Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, I wouldn't want to run 3.5/PF or Fourth Ed. without mat/minis/markers. But earlier editions really don't require that stuff in the slightest.

Manchu wrote:

[edition debate]

After playing Basic and its retroclones, it's really hard to get excited about all these moving parts and the differences between 3.5/PF and Fourth really start to blur. I've had a lot of fun with both of those games in the past but with my current gaming group ... I just know if we feel like playing with miniatures we can break out an actual miniatures game and if we feel like playing a RPG we can ... well, you see where this is going, I'm sure. All those moving parts can be interesting in miniatures games (and they make up the very substance of board games) but I think they tend to get in the way of the roleplaying.

 Bromsy wrote:
but the whole dungeon crawling thing never appealed to me

When you say "dungeon crawl" do you mean the idea of going into a cave and facing peril for treasure or do you mean tactically moving minis around in cramped spaces while managing declining resources (e.g., HP, spells, potions, etc)?

The first one.

The first one is easier to circumvent, hell I had one party that more or less commandeered a ship and went around pirating/fighting pirates. I think they went into a cave maybe one time to look for loot.

 Balance wrote:
There's also the 'Hybrid' class thingy, which I've never even read. It didn't interest me, as the existing classes are pretty fun and interesting.

You would pick two classes and keep the shared elements as far as weapons and armor. For hit points you added the two and divide by half. You lose certain ie most class features, and select an At-Will from both classes. You alternate between classes when selecting Encounter and Daily powers, so if you were Fighter/Mage if your first encounter was Fighter your next has to be mage. There is a feat that lets you get back a class feature and one to get full access to weapon or armor. It takes a lot of planning, and it certainly can make some horribly gimped classes, but it can also make some interesting combinations. The only one I can recall off the top of my head was Paladin/Sorc where both keyed of Charisma. You had to get to Paragon for it to shine, but he could breathe radiant flames that would mark all enemies with the breath, or something like that. You can also still take a Multiclass feat as a Hybrid, so you can be a Fighter/Ranger/Monk.

 GrimDork wrote:
The first one is easier to circumvent, hell I had one party that more or less commandeered a ship and went around pirating/fighting pirates. I think they went into a cave maybe one time to look for loot.

Yeah, I guess to be more clear I dislike the whole idea of basing my roleplaying around fight, get loot, level up, repeat. I prefer to tell stories.

Which is still really easy to do Depending on the maturity and interests of your gaming group, if you mostly want to tell stories and such you barely need rules at all. Maybe some quick and dirty guidelines to help you decide if proclaimed actions are liable to succeed etc. In some ways it's the easiest way to RP, and in others the hardest.

4th definitely seemed more hacky to me though, a lot less focus on skills and "stuff that happens when you arent fighting or having *skill challenges*, although most rulesets focus on combat cause that's what you actually need rules for

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, I guess to be more clear I dislike the whole idea of basing my roleplaying around fight, get loot, level up, repeat. I prefer to tell stories.

Complaining about dungeon crawling in D&D is like complaining about having a sci-fi setting and using minis is 40k.

Eh i'd start with 3.5 you can do what ever you want and you really don't need minis or a mat for it, you just need hand drawn map and then let your players RP through your campaign.

Anything you can think of you can do in 3.5
Peasant railguns
destorying a nations economy
Throwing a Tarrasque into orbit.
Skywhale super dimensional fortress macross
locate citybomb
Blow a planet up (we made the Skywhale super dimensional fortress macross so why did we need the planet?)

you can also go with the World of Darkness by white wolf (they are really great games to play... except when everyone in your group decides to kill your character then gets PO when your character manages to kill them all in one blow)

 Ninjacommando wrote:
Eh i'd start with 3.5 you can do what ever you want and you really don't need minis or a mat for it

This is true in the same sense that you don't technically need minis and a mat for 4E, but I wouldn't recommend combat in either without them.

The rest of the reasons are appealing to dyed-in-the-wool neck beard game mastery enthusiats, but not very good people just learning the to play RPG's. That being said I always appreciate a reference to Locate City Bomb.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
Eh i'd start with 3.5 you can do what ever you want and you really don't need minis or a mat for it

This is true in the same sense that you don't technically need minis and a mat for 4E, but I wouldn't recommend combat in either without them.

