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.

+1 for not understanding why 3.5 is brought up when talking about player freedom or narrative design - when I think of creating a character concept in 3.5, I think "OK, I'm going to need to get these items and take these feats in this order or my character simply won't function mechanically (and might not function until partway through the campaign anyways) and I'm probably going to get outclassed by a Cleric/Druid/Wizard regardless"

 waefre_1 wrote:
+1 for not understanding why 3.5 is brought up when talking about player freedom or narrative design - when I think of creating a character concept in 3.5, I think "OK, I'm going to need to get these items and take these feats in this order or my character simply won't function mechanically (and might not function until partway through the campaign anyways) and I'm probably going to get outclassed by a Cleric/Druid/Wizard regardless"

And most of the time that character you made was a cookie cutter copy of everyone else's build, because the only way to find anything in the thousands of pages of rules bloat was to carefully follow someone else's build guide. Ignore the guide and oops, you missed the fact that you need some obscure feat from a random supplement to make the feat chain work and now you're spending three levels multiclassing into something else to try to get back on track. For all its supposed content 3.5e, in practical terms, is no deeper than 5e.

Slipspace wrote:You've perfectly encapsulated the problem I've had with Crusade but have been unable to fully put my finger on until now. I'd sum up Crusade's problems in one word: detached. Everything you do in the game feels detached from what happens post-game, in the sense that my opponent rarely interacts with it. Yes, the game result changes how many resources I may get post-game, but I rarely get the sense there's a coherent campaign going on with Crusades. It's just a bunch of post-hoc justification for what happened on the table that my opponent has no incentive to care about.

Compare that with the original Necromunda's campaign system. Most of that was also solitaire-esque but there were a few elements that really helped drive interaction between players. Some scenarios allowed you to steal territory from your opponent. You could have rivalries between individual fighters or gangs that had in-game effects. "Winning " the scenario was often not the main goal for some gangs, especially if they were outclassed by their opponents.

This is exactly why Unit and I have criticized Crusade as a progression system but not really a campaign system. It's got the mechanical hooks there to reward unit and army progress, but no context to link the battles into any kind of cohesive whole. Throw in the fact that your army wholly regenerates after each battle exactly as it was even if it was killed to a man, and there's no real consequence to a battle one way or the other.

And don't get me wrong, I like Crusade and I prefer that it exists, but a progression system bolted onto a tournament-focused edition isn't really giving me the narrative or gameplay experience I want. My buddies and I tried a map-based campaign system using Crusade for unit progression, but ultimately we've been having more fun playing through the Imperial Armour campaigns in 5th Ed instead.

As I predicted when I started, agree to disagree has arrived. Peace out.

Instead of 3.5, we could use GURPS. I can make a character much clearer to my vision of them in GURPS than I could in any RPG I've played, and they'll function mechanically how I want them to.
If I could make a force in 40k function how I envision them, I might play again. But, Infinity provides me a better narrative structure than 40k can, and I can just use 40k models if I really want to.

 waefre_1 wrote:
+1 for not understanding why 3.5 is brought up when talking about player freedom or narrative design - when I think of creating a character concept in 3.5, I think "OK, I'm going to need to get these items and take these feats in this order or my character simply won't function mechanically (and might not function until partway through the campaign anyways) and I'm probably going to get outclassed by a Cleric/Druid/Wizard regardless"

That's completely different than my experience.
Why would you even use a guide to make a d&d character? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of making your own character? Regardless, if that was your experience then glad they came out with 5e. It's a good edition.

Either way, I just realized I actually have had some experience with a 5th edition 40k homebrew crusade. Died relatively quickly because the leaders weren't well balanced (that was part of the homebrew is we all had special rules leaders). But it was a cool concept that bridged 40k and battlefleet gothic.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Basically, it is the old discussion of "should it be a wargame or should it be a war themed game".

You seem to have a very narrow definition of "wargame". If you want to complain about "war-themed games" then the target should be the stratagem mechanic turning 40k into a pseudo-CCG, not with abstraction in LOS. Wargames work just fine with highly abstracted LOS rules even if those rules don't suit your personal tastes.

