Quote from: StormBringer;565022Step E and later could be part of 'combat', while step D and earlier could be part of 'encounter'.

... and now you're back to claiming that ranged attacks aren't part of combat.

What a fucking moron.

QuoteI assume you had a paragraph or two where it says section 4 must absolutely be resolved in the order listed.

You can't possible be this stupid can you? Oh, wait. Of course you are.

I'm the one saying that the entirety of Step 4 takes place during combat. That means that the order in which those steps are resolved is irrelevant to what I'm saying.

You, on the other hand, just claimed that steps 4A-4D could happen before combat while "Step 4E and later" would be the only bit that would actually count as combat. In other words, you're the idiot who needs those steps to be resolved in the order listed in order to be correct.

Despite that, for reasons which are completely incomprehensible to anyone with an IQ higher than their eyeball count, you're demanding that I provide citations for your bullshit.

Is it that you're completely incompetent? Or are you just hoping that everybody else reading this thread is?

In any case, I think I've gotten sufficient amusement from "Just How Stupid Will StormBringer & Sacrosanct Be Today" game for the moment.

TTFN.

Better luck next time.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;565904Better luck next time.

Who needs luck with someone as ridiculously stupid about AD&D as you (actually, any RPG that isn't D&D 3.x)?

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;565904You, on the other hand, just claimed that steps 4A-4D could happen before combat while "Step 4E and later" would be the only bit that would actually count as combat. In other words, you're the idiot who needs those steps to be resolved in the order listed in order to be correct.

I was offering an alternate interpretation so you could back out quasi-gracefully, but like your sheer inability to understand rules, you totally failed to grasp it.

Since you have yet to mention so much as one AoO like action in AD&D, I will narrow it down for you.  What AoO are triggered by missile weapons in 3.x?  Because if there aren't any, then this whole diversion into missile weapons was an intentional dodge on your part.  You know, since you totally failed to actually back up your AoO assertion in regards to AD&D.  I mean, we aren't even remotely near the point of discussing the relative difficulty (you claim AD&D's is greater) or complexity (again, your claim is that AD&D's is greater).  The only things you have mentioned are charges (melee), close to striking range (melee), and grappling (melee).  It took someone sensible (ie, not you) to bring up turning and fleeing as being similar to an AoO rule.

So:
a) List of AoO like mechanics from AD&D
b) Explain 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.)

So I guess that's a "no" then, for answering my questions re: showing me where your claims of rules equivalency are in the AD&D DMG.


Man, what a bad ass.

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.

Totally true: you can ace a gelatinous cube with a fireball; the trouble comes when the cube starts rolling towards you...

Quote from: Justin Alexander;564922Nope. 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.)

During my first run with D&D/AD&D (1983-1989 circa) we always played gridless with chits (usually stolen from boardgames like "Magic Realm" or "Zargo's Lords"), improvised props and and inch ruler stolen from my father (he was an engineer - here in Italy we normally use cms). It worked beautifully.

Then this second run started mapless with only some exceptions (mostly putting down props or doing a sketch on a piece of paper to clarify a situation) and it worked even more beautifully.

Now that we are playing Pathfinder, and our DM wanted to try grid combat - just to see how it is. We are having great fun, and it is obvious how "totally mapless" combat basically ditches half of the rules and of the interesting tactical situations (my management of "attack reach" was always... improvised, in the best of cases).

However, we also agree that the kind of situations you IMAGINE when fighting with only verbal descriptions has no match. When I think back to some famous battles we had in the past I could even describe you the lighting ("The twilight is, all of sudden, shattered by a blinding, amber-blue arc of lightning. Everything is eerily delineated by stark, half-chromatic colors, and razor-sharp shadows - before the dark after-effect basically blinds you. Roll for initiative").

In Pathfinder, no matter what, I see a bunch of miniatures on a mapgrid - not much different from what one would see in a game of Arkham Horror.

Interestingly enough, we grasped at once the 1-2-1 nature of diagonal movement. It isn't even a "slow down". I always maintained that "1 diagonal = 1!!! It is fun!!!!" was the very symbol of 4E failure, and this, more than anything else, was the last nail on the dead horse.