Quote from: Panzerkraken;561676You'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.

That doesn't matter.  If you have to add one modifier to most of your combat, compared to adding two or three for most of your combat, it's going to take longer to resolve the latter.

Just like anyone can count to 3 faster than they can count to 10.  And this is exasperated further when you have to spend more time dealing with the tactical portion of combat in 3.5 as compared to AD&D because in AD&D, you don't have to worry about being exact with your movement, AoO, flanking, etc--all those things that are built into the 3.5 engine as core mechanics.

From my end of things I don't think the variable modifiers mattered that much in 3e.  There are situations where some player casts a spell that changes your ability scores which may cascade into a variety of other areas, which can be a little obnoxious, but its' hardly a frequent occurrence (and if it was, it would probably be on your sheet).

I just think that 3e monsters have dramatically higher AC (past a certain point), to-hit is only slightly higher in 3e (or actually worse with iterative attack penalties) leading to fewer hits versus monsters with more HP.  The resolution of a combat round might be about the same, but the number of rounds it takes to hack a monster down from full HP to 0 seems higher in 3e.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;561660That 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.

Mine was 10-12 PCs fighting maybe a dozen and a half pirates in and around their ship. It really wasn't that big of a battle.

3e combat is sloooooooooow IME. It's a combination of PCs having more mechanical options (time taken to analyze), hit point / AC inflation, more bonuses = more math involved, heavier rules that interacted with each other, and so on.

Honestly, the whole "attacks of opportunity" thing alone wasted at least 30 minutes every fight (arguing over when it applied, people taking extra time to avoid them, people changing their actions mid-sentance when someone brought them up, etc).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;561664It's obvious that has never happened, nor will ever happen, so why make the claim in the first place?

1. People claim that you need miniatures/grids to resolve AoOs, but not other parts of combat.

2. I'm pointing out that they're wrong.

When you agree with me that the vast majority of people don't require miniatures/grids to figure out what whether (a) character Y can hit character X and (b) what character X is doing, then you are agreeing with me on every single point of my argument.

Despite agreeing with every single point of my argument, you keep pretending that you are somehow disagreeing with me. This is confusing. Which is why multiple people have accused you of illiteracy and stupidity at this point.

Do you get it now? Or are you planning to continue your campaign of illiteracy and stupidity?

Quote from: jgants;562049Honestly, the whole "attacks of opportunity" thing alone wasted at least 30 minutes every fight (arguing over when it applied, people taking extra time to avoid them, people changing their actions mid-sentance when someone brought them up, etc).

The 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.

Of course, if your 3E experience really did consist of a bunch of people constantly arguing over how the rules should be used it doesn't shock me that combat took a long time.

But until somebody demonstrates some sort of evidence that competes with my extensive, recorded sessions of actual play with 40+ different players I'm simply not going to be convinced that a game with easier and more streamlined combat rules takes a longer time to resolve.

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

Which mechanics were those?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;562069Do you get it now? Or are you planning to continue your campaign of illiteracy and stupidity?

It's kind of funny, but mostly ironic, that you keep accusing me of illiteracy when you can't seem to understand what I've said no matter how many times I've said it.

Your argument was dumb because it never happens.  Get it?  How hard is that to grasp?  

Dumb argument.  Almost as dumb as you saying AD&D combat was just as slow to resolve as 3.5e combat.  I have no idea what fucking game you were playing, but it wasn't AD&D.  3.5 combat has WAY more rules to figure out for combat.  There is no way a human being can do the exact same scenario with the exact same character types in 3.5e as they can in AD&D without it being slower.  That is not a subjective claim I'm making.  That's objective fact that pretty much everyone knows as fact except you.

I mean, just look at it from even a basic standpoint of the same action a player wants to make with his character:


AD&D:
"I run into the room of 4 goblins and attack the largest one."
"OK, roll to hit."
"17, plus 1 for specialization.  So 18, that's AC 2."
"Hit."
"Ok, I rolled a 4 for damage, +2 for weapon spec and +1 for strength.  7 points."
"That one is dead.  But another one pops around the corner since it's his turn now and shoots you with an arrow."


