Quote from: Justin Alexander;560626In order to resolve an AoO you need to know two things:

(1) Can character X be hit by character Y?
(2) What is character X doing?

If you can't answer those questions without using miniatures, then you can't run combat in any system without using miniatures.

That's a screwy way to look at it, because who the hell needs a miniature to know what their character is doing?  So in 99.999% of cases, item #2 isn't true, therefore the hypothesis is also false.

QuoteBased on extensive, recorded experience with both OD&D and 3.X I would say that this is objectively and categorically not true in terms of actual resolution time.
.

Not saying you're experience is wrong, but any system that requires more modifiers to add and subtract for each action is going to result in a longer resolution time, all else being equal.

Quote from: Fifth Element;560663Just play D&D and you'll be fine. As long as you play it right.

He says play it right, as if.

Quote from: Marleycat;560392To be fair 3.0 is far faster than 3.5. I never knew anybody to run 3.5 gridless tell me how it works out.

I ran 3.5 gridless (as needed),  but I specifically rejected using the 3.5isms that made using the grid more compulsory (ex: tracing lines across corners to determine cover, as opposed to picturing the situation in-world as in 3e).

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;560751I ran 3.5 gridless (as needed),  but I specifically rejected using the 3.5isms that made using the grid more compulsory (ex: tracing lines across corners to determine cover, as opposed to picturing the situation in-world as in 3e).

I guess that's what I would do also.

Quote from: everloss;560588I was under the impression that 3.5 was just mini's rules tacked on to 3.0. I don't know though, as I haven't played either. I would, but I don't know anyone who plays them. That goes for Pathfinder, as well.

3e has mini-rules already.  3.5 was more rules heavy because of common complaints about abuse, and edge cases.  A lot of spells were changed, pretty much anything with a 1min/caster level duration in 3.5 had a 1h/CL in 3e, some of the 'necessary feats' from splatbooks were transferred over to the core rulebooks.  A lot of minor math fixes like the two Spell Focus feats providing a cumulative +2 Save DC instead of +4, et cetera.  IIRC Persistent Spell was unchanged, which seems like one of those majorly 'exploited' things in 3e, but I assume it must be a 'must have' feat at other tables than just mine so was kept in.

As far as not needing minis for AoO, this is as true as it was when they were introduced via Skills & Powers in 2e, but without minis to keep track of facing you will probably make them more powerful than they would be 'by the book'.  Not that they are gamebreaking anyway, especially in 3.5, so I don't see why it would even be worth stressing about.

I do think 3.x took longer to resolve combat than 2e though, especially beyond the first few levels.

As I've said before, I tend to use a whiteboard to rough-in the map, but never really felt that a grid added much to the game, whether 3.0, 3.5, or Pathfinder.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;560684That's a screwy way to look at it, because who the hell needs a miniature to know what their character is doing?  So in 99.999% of cases, item #2 isn't true, therefore the hypothesis is also false.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. But it appears to be complete nonsense on multiple levels. Would you care to rephrase?

(Let me unpack that: You need to achieve both #1 and #2 in order to resolve an AoO. Trying to isolate #2 as you seem to be doing here is irrelevant. Second, the fact that you can achieve both #1 and #2 reliably without miniatures is not "screwy". It is, in fact, the entire point. Are you really not comprehending that?

I'm also unclear on what the "hypothesis" is that you think is false. You seem to be asserting that you don't need to know what your character is doing in order to resolve AoOs. But since AoOs are provoked based on the actions your character is taking, I'm unclear on how you could possibly believe that to be true.)

QuoteNot saying you're experience is wrong, but any system that requires more modifiers to add and subtract for each action is going to result in a longer resolution time, all else being equal.

First, this is only true if the modifiers in question need to be individually added to the attack roll at the time of resolution. Compared to AD&D, 3.5 combat actually has considerably fewer modifiers that need to be applied on-the-fly.

Second, you're ignoring quite a bit of territory with the "all else being equal" assumption.

Quote from: Peregrin;560510I think I'm going to have to go with Vulmea and say that pirate hats are cooler.

Damn straight.

With the above "flying ship" under 3.5E I had a simple diagram in mind:

- From the bridge to the main mast: one move action.
- From the main mast to the bow: one move action

----> From the bridge to the bow: one full action.

- From the bridge to the lower deck: one move action
- From the lower deck to the bridge: a full action
- From one broadside to the other: one move action (except at the bow).

