|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 10:41AM
#151
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
ALL editions of D&D, as written, are primarily tactical games.
I've never seen D&D like that, definitely not 2nd Edition (written for armchair, coffee-house play).
You may have played it that way, but you don't need literally 100s and 100s of pages of rules for armchair play. Disregarding the ruleset is not the proper way to evaluate the ruleset. 2nd edition dragons positioning was important with tail swipes, wing buffets, bites and claws all dependant upon proper positioning.
We go by the rules 100% (I can be a real stickler), I have no idea what you're on about.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 10:42AM
#152
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
Every spell in 3e has a similar stat block. Targets, range, type of save, keywords, components, spell resistance. This does not mean that the spells are similar, or that the format limited the types of spells that could be made.
Your argument has zero merit. You have grasped onto a tenuous, superficial similarity and are ignoring the true differences that exist.
Yes, all the spells; a shared mechanic. Thank you for supporting my argument.
Does the fact that a mechanic or any other arbitrary property is common to a set of abilities stop the rest of the properties of each ability in the set from having differences. Swinging a sword or casting a spell for 1d8 damage aside from the verb are basically the same action.
Which is at the heart of the matter, in every edition you took actions whether or not they were called that. That is the base mechanic that everything belongs to. Now you start sub dividing actions into spells or fighter attacks or thief skills but they are still governed by "action", implictly or explicitly named, rules. Give stuff a common template to make the rule system more logical does not hinder the possibilities of what the rule set can accomplish. All mechanics of D&D basically boil down to W does X with Y onto Z(s). That's it. The complexity are all the conditions and groups of things that can fit into W,X,Y,Z.
Wizard (W) casts spell Magic Missile(X) with intrinsic magic power(Y) onto rat(Z).
Fighter (W) swings halberd(X) with intrinsic creature ability (Y) onto storm giant (Z).
Thief (W) picks(X) with trained skill and picks(Y) on a locked door (Z).
That's all the D&D mechanics. How's that different then the templated version of 4th? It isn't.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 10:43AM
#153
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2009
|
ALL editions of D&D, as written, are primarily tactical games.
I've never seen D&D like that, definitely not 2nd Edition (written for armchair, coffee-house play).
You may have played it that way, but you don't need literally 100s and 100s of pages of rules for armchair play. Disregarding the ruleset is not the proper way to evaluate the ruleset. 2nd edition dragons positioning was important with tail swipes, wing buffets, bites and claws all dependant upon proper positioning.
We go by the rules 100% (I can be a real stickler), I have no idea what you're on about.
If position is important then you are dealing with tatics - that is, I believe, what he is saying.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 10:45AM
#154
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
ALL editions of D&D, as written, are primarily tactical games.
I've never seen D&D like that, definitely not 2nd Edition (written for armchair, coffee-house play).
You may have played it that way, but you don't need literally 100s and 100s of pages of rules for armchair play. Disregarding the ruleset is not the proper way to evaluate the ruleset. 2nd edition dragons positioning was important with tail swipes, wing buffets, bites and claws all dependant upon proper positioning.
We go by the rules 100% (I can be a real stickler), I have no idea what you're on about.
Then in every edition tactical position is very important. In 1st you had facing, weapon speed, weapon reach, shield hand, and all sorts of fiddly things. Even in 2nd where some of that stuff wasn't quite as important you still needed precise positioning. Hand waving all that stuff away and playing in an armchair at ye olde coffee shop isn't quite 100% rules.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 10:48AM
#155
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
ALL editions of D&D, as written, are primarily tactical games.
I've never seen D&D like that, definitely not 2nd Edition (written for armchair, coffee-house play).
You may have played it that way, but you don't need literally 100s and 100s of pages of rules for armchair play. Disregarding the ruleset is not the proper way to evaluate the ruleset. 2nd edition dragons positioning was important with tail swipes, wing buffets, bites and claws all dependant upon proper positioning.
We go by the rules 100% (I can be a real stickler), I have no idea what you're on about.
If position is important then you are dealing with tatics - that is, I believe, what he is saying.
I think he's saying that as well, and he's correct. Whether there's a grid with minis or not is not what determines whether combat is tactical. Position, terrain, sizes, area of effect attacks, all of these things can still matter if you're not using a grid. I've played numerous games in numerous systems where I've asked things like "How many orcs can I get without hitting my friends with my cone attack?" to the DM, and he pondered it for a bit, then said "The two on the end, but to get the other two you'd have to attack your friend as well."
I then told my friend "Sorry dude, hope you save!" and made a tactical decision. There was no grid to be found.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 10:51AM
#156
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
ALL editions of D&D, as written, are primarily tactical games.
I've never seen D&D like that, definitely not 2nd Edition (written for armchair, coffee-house play).
You may have played it that way, but you don't need literally 100s and 100s of pages of rules for armchair play. Disregarding the ruleset is not the proper way to evaluate the ruleset. 2nd edition dragons positioning was important with tail swipes, wing buffets, bites and claws all dependant upon proper positioning.
We go by the rules 100% (I can be a real stickler), I have no idea what you're on about.
Then in every edition tactical position is very important. In 1st you had facing, weapon speed, weapon reach, shield hand, and all sorts of fiddly things. Even in 2nd where some of that stuff wasn't quite as important you still needed precise positioning. Hand waving all that stuff away and playing in an armchair at ye olde coffee shop isn't quite 100% rules.
Yes, I agree, we use all of that, don't hand-wave away anything, so, I'm still not sure where you are coming from.
I don't actually play in a coffee-shop, it's a metaphor because the 2nd Ed gang (David Zeb Cook, etc) wanted it to be playable that way.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 10:56AM
#157
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Where we're coming from is that you say you've never seen D&D as primarily tactical, and then say you use all of these tactical rules.
I'm confused.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 11:09AM
#158
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
Where we're coming from is that you say you've never seen D&D as primarily tactical, and then say you use all of these tactical rules.
Nope, reading comprehension time people, I said I do not look at the Dungeons & Dragons game as a primarily tactical game, of course it has tactis, and I can get seriously tactical.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 11:14AM
#159
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Where we're coming from is that you say you've never seen D&D as primarily tactical, and then say you use all of these tactical rules.
Nope, reading comprehension time people, I said I do not look at the Dungeons & Dragons game as a primarily tactical game, of course it has tactis, and I can get seriously tactical.
Tactics even outside of combat some take as the point ie making significant choices.. about your characters activity is even one of the basic elements of roleplaying.
The difference between storytelling/play acting and roleplaying is .. you get to choose.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 11:16AM
#160
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Then I might recommend placing more emphasis on what you actually mean, rather than hoping for us to guess the correct extent of your antecedent. Clearly a bunch of us got it wrong, and it didn't help that your only response was to appear dumbfounded that anyone could possibly think you weren't being clear.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