3.5e
"I run into the room of 4 goblins and attack the largest one."
"Ok, move your mini."
"Damn, he'd still be 5 feet away, so I attack this one instead."
"Ok, but you've entered the threat range of this one, so I roll to hit you.  15, which hits your AC, barely."
"No it doesn't, I use dodge, so it misses.  My turn now?  I roll to hit.  But I"m going to do a power attack, with a -3 to hit so I can inflict an extra 6 points.  I roll a 17, +1 for wpn focus, -3 for power attack, so a 15."
"That hits"
"Ok, I roll a 4, +2 for weapon spec, +1 for strength, and +6 for power attack.  So that's 13 points."
"Ok, it's dead, but this goblin pop around a corner since it's his turn now and shoots an arrow at you."
"No he doesn't.  Let's get the ruler out, because it doesn't look like he has line of sight [spends 20 seconds measuring and finding the answer]"

Well, personally I do not admit, at my table, "agonizing for 30 mins about what to do in 6 seconds". First: it is not realistic; second: the baddies would have the same right; and third: it encourages the players to know and play their characters well. Acting according to the best of your abilities (and those of your pals) given the situation should become second nature - like in real life.

Quote from: Reckall;562189Well, personally I do not admit, at my table, "agonizing for 30 mins about what to do in 6 seconds". First: it is not realistic; second: the baddies would have the same right; and third: it encourages the players to know and play their characters well. Acting according to the best of your abilities (and those of your pals) given the situation should become second nature - like in real life.

If Players start dithering I start counting to 10, when I reach 10 and they haven't done anything - I tell them that they go last. If they do it again when their turn finally comes around and I count to 10 again, they lose that turn.

That has been the best way I have found to keep combats moving. It is harsh, but I do not want a combat spread over multiple sessions due to a Player not being able to make up their mind.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;5621483.5e
"I run into the room of 4 goblins and attack the largest one."
"Ok, move your mini."
"Damn, he'd still be 5 feet away, so I attack this one instead."
"Ok, but you've entered the threat range of this one, so I roll to hit you.  15, which hits your AC, barely."
"No it doesn't, I use dodge, so it misses.  My turn now?  I roll to hit.  But I"m going to do a power attack, with a -3 to hit so I can inflict an extra 6 points.  I roll a 17, +1 for wpn focus, -3 for power attack, so a 15."
"That hits"
"Ok, I roll a 4, +2 for weapon spec, +1 for strength, and +6 for power attack.  So that's 13 points."
"Ok, it's dead, but this goblin pop around a corner since it's his turn now and shoots an arrow at you."
"No he doesn't.  Let's get the ruler out, because it doesn't look like he has line of sight [spends 20 seconds measuring and finding the answer]"

Firstly, I think that the tone of your exchange implies a GM who can't manage his game in the first place if players are arguing that much with him.

Secondly, you're still approaching the math as though large portions of it were done specifically every time a die was rolled.  Static modifiers should always already be calculated.  Most of the time, for me at least, even with the situational modifiers, I know exactly what the player needs to roll on the die before they roll it, and the same for the monsters in the combat. (an example is that when I write my notes for a goblin it looks like: 7+roll 1d8+3 (pwr atk).

I can concede that moving on the hex grid can slow things down, but I didn't find it to be an appreciable amount, and if it seemed like it was taking away from the combat, then I'd stop making them count and it would go into a form more reminiscent of using minis in 1e:  

"I want to move over here"

"Thats too far for you in this round, you'll get there next round.  Your character is right here (points finger at hex) at the end of the round"

"Ok"

One of the things that having the hexes did for me was eliminated any possibility of arguments like "NO WAY! I was outside the area of that fireball!" in the event that it was even questionable, actually saving time spent arguing about spell and trap placements.  It stops seeming like some arbitrary choice on the part of the GM.  Additionally, having the extra rules in place allowed for some gaming-yarn worthy stories to develop, like when the fighter sets his shield and breaks a charge formation by cavalry before it can reach the casters.

Does it help that most of my group are wargame vets who are used to eyeballing distance on a hex map and knowing what they're going to do before it becomes their turn?  Yes.

