Quote from: Kaelik;561364What are you dense, are you retarded? (I'm the goddam Batman!)

I think my irony meter just broke.

QuoteHe'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.

I don't think you know what the word "specifically" means.  Because that's not what he said.  For one, he said minis, and not grid.  Those aren't the same (because I can use minis but not use a grid).  He said that if you answer no to either of those questions, then you can't play ANY combat system without miniatures.  I pointed out how #2 is irrelevant because you might as well be saying "if you can't resolve D&D combat without a dice roll, then you can't resolve combat in D&D."  What I mean by this is why ask a question that's always going to be the same answer?  Who doesn't know what their character is doing, regardless if you have minis or not?

QuoteExcept that as he said, you don't have to calculate those on the fly.

Where exactly did he say that you don't have to calculate those modifiers on the fly?  Come on, you said I was retarded.  If you're gonna say something like that, I'd hope that you yourself would be smart enough to be able to provide quotes for what you're saying someone said.

What he did say was this:

Quotethis is only true if the modifiers in question need to be individually added to the attack roll at the time of resolution.

I hope your not retarded enough to know the difference between what you claimed he said, and what he actually said.  He didn't say you don't have to calculate those on the fly, he said that only if you do, than 3.5 is slower.

QuoteYou 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.

Yeah, if you want 10 pages on your character sheet.  Who the hell plays like that?  I haven't even seen any official 3.5 character sheets that have a place for every single modifier combination for every single feat combination.  Don't be ridiculous.   You do understand that if you have 5 feats that you can use in any one round, and each feat offers a different modifier, then you have 120 different possible combinations of feats.  You expect me to believe that you write all of those down?

Yeah, OK.  Either way, the claim was that there are no more modifiers on the fly in 3.5 as there are in AD&D.  I've already listed out why this is not true.  If you think it is, list out all the possible modifiers on the fly in AD&D, and compare to 3.5.  I'd bet you that you'll have more in 3.5 just because there are a ton more rules around things like that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;561383Yeah, if you want 10 pages on your character sheet.  Who the hell plays like that?  I haven't even seen any official 3.5 character sheets that have a place for every single modifier combination for every single feat combination.  Don't be ridiculous.   You do understand that if you have 5 feats that you can use in any one round, and each feat offers a different modifier, then you have 120 different possible combinations of feats.  You expect me to believe that you write all of those down?

Um... What? There are not five feats that are on/off.

I mean, if you are an archer, there are three. Rapid Shot, Manyshot, and Point Blank Shot. Point Blank is literally +1 to two things, so you could probably manage that without any increase in resolution, but even if you couldn't, that's still only four options, because Rapid Shot and Manyshot couldn't be on the same time. And of course, you shouldn't even be taking both of those at once.

That's the point. You can actually write out all your options. You can do that because most feats are always on effects, and you don't need lots of different entries. Four is the maximum I would expect from anyone.

Quote from: Kaelik;561389Um... What? There are not five feats that are on/off.

I mean, if you are an archer, there are three. Rapid Shot, Manyshot, and Point Blank Shot. Point Blank is literally +1 to two things, so you could probably manage that without any increase in resolution, but even if you couldn't, that's still only four options, because Rapid Shot and Manyshot couldn't be on the same time. And of course, you shouldn't even be taking both of those at once.

.

And the Dead Eye Feat
And the Elven Archery feat
And the Expert Aim feat
And the Improved Far Shot feat
And the Pinpoint Shot feat
And the Well Practiced Aim feat

etc, etc.

Wow, I've only played 3.5 once, and I've already pointed out your fail.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;561390And the Dead Eye Feat
And the Elven Archery feat
And the Expert Aim feat
And the Improved Far Shot feat
And the Pinpoint Shot feat
And the Well Practiced Aim feat

I'm sorry WTF? Are you claiming 3.5 has problems because a bunch of homebrew feats made by someone on the internet are part of the problem?

Well what about the 2e options:

"Called shots
Called Shottts
Called Shottsdsds
Called Shotts asds"

?

I made all of them up right now, but since feats made by random people on the internet are part of the problem of 3.5, surely random things made up by people on the internet for 2e are also a problem.

Haha, you fail so bad.

Quote from: Kaelik;561391I'm sorry WTF? Are you claiming 3.5 has problems because a bunch of homebrew feats made by someone on the internet are part of the problem?

Deadeye Feat is obviously the Deadeye Shot from the PHBII. The rest seem to be Netbook of Feats stuff. However, using the various splatbooks does open up a bounty of various feats.

Quote from: StormBringer;560382I've had whole combats finish up faster than one 3.x round.

I once played in a 3.x game where a single combat took 3 sessions to get through.

Another one of those reasons I hate 3rd edition (4th edition was also too long, but the different powers made it a bit more interesting/bearable for me).

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.

Once again you're posting unintelligible nonsense.

I think what you're trying to say with your horribly broken English is that the hypothesis "you need miniatures to run combat if you can't answer the questions listed above without miniatures" is false because most people don't need miniatures to answer those questions.

But that doesn't make the hypothesis false, it just means that most people don't need miniatures to run combat. Nor do they need them in order to resolve AoOs.

QuoteWell, I suppose I could try writing it in crayon or pictures next time if that's easier.

Crayons probably wouldn't help with your illiteracy. Maybe try pictures? Or just stop posting nonsense altogether? Whatever works for you.

Quote from: jgants;561542I once played in a 3.x game where a single combat took 3 sessions to get through.

That doesn't really tell us much, though.

