I find the grid slows down play and adds nothing to the game.

I do love looking at miniatures though!  I just dont think they actually make the game better.

Quote from: Bill;565157It has no effect on me, but I can't speak for others.

5' is 5' with or without a grid.

I don't really do anything differently with or without a grid.

Grids do allow for a more precise tracking of where things are, but I find the grid slows down play and adds nothing to the game.

I do love looking at miniatures though!  I just dont think they actually make the game better.

With 3e/3.5e I'm translating real-world measurements to the grid.
With 4e I'm given grid measurements, then to play without minis I'd have to actively abstract it, translate it into real-world measurements, and I found I just ended up recreating the grid in my head/on paper.  
I'm sure it can be done though, if I got my mind right.

Quote from: Teazia;564604The beautiful/terrible thing is everyone is right!  The 1e DMG is not a document one can really go btb without rolling a sanity check.  Think of it more like an actual mystical text that has layers, symbols and rituals and any different number of interpretations.

The fact that the 1e books are so low tech and 'DEMONIC" is rather interesting when one considers an observation by one of the artists at the NY Gallery show/followup presentation (Tavis was MC).  He did research on real world arcane tomes and demons/devils and noted that the art was really not that different, in style or polish between 1e and "real" magic books.

There is a little something of the Goetia in the DMG, its true...

RPGPundit