Does it help that I'm good with numbers and have a tendency to remember everything that needs to be taken into account quickly enough to say 'ok, Roll' in a second or two after I have the action described to me?  Yes

Objective statements are only pertinent when there's an emotional factor to be discounted.  I can objectively agree that 3.5e has more numbers to be crunched, but that it doesn't take me any longer to run a round of 3.5e using minis than it does 1e using minis.  Objectively comparing your statement of play experience indicates that you need to increase the efficiency used in the process of running a 3.5 round if you feel that they're taking too long, because if I can run them in the same amount of time, the only point of differentiation is with whoever is GM'ing the 3.5e for you.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;5621483.5 combat has WAY more rules to figure out for combat.  

AD&D:
"I run into the room of 4 goblins and attack the largest one."
"OK, roll to hit."
"17, plus 1 for specialization.  So 18, that's AC 2."
"Hit."
"Ok, I rolled a 4 for damage, +2 for weapon spec and +1 for strength.  7 points."
"That one is dead.  But another one pops around the corner since it's his turn now and shoots you with an arrow."


3.5e
"I run into the room of 4 goblins and attack the largest one."
"Ok, move your mini."
"Damn, he'd still be 5 feet away, so I attack this one instead."
"Ok, but you've entered the threat range of this one, so I roll to hit you.  15, which hits your AC, barely."
"No it doesn't, I use dodge, so it misses.  My turn now?  I roll to hit.  But I"m going to do a power attack, with a -3 to hit so I can inflict an extra 6 points.  I roll a 17, +1 for wpn focus, -3 for power attack, so a 15."
"That hits"
"Ok, I roll a 4, +2 for weapon spec, +1 for strength, and +6 for power attack.  So that's 13 points."
"Ok, it's dead, but this goblin pop around a corner since it's his turn now and shoots an arrow at you."
"No he doesn't.  Let's get the ruler out, because it doesn't look like he has line of sight [spends 20 seconds measuring and finding the answer]"

That would be a correct assessment if you changed AD&D to something like Mentzer D&D.

I am not really convinced that AD&D plays faster if you use all the rules (including weapon speeds, segments, weapon vs. armor table) - I never ever played in a group that used all that stuff. So my feeling (and experience) is the same as yours, that AD&D plays faster (as it is really played at most game tables) than 3.x (as it is really played at most game tables).

A few days ago someone (I forgot who and where) wrote about different play cultures between the time of AD&D1 and D&D3, in that in old D&D lots of rules were ignored and house rules invented, while 3.x led to a culture of adherence to the RAW.
(It is my gut feeling that during AD&D1 there were a lot more home-brewed settings while from the settings glut of AD&D2 on DMs tended to rely more and more on an official setting, but that's a different topic.)

If I were playing 3.x (in the same spirit that I used AD&D, that is ignoring everything that compromises play speed or clutters character sheets) there would be hardly a difference to your AD&D example:

Microlite20:
"I run into the room of 4 goblins and attack the largest one."
"OK, roll to hit."
"17, plus 1 for strength.  So I hit AC 18."
"Hit."
"Ok, I rolled a 4 for damage, +2 for weapon bonus and +1 for strength.  7 points."
"That one is dead.  But another one pops around the corner since it's his turn now and shoots you with an arrow."

Quote from: Panzerkraken;562197Firstly, I think that the tone of your exchange implies a GM who can't manage his game in the first place if players are arguing that much with him.

Huh?  There was no argument presented.  That exchange didn't have the GM and player going back and forth in an argument of disagreement.  It was "Here's what X does,"  and a response by using the rules that affects that action.

"X is doing this"
"Then I use ability Y to affect the outcome."

That was it.  It was an example of 3.5 having rules in place that lengthen combat that AD&D doesn't have.

QuoteSecondly, you're still approaching the math as though large portions of it were done specifically every time a die was rolled.

Doesn't matter since I applied the handling of that the same in both scenarios.  If I presented the AD&D scenario with the modifiers already tallied and 3.5 not, then you'd have a point.  Also, a feat like power attack doesn't have a fixed modifier.  Are you telling me that on your character sheet, you have all the possible modifiers already listed for every possible combination?  If Power Attack is at a -2/+4?  -1/+2?  -6/+12?

I have never seen any 3.5 character sheet that has a place for every possible combination.  And I don't buy it that a person would have every scenario detailed out in advance.