@ 4th ed style height brackets: everything is fine and clear as long as both models are on the same elevation level or near the edges of a hill. As soon as they are not you have to use TLOS to see if this hill in between is high enough to block LoS, or you're throwing height advantage out of the game that is supposedly a wargame. This is a basic problem with grid based wargames.

Why do you need to use TLOS? Just have all terrain features have height brackets as well. If two models are at level 3 then a level 3 hill between them blocks LOS while a level 2 hill doesn't. And TBH wargames need this level of abstraction in practice anyway. If you need flat levels for models to sit on you might as well have them at neat bracket-height intervals to make everything clear. Same thing with "ambiguous" ruins, etc. Those diorama-style ruins/forests/etc look great in a painting contest but they're terrible in practice since you'll struggle to fit bases into them. Functional wargame terrain needs flat surfaces, clearly defined walls, etc, to represent the terrain without getting in the way of playing a game with physical miniatures.

Now answer this: does a lvl 2 hill blocks LoS between a height 1 shooter on lvl 3 and a height 1 target on lvl 1. If you don’t immediately understand why you need TLOS for that, take your time. I’m not talking any heresy here, only simple geometry. TLOS is the only way to test that and every miniatures wargame designer knows this. If you abstract this fundamental problem away from your game you are approaching chess levels of „terrain” abstraction and no longer talking about miniatures wargame as historically defined and commonly understood.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Why would you even use a guide to make a d&d character?

Because of this: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats

Because of this: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/spell-lists-sorcerer-and-wizard

The sheer number of options makes having a build guide necessary for most players. Good luck even getting a normal person to read all of those rules. And only a tiny minority of hardcore character optimizers are going to be able to keep track of it all, evaluate the options, and make an informed choice about how to build their characters. For everyone else you either use a build guide that at least narrows down the options to a handful of key choices or you end up with a broken character that flails impotently while the players who used build guides are trashing everything with +20 to hit, +50 on every skill roll, and spells with 100D6 damage.

This is why it's so funny that someone who is a devoted Crusade fan and narrative player in 40k would pick the min/max optimizer's paradise system over one that simplifies away all the clutter, eliminates the need for build guides, and lets the game be about roleplaying instead of figuring out that chapter 47, section E, paragraph (ii)(a)(2.1) gives you a +100 to hit and instant death on anything but a 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
As I predicted when I started, agree to disagree has arrived. Peace out.

That didn't take long to go from "Crusade is awesome and necessary" to "I can't defend Crusade against valid criticism".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Now answer this: does a lvl 2 hill blocks LoS between a height 1 shooter on lvl 3 and a height 1 target on lvl 1.

Nope. Level 3 is above the level 2 terrain and so the terrain is ignored.

Alternatively, maybe you have a rule that terrain one level lower provides partial cover, in which case the target is visible but gets a benefit for being obscured. Either way this is not a difficult question.

TLOS is the only way to test that and every miniatures wargame designer knows this. If you abstract this fundamental problem away from your game you are approaching chess levels of „terrain” abstraction and no longer talking about miniatures wargame as historically defined and commonly understood.

This is precisely what I mean about having a very narrow idea of what a wargame is. Does doing the exact trig calculation to determine the small range where the hill blocks line of sight and the elevated position isn't enough to see over it add any meaningful strategy? Does it even matter in a game where the hill is an approximation of a real hill and has flat steps instead of smooth slopes so miniatures can be placed on it? Does it even matter in a game at the scale of 40k, where you can assume that miniature positions and exact poses are somewhat of an approximation and the "real" troops are moving to appropriate spots to either take cover or get a clear shot?

The answer to all of these questions, IMO, is a solid "no". But even if you disagree that hardly means that TLOS is essential to the very concept of a wargame. It's just the mechanic you personally prefer.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Why would you even use a guide to make a d&d character?

Because of this: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats

Because of this: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/spell-lists-sorcerer-and-wizard

The sheer number of options makes having a build guide necessary for most players. Good luck even getting a normal person to read all of those rules. And only a tiny minority of hardcore character optimizers are going to be able to keep track of it all, evaluate the options, and make an informed choice about how to build their characters. For everyone else you either use a build guide that at least narrows down the options to a handful of key choices or you end up with a broken character that flails impotently while the players who used build guides are trashing everything with +20 to hit, +50 on every skill roll, and spells with 100D6 damage.