So true. Third Edition is much better with mats and miniatures when it comes to combat. I don't think you get as much value out of it otherwise.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
Eh i'd start with 3.5 you can do what ever you want and you really don't need minis or a mat for it

This is true in the same sense that you don't technically need minis and a mat for 4E, but I wouldn't recommend combat in either without them.

The rest of the reasons are appealing to dyed-in-the-wool neck beard game mastery enthusiats, but not very good people just learning the to play RPG's. That being said I always appreciate a reference to Locate City Bomb.

God bless that wacky spell combination...

I've never had a wizard high enough to do it, but it's sitting back there in the vaults just waiting for the opportunity to come out and play... Just like the Tomb of Horrors...

 Ahtman wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, I guess to be more clear I dislike the whole idea of basing my roleplaying around fight, get loot, level up, repeat. I prefer to tell stories.

Complaining about dungeon crawling in D&D is like complaining about having a sci-fi setting and using minis is 40k.

Well yeah, my first post in the thread was about how I don't really like D&D...

Ahtman wrote:
This is true in the same sense that you don't technically need minis and a mat for 4E, but I wouldn't recommend combat in either without them.

The rest of the reasons are appealing to dyed-in-the-wool neck beard game mastery enthusiats, but not very good people just learning the to play RPG's. That being said I always appreciate a reference to Locate City Bomb.

They are just examples of over the top stuff that you can do in the game, From my first play through of 4th ed and seeing that It was really just MMO on paper DND with classes doing what it said on the paper and not allowing you to truely customize said character.

Playing a Sword sage/fighter/swashbuckler to make Guts from berserk

Playing a ranger that only did Unarmed combat and used a modified light crossbow to fire drow poison darts, would use Alchemy items to make landmines and Grenades (total did not look like solid snake) (Used a throwing axe, removed the axe head and cut the handle down to size to allow a pint of oil/alchemist fire to be attached in its place allowing the weapon to still be balanced, so the DM wouldn't rule it as an improvised weapon, it looked like a Model 24 grenade)

Playing a Crusader cleric that went around yelling "God wills it!" will keeping his group of heatens near full health.

Manchu wrote:So true. Third Edition is much better with mats and miniatures when it comes to combat. I don't think you get as much value out of it otherwise.

I think in the 8 years i've played dnd 3.5/pathfinder (only playing pathfinder 3 times, buts its great) The groups I played with only used mats and minis once. every other time was the Dm description and our imagination (always had a marching order)

 Ninjacommando wrote:

Manchu wrote:So true. Third Edition is much better with mats and miniatures when it comes to combat. I don't think you get as much value out of it otherwise.

I think in the 8 years i've played dnd 3.5/pathfinder (only playing pathfinder 3 times, buts its great) The groups I played with only used mats and minis once. every other time was the Dm description and our imagination (always had a marching order)

Yeah I've heard the same thing many times. I still think skipping the mat is a mistake/obstacle to full enjoyment of that rules set.

Manchu wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:

Manchu wrote:So true. Third Edition is much better with mats and miniatures when it comes to combat. I don't think you get as much value out of it otherwise.

I think in the 8 years i've played dnd 3.5/pathfinder (only playing pathfinder 3 times, buts its great) The groups I played with only used mats and minis once. every other time was the Dm description and our imagination (always had a marching order)

Yeah I've heard the same thing many times. I still think skipping the mat is a mistake/obstacle to full enjoyment of that rules set.

Yeah, I totally agree. I even liked mats with 1st and 2nd, but that was just because it looks cool to have minis on the table.

I've played both ways and found the miniatures to be a fair impediment just due to the extra burden of organisation it placed on me in terms of having them, having them organised, having the tiles ready, physically setting them up and so on.

Now that I play online with folders of organised tokens on interactive maps that track vision and so on for me, I find it much more useful. I can make a pile of maps in my spare time (which I enjoy doing), save them, and access them rapidly in game with little to no set up time.

It definitely improves the tactical aspects of the game, though I would agree that it slows down exploration and can sometimes break "mood" and blunt my descriptive tendencies.

 Da Boss wrote:
I can make a pile of maps in my spare time (which I enjoy doing), save them, and access them rapidly in game with little to no set up time.

If you go to any office supply store, you can get flipchart paper with 1" grids. I just drew all of the dungeons before the session and then flopped them down when we needed them.