I once ran a 3.X combat that took 8 hours of playing time. That might sound horrible, but it lasted for 87 rounds, involved 150+ combatants, and was spread across more than two dozen keyed locations (some of which were actually miles apart from each other).

If I'd run a comparable encounter in OD&D or AD&D, it would have taken just as long.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;561660Crayons probably wouldn't help with your illiteracy.

I created a number purely for you. Try posting for once without using it.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;561660Once again you're posting unintelligible nonsense..

Then let me break it down into short sentences for you.

You don't need miniatures to answer what your character is doing.

Ever.  That makes your 2nd part always false.

So if you base your statement dependent on that part being true, then it will also always be false.

Always.



So it was a completely useless statement to make, because you can never have your hypothesis be true.  It's like saying:

In order for 2+4 to equal 7 the following must be true

1. 7 and 6 have swapped places and definitions.

It's obvious that has never happened, nor will ever happen, so why make the claim in the first place?


Also, you haven't shown one bit of evidence that shows that AD&D is just as slow to resolve combat than 3.5 in regards to modifiers.  I've already given examples of situational modifiers in 3.5 that don't exist in AD&D.  Most people know that with more modifiers, that takes more time to calculate.  That's common sense.

Quote from: SacrosanctAlso, you haven't shown one bit of evidence that shows that AD&D is just as slow to resolve combat than 3.5 in regards to modifiers. I've already given examples of situational modifiers in 3.5 that don't exist in AD&D. Most people know that with more modifiers, that takes more time to calculate. That's common sense.

What earthly reason would they have for recalculating all their modifiers every time?

Every character I've ever played with has (or shortly has after I notice them lacking it) a running list down the side of their 'attacks' column with all the 'd20+xx' numbers for their common attacks.  Anything else is the DM's responsibility to tell them to apply before they roll, and they should honestly have thought about any character situational modifiers prior to their turn... so instead of

"Ok, base attack six plus strength four plus weapon focus one plus two for flanking plus fourteen on my die what was my other modifier?"

it should be more

"Yeah, 11 plus two for flanking is 13 plus 14 is 27 minus whatever mods you have for me."

Of course, this assumes that the DM is familiar enough with his characters to know what their general base attack modifiers are.

You're talking the same way as though someone was recalculating their hit chance from their base THAC0 every time instead of putting it all in a nice line on their sheet where they can just reference it based on the die roll.

In the simplest sense, 3.5 could be faster, without having to worry about iterative attacks based on weapon speed and spell casting time.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;561668What earthly reason would they have for recalculating all their modifiers every time?

Every character I've ever played with has (or shortly has after I notice them lacking it) a running list down the side of their 'attacks' column with all the 'd20+xx' numbers for their common attacks.  Anything else is the DM's responsibility to tell them to apply before they roll, and they should honestly have thought about any character situational modifiers prior to their turn... so instead of

"Ok, base attack six plus strength four plus weapon focus one plus two for flanking plus fourteen on my die what was my other modifier?"

it should be more

"Yeah, 11 plus two for flanking is 13 plus 14 is 27 minus whatever mods you have for me."

Of course, this assumes that the DM is familiar enough with his characters to know what their general base attack modifiers are.

You're talking the same way as though someone was recalculating their hit chance from their base THAC0 every time instead of putting it all in a nice line on their sheet where they can just reference it based on the die roll.

In the simplest sense, 3.5 could be faster, without having to worry about iterative attacks based on weapon speed and spell casting time.

There are more situational modifiers in 3.5 than in AD&D.  That is objective fact.  3.5 combat rules, because they are heavily tied to tactical placement of minis, are more complex than a system that doesn't do that.  Simple.

When you have more modifiers to track dependent on each unique situation, it takes more time.

Seriously, it isn't that hard.

Quote from: SacrosanctThere are more situational modifiers in 3.5 than in AD&D. That is objective fact. 3.5 combat rules, because they are heavily tied to tactical placement of minis, are more complex than a system that doesn't do that. Simple.

When you have more modifiers to track dependent on each unique situation, it takes more time.

Seriously, it isn't that hard.

You're saying that as though we all have the same processors that are limited to running a certain number of operations per round, and so therefore, since there's a couple more modifiers AVAILABLE, that it's automatically going to take us longer to process them.

The only tactical placement modifiers that I run into regularly are the flanking rules, and that's a simple +2.  Is that the modifier you're talking about?  IIRC it was +4 to hit if you were in place to backstab in 2e.  Or the cover rules for missile fire that most everyone ignores and just puts a bonus to AC on?

I won't go into re-beating the horse that it's completely feasible to use ungridded minis or none in the game.  It's not like 4e where all the measurements are in squares, they're still in imperial units.  

In any case, it isn't that hard for me to track two numbers for each character during a combat (pluses and minuses) and be able to answer the 'what other modifiers do I have' question at any time by summing the two and giving the player the number.  So maybe that's a technique you could try to speed up your gaming in 3.5?

To be clear on this:

You played without minis, in a game which you say is heavily dependent on tactical placement of minis, and found the resolution mechanics a bit slow.

Is that accurate?

Quote from: fectin;561723To be clear on this:

You played without minis, in a game which you say is heavily dependent on tactical placement of minis, and found the resolution mechanics a bit slow.

Is that accurate?

*Edit

changed because you were talking about early in the thread, and not this particular conversation.

If you're talking about my OP, then yes.  Much slower than AD&D.  But if we were to use the grid, combat would be even slower because instead of spending the time to position the minis and figure out line of sight, cover, and AoO, we just did it on the fly.

See, even if you get rid of much of the time consuming portion of 3.5, it's STILL slower than AD&D