This is why it's so funny that someone who is a devoted Crusade fan and narrative player in 40k would pick the min/max optimizer's paradise system over one that simplifies away all the clutter, eliminates the need for build guides, and lets the game be about roleplaying instead of figuring out that chapter 47, section E, paragraph (ii)(a)(2.1) gives you a +100 to hit and instant death on anything but a 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
As I predicted when I started, agree to disagree has arrived. Peace out.

That didn't take long to go from "Crusade is awesome and necessary" to "I can't defend Crusade against valid criticism".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Now answer this: does a lvl 2 hill blocks LoS between a height 1 shooter on lvl 3 and a height 1 target on lvl 1.

Nope. Level 3 is above the level 2 terrain and so the terrain is ignored.

Alternatively, maybe you have a rule that terrain one level lower provides partial cover, in which case the target is visible but gets a benefit for being obscured. Either way this is not a difficult question.

TLOS is the only way to test that and every miniatures wargame designer knows this. If you abstract this fundamental problem away from your game you are approaching chess levels of „terrain” abstraction and no longer talking about miniatures wargame as historically defined and commonly understood.

This is precisely what I mean about having a very narrow idea of what a wargame is. Does doing the exact trig calculation to determine the small range where the hill blocks line of sight and the elevated position isn't enough to see over it add any meaningful strategy? Does it even matter in a game where the hill is an approximation of a real hill and has flat steps instead of smooth slopes so miniatures can be placed on it? Does it even matter in a game at the scale of 40k, where you can assume that miniature positions and exact poses are somewhat of an approximation and the "real" troops are moving to appropriate spots to either take cover or get a clear shot?

The answer to all of these questions, IMO, is a solid "no". But even if you disagree that hardly means that TLOS is essential to the very concept of a wargame. It's just the mechanic you personally prefer.

Sorry, but you just threw away any meaningfull terrain interaction out of the game. Lvl 2 hill between shooter on lvl 3 vs target on lvl 0 obscures the target along half of the whole range. If you call that tactically meaningless then I don’t really have anything else to say. It is not me who has narrow definition of a miniatures wargame, it is you who has it too broad. Can a CCG represent a war in a game? Hell yes, my favourite „wargame” is Neuroshima Hex, a mix breed of CCG and hex map. Would using miniatures instead of card tokens turn it into miniatures wargame? Obviously not.

nou wrote:
Sorry, but you just threw away any meaningfull terrain interaction out of the game.

Now I know I don't need to take you seriously. If you think this one scenario not being handled exactly the way you want removes all meaningful terrain interaction then you're either completely lacking in imagination or deliberately trolling. Even ignoring the vertical element entirely there are a lot of meaningful terrain interactions.

Lvl 2 hill between shooter on lvl 3 vs target on lvl 0 obscures the target along half of the whole range.

And you're also bad at geometry. How much a hill obscures depends on the slope of the hill, among other things. There is no single answer like "half of the range" that applies to every possible situation. In many cases a level 2 hill will obscure none of the range, and in most cases the region where the hill obscures TLOS but the model isn't standing on the hill (and therefore subject to area terrain rules) is relatively small.

It is not me who has narrow definition of a miniatures wargame, it is you who has it too broad. Can a CCG represent a war in a game? Hell yes, my favourite „wargame” is Neuroshima Hex, a mix breed of CCG and hex map. Would using miniatures instead of card tokens turn it into miniatures wargame? Obviously not.

There is an immense difference between playing a CCG with miniatures and playing a wargame that doesn't use the specific terrain and LOS rules that you prefer. The reality is that the approximation of levels instead of TLOS is no worse of an approximation than the many approximations you are already using. If a game is still a wargame despite having static model poses, hills with steps, forests with 1-2 trees, etc, a game is still a wargame even if it uses levels and top-down lines instead of TLOS.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Why would you even use a guide to make a d&d character?