Also, another handy way is a wet erase battle mat (1" squares) and markers. Takes a bit longer to setup during the game though.

The flipchart thing was awesome though.

4th definitely prefers a mat, but it's possible to run combats without, if everyone is OK with it. 3.0 and friends are a notch away from this, with the need for a firm location much less defined.

This is something of an advantage to 3.0, as it's easier to deal with weird combats like opening a sarcophagus and something nasty jumps out. No need to draw out the entire area for what is likely a cheap scare, and most PC powers can work with minimal room for interpretation.

I love a big grid-based fight as the major conflict of a session, but it can be kind of wearisome for a lot of 'grind' fights adventures tend to have.

 Balance wrote:
This is something of an advantage to 3.0, as it's easier to deal with weird combats like opening a sarcophagus and something nasty jumps out. No need to draw out the entire area for what is likely a cheap scare, and most PC powers can work with minimal room for interpretation.

I love a big grid-based fight as the major conflict of a session, but it can be kind of wearisome for a lot of 'grind' fights adventures tend to have.

I'm not sure I understand. So you're saying it is easier to do a 'non-map' fight in 3.0 than 4.0? Both have the same limitations really.

"Okay a wight jumps out at you. We're just going to play this one out without the map. Based on what you were doing before it opened, X, Y and Z are next to the sarcophagus, so adjacent. Everyone else is 10 feet away. Roll initiative."

Good call on the flip charts, I hate drawing by hand when I have to be neat at all though, so I'm still happier with my current method. Also, making a token is pretty easy now- just search for an image I like, plop it into token tool, and save.

Balance: Yeah, I agree. Though I have run simple combats like that in 4th edition without a grid, the system references everything in terms of grid squares which means everyone is imagining a grid in their head anyway, which makes it a bit pointless.

 Da Boss wrote:
Good call on the flip charts, I hate drawing by hand when I have to be neat at all though, so I'm still happier with my current method. Also, making a token is pretty easy now- just search for an image I like, plop it into token tool, and save.

Well, you're also playing online it sounds like, so electronic works a lot better.

 Balance wrote:
3.0 and friends are a notch away from this, with the need for a firm location much less defined

I disagree. Fourth Edition is the same as Third in this respect -- except of course that Third keeps up the pretense by describing things in terms of feet. Fourth Edition didnot invent the AoO, after all.

the system references everything in terms of grid squares which means everyone is imagining a grid in their head anyway, which makes it a bit pointless.

I guess that I always picture these situations as having length and breadth even without the rules making suggestions about distance. Oh well.

Yeah, though I have considered buying a projector for playing in person, because it works so well!

I think this stuff, the stuff we do "around" the game, to make it work for us, doesn't get discussed enough at all.

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, though I have considered buying a projector for playing in person, because it works so well!

That sounds pretty cool!

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, though I have considered buying a projector for playing in person, because it works so well!

I think this stuff, the stuff we do "around" the game, to make it work for us, doesn't get discussed enough at all.

A projector would be sooooo cool. Or a Surface table.

Manchu wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, though I have considered buying a projector for playing in person, because it works so well!

That sounds pretty cool!

The setup on d20srd.org has always been a bit of a pipe dream of mine...

Just headed over there. That is pretty damn cool.

http://roll20.net/ + a Smart board (the one time we used a "mat" our DM was our Biology teacher.. who also ran the gaming club )

The one time we used minis... we stoped because non of us has enough models of a set type

Here was the group

Me - Elf Ranger


Friend 1 -Human Wizard


Friend 2 - Human Cleric


Friend 3 - Dwarf warrior


Friend 4 - hafling rogue



And now for the enemies that we fought


While it was great for setting up locations.... we ended up doing voices of the models insted of our characters

That projector thing is pretty well amazing. I think though if the Battle Systems guys go through with their card terrain for fantasy the way they just did for scifi.... I'm gonna need a big old stack of that. Can build it out a head or put it together as you go, stuff seems really cool.

Talk about all the stuff we do on the side to make playing the game easier.. I'm all about that I even went so far as to make a 3.5 treasure generator for when I was too lazy to actually make one out by hand. Basically just rolls on all of the dmg tables and craps out a result. Too crude and unrefined to pass around, but it certainly got the job done for me. I even had it making me rough dungeon maps and rolling on the dungeon room tables in the back of the DMG, but those were fairly bland excursions