So again, not only does the basic math take longer because there are more things to calculate, but the time is also extended by moving minis, figuring out line of sight, etc.

It really is one of the strangest things I've heard for someone to say that all else being equal (same scenario, etc), combat in 3.5 is just as fast as AD&D.  There hasn't been on shred of evidence to support that in this thread.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;562210If I were playing 3.x (in the same spirit that I used AD&D, that is ignoring everything that compromises play speed or clutters character sheets) there would be hardly a difference to your AD&D example:

Microlite20:
"I run into the room of 4 goblins and attack the largest one."
"OK, roll to hit."
"17, plus 1 for strength.  So I hit AC 18."
"Hit."
"Ok, I rolled a 4 for damage, +2 for weapon bonus and +1 for strength.  7 points."
"That one is dead.  But another one pops around the corner since it's his turn now and shoots you with an arrow."

Ah, but then you're ignoring all the feats that impact combat.  Even if you decide to ignore rules like line of sight, mini moving, etc (like we did in my OP), you still have feats you need to factor in.  AD&D doesn't have feats, and feats are one of the most fundamental aspects of 3.5.  I would posit that if you eliminate feats from 3.5, then you really aren't playing the game because so much is dependent on them.

It's literally adding extra steps into the combat resolution encounter, and any time you add steps, you lengthen time to resolve them.

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

That is just insane.

QuoteAnother 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).

I have a gut feeling that feats and other combat powers could be faster if they were implemented differently, but I won't deny the possibility I am wrong about that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;562148Your argument was dumb because it never happens.

My argument that it never happens is dumb because it never happens?

Holy fuck, dude. You're an idiot.

QuoteAD&D:
"I run into the room of 4 goblins and attack the largest one."
"OK, roll to hit."
"17, plus 1 for specialization. So 18, that's AC 2."
"Hit."
"Ok, I rolled a 4 for damage, +2 for weapon spec and +1 for strength. 7 points."
"That one is dead. But another one pops around the corner since it's his turn now and shoots you with an arrow."

3.5e
"I run into the room of 4 goblins and attack the largest one."
"Ok, move your mini."
"Damn, he'd still be 5 feet away, so I attack this one instead."
"Ok, but you've entered the threat range of this one, so I roll to hit you. 15, which hits your AC, barely."
"No it doesn't, I use dodge, so it misses. My turn now? I roll to hit. But I"m going to do a power attack, with a -3 to hit so I can inflict an extra 6 points. I roll a 17, +1 for wpn focus, -3 for power attack, so a 15."
"That hits"
"Ok, I roll a 4, +2 for weapon spec, +1 for strength, and +6 for power attack. So that's 13 points."
"Ok, it's dead, but this goblin pop around a corner since it's his turn now and shoots an arrow at you."
"No he doesn't. Let's get the ruler out, because it doesn't look like he has line of sight [spends 20 seconds measuring and finding the answer]"

Okay, let's analyze what you're claiming here:

(1) AD&D didn't have rules for precisely measuring how far characters could move and attack.

(2) That you provoke AoOs in D&D3 by either entering a threatened area or for making a melee attack within a threatened area.

(3) That you declare your use of the Dodge feat after the attack against you has already been resolved.

(4) That AD&D didn't have rules requiring line of sight.

Every single one of these things is false, betraying a simultaneous ignorance of both AD&D and D&D3.

Even if we ignore all the other stupid stuff in your "examples", I'm forced to repeat myself: Holy fuck, dude. You're an idiot.

OK Justin, I get what you're saying.

Now I'm going to try to move past the debate of whether 3rd ed requires minis and grid more than AD&D, because I think we're being bogged down into the rules minutia.

I think it's fair to say that there is a strong perception out there that 3rd ed requires miniatures and mats to play, and/or that playing 3rd ed without miniatures and mat is not playing it "by the book" or "how it was intended" and/or that creates a lot more trouble than it would be using another, prior edition of the game.

Now assuming the perception is actually wrong, it still exists nonetheless. It exists enough for you to constantly have to comment on such presumptions, Justin, and want to rectify these perceptions wherever they show up on a thread.

So, why do you think these perceptions exist in the first place, Justin?

There has to be a reason. What do you think that reason is?