Because of this: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats

Because of this: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/spell-lists-sorcerer-and-wizard

The sheer number of options makes having a build guide necessary for most players. Good luck even getting a normal person to read all of those rules. And only a tiny minority of hardcore character optimizers are going to be able to keep track of it all, evaluate the options, and make an informed choice about how to build their characters. For everyone else you either use a build guide that at least narrows down the options to a handful of key choices or you end up with a broken character that flails impotently while the players who used build guides are trashing everything with +20 to hit, +50 on every skill roll, and spells with 100D6 damage.

I'm very aware of the sprawl of 3.5e (I have a very large folder of downloaded books that I would peruse while coming up with and building new characters). Part of the fun for me is that there's always some new feat or spell that you missed or haven't encountered yet. If you are only going to play a single character ever, then I guess you would need to make sure you knew everything so you didn't miss out on something. But for most folks, there's (almost) always the option of swapping out a character mid campaign (permanently or temporarily), playing a short campaign (a single adventure sort of thing), or just the natural turnover in campaigns dying out and a new campaign starting up again.

If you've got an experienced DM, they will work to curtail excessively powerful builds without sacrificing the fun that min/maxers have in min/maxing their characters. My personal favorite that I've seen is limiting players to the core books plus a certain number of additional books (usually one or two) of their choice that that player can use to build their characters. Less experienced DM might opt to simply limit the book selection to everyone using the same limited set (shouldn't be a problem if they're up front about it).

A really amazing DM can also craft an adventure where entire sessions are largely dominated by roleplay rather than roll-play (see what I did there... I'm not ashamed to laugh at my own joke). I'm blessed to know multiple people that have that sort of skill (and doubly blessed to be playing in one of their campaigns). There's a balance of course, because some prefer the combat and rolling while others prefer the roleplay and still others are in between those two.

Also, I've played in a 5e adventure where I was waaaay underpowered compared to everyone else (I played straight up barbarian). Still had a lot of fun playing my character who had a loud excited "I'm confident in my own strength carrying me through any challenge" personality despite the fact that he would have almost certainly lost to any other character if they fought one on one. It's role playing. So what if you aren't The Best Character (tm).

Finally, why is it a problem if someone reaches for different games to scratch different itches? We're not 1D memes, we're people.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:
+1 for not understanding why 3.5 is brought up when talking about player freedom or narrative design - when I think of creating a character concept in 3.5, I think "OK, I'm going to need to get these items and take these feats in this order or my character simply won't function mechanically (and might not function until partway through the campaign anyways) and I'm probably going to get outclassed by a Cleric/Druid/Wizard regardless"

That's completely different than my experience.
Why would you even use a guide to make a d&d character? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of making your own character?...

It does. However, 3e/3.5e/PF is fairly notorious for being designed in a way that character classes (and thus character concepts) fall into tiers ranging from "can do anything really well, even the things it's not supposed to" to "can barely do the thing it's supposed to be good at". This meant that it was possible (sometimes downright trivial) to make a character that struggled to meaningfully contribute to the party when it came down to mechanical interactions, even when run in a group that didn't include any powergamers, and could have knock-effects that made the game less enjoyable for everyone. It wasn't an every-table every-session every-time thing, to be sure, but once burned, twice check-every-character-concept-is-even-feasible-before-bringing-it-to-the-table.

From what I've heard, that doesn't map 1:1 with Crusade's issues, but I'd wonder if there's a shared underlying cause (some combination of poor writing and inconsistent balance, perhaps? Something about unintended haves and have-nots, where some players can bring the character/army they want and have a good time where others can't, due to the character/army not being capable or perhaps not even existing (cf. complaints about the Crusade Paths from the Eldar book)?)

Oh, a Crusade discussion and I missed it, darn.

AND a TLOS discussion and I missed it? Oh dear.

Well, +1 to Catbarf and Shas'O Ky'huas, basically, on both discussions. Carry on.

EDIT to actually add content:
My opinion on why Crusade doesn't work is how little it has to interface with. The actual gameplay of 40k is so shallow that a character getting a concussion is abstracted in the same way as an entire squad becoming "disgraced" (whatever that means for Tyranids, lol).