Done.

We played for one year with this in our minds and it worked flawlessly. When there was some doubt I drew a crude diagram, and that was it. No mins, no "anal corner counting", and fast, exciting combats.

I could go on and on re: how we treated other situations, but this was the gist of it.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;560971I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. But it appears to be complete nonsense on multiple levels. Would you care to rephrase?

(Let me unpack that: You need to achieve both #1 and #2 in order to resolve an AoO. Trying to isolate #2 as you seem to be doing here is irrelevant. Second, the fact that you can achieve both #1 and #2 reliably without miniatures is not "screwy". It is, in fact, the entire point. Are you really not comprehending that?

I'm also unclear on what the "hypothesis" is that you think is false. You seem to be asserting that you don't need to know what your character is doing in order to resolve AoOs. But since AoOs are provoked based on the actions your character is taking, I'm unclear on how you could possibly believe that to be true.)

Well, I suppose I could try writing it in crayon or pictures next time if that's easier.  Here is what you said:

QuoteIn order to resolve an AoO you need to know two things:

(1) Can character X be hit by character Y?
(2) What is character X doing?

If you can't answer those questions without using miniatures, then you can't run combat in any system without using miniatures.

Hypothesis in bold.  I said that part 2 will also be one that doesn't need minis in 99% of the scenarios.  So if your hypothesis is dependent on a 'yes' answer to a question that pretty much always results in a 'no', then it's a false hypothesis.

Quote. Compared to AD&D, 3.5 combat actually has considerably fewer modifiers that need to be applied on-the-fly.

.

Objectively false.  We can count them out if you want.  In AD&D, almost all attacks use the same modifiers.  For example, a +2 dmg for strength, +1 TH for wpn spec, and +2 dmg for wpn spec.  In the vast majority of attacks, that's going to be +1 TH and +4 dmg on most attacks.  In 3.5, you have several feats that change from round to round.  My cleric had +4 TH due to zen archery, but -2 TH if using rapid shot.  And +1 if I had weapon focus, and some more negative modifiers for manyshot if I use that, not to mention that every attack after the first often has a different BAB, etc.

3.5 simply has a lot more options available to a character from round to round that infer a bonus or penalty that AD&D simply doesn't have.  There is absolutely no way it has "considerably fewer" modifiers than AD&D.

And my "all else being equal" meant that both examples had the same weapons, class, and attributes.

Quote from: Marleycat;560686He says play it right, as if.

I could be more precise if this site had sarcastica amongst its fonts.

Quote from: Fifth Element;561275I could be more precise if this site had sarcastica amongst its fonts.

Wait you need FONTS for that? Did I miss a secret memo or something?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;561062Hypothesis in bold.  I said that part 2 will also be one that doesn't need minis in 99% of the scenarios.  So if your hypothesis is dependent on a 'yes' answer to a question that pretty much always results in a 'no', then it's a false hypothesis.

What are you dense, are you retarded? (I'm the goddam Batman!)

He's specifically saying that 3.5 is no different from 3e/2e/OD&D in that if you possess both abilities, you can run any of those systems without a grid, and if you can't, then you can't do it in any system.

When you get mad and start saying "If your hypothesis is dependent on a 'yes' answer to a question..." he is rightfully confused. Because his entire point is that whether the answer is yes or no, 3.5 is still the same as 2e either way. He doesn't require a yes to either question.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;561062In 3.5, you have several feats that change from round to round.  My cleric had +4 TH due to zen archery, but -2 TH if using rapid shot.  And +1 if I had weapon focus, and some more negative modifiers for manyshot if I use that, not to mention that every attack after the first often has a different BAB, etc.

3.5 simply has a lot more options available to a character from round to round that infer a bonus or penalty that AD&D simply doesn't have.  There is absolutely no way it has "considerably fewer" modifiers than AD&D.

Except that as he said, you don't have to calculate those on the fly. You can just have all those listed on your sheet, and use whichever is appropriate. The fact that secondary attacks have a different BAB is irrelevant to figuring out their values in advance, and then just applying them when it comes up.

Quote from: Marleycat;561300Wait you need FONTS for that? Did I miss a secret memo or something?

You need fonts for that if you are unable to properly convey sarcasm with the written word.

Quote from: StormBringer;561369You need fonts for that if you are unable to properly convey sarcasm with the written word.

No worries then.