IMHO in order to have successful narrative campaigns, you also need to have thematic rules. Even if they're heavily abstracted, as long as the abstractions are consistently applied, you can have narratively consistent gameplay.

GW has been developing a problem with this since the middle of 5th, if not earlier. Here is an example:
"This guy charges goodly" in 4th (and 5th iirc) was Furious Charge
In 6th (7th?) they added Hammer of Wrath, which essentially was "this guy charges goodly, also, but different, because reasons"
In 9th now they have Shock/Hateful Assault, Avalanche of Muscle, Hammer of Wrath (but the stratagem, now, not a rule), Red Thirst (a rule), Fury Within, Hunters Unleashed, Born Heroes, Whirlwind of Rage... and I run out of feths to give in terms of listing all the rules that boil down to "this guy charges goodly"

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
If you are only going to play a single character ever, then I guess you would need to make sure you knew everything so you didn't miss out on something.

It's not that you'd miss out on something you'd enjoy doing, it's that if you aren't really experienced with 3.5e it's an intimidating wall of text just to make your first level 1 character. There are tons of options, most of them are bad, and if you want a viable build beyond level 1 you have to plan everything in advance so you don't fall behind the power curve. So what feat do you take at level 1? Good luck making that choice without a build guide.

If you've got an experienced DM, they will work to curtail excessively powerful builds without sacrificing the fun that min/maxers have in min/maxing their characters.

Bolded the important part. A good DM can make up for a lot of stuff but the rules shouldn't need a good DM to compensate for their flaws. 5e does a much better job of being playable out of the box, without needing a DM who is a master of the system and can handle all of the math issues.

My personal favorite that I've seen is limiting players to the core books plus a certain number of additional books (usually one or two) of their choice that that player can use to build their characters. Less experienced DM might opt to simply limit the book selection to everyone using the same limited set (shouldn't be a problem if they're up front about it).

And now that you're throwing away all of the depth of options that people cite as 3.5e's strong point why not play 5e instead?

So what if you aren't The Best Character (tm).

There's a difference between not being The Best Character and not having a viable character. It's not a big deal if you're 10% less effective than someone else's character, it's a big deal if your character literally never accomplishes anything because you made bad dice math choices and any roll you can succeed at will be effortless for the other party members. It stops being fun when your wizard has +3 to Knowledge: Arcana while the fighter who has never seen a spell in his entire life has +25 (and +50 to all his main skills). Or when your fighter needs a 19-20 to hit with one attack per round and the wizard hits on an 11-20 with three attacks per round doing twice as much damage, and the wizard is using his crossbow instead of spells because the DM asked the player to please stop AoE "save or die" nuking every encounter with a save DC that god himself couldn't pass.

Finally, why is it a problem if someone reaches for different games to scratch different itches? We're not 1D memes, we're people.

It's not a problem, it's just an interesting observation. If he wants to min/max 3.5e and see what stupid overpowered builds he can come up with I'm not stopping him.

Yeah, it's hard build a sound building without an excellent foundation.

The foundation of 40k is as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

nou wrote:
Lvl 2 hill between shooter on lvl 3 vs target on lvl 0 obscures the target along half of the whole range.

And you're also bad at geometry. How much a hill obscures depends on the slope of the hill, among other things. There is no single answer like "half of the range" that applies to every possible situation. In many cases a level 2 hill will obscure none of the range, and in most cases the region where the hill obscures TLOS but the model isn't standing on the hill (and therefore subject to area terrain rules) is relatively small.

Aren't you the one who is arguing for not using geometry? Whether it obscures half the range depends on how you define a height level and the exact size of the miniatures. You basically have to create zones around the hill that grant different levels of obscurement to different height levels of models, or we could just continue with TLOS.
https://imgur.com/a/SUYxweU

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

That didn't take long to go from "Crusade is awesome and necessary" to "I can't defend Crusade against valid criticism".

It isn't that I can't defend Crusade, it's that I've done it all before so many times, that I recognize that neither of us is ever going to move the other's point of view at all. I spoke up, I voiced my opinion once for the thread. If you've seen any of my previous posts about Crusade, it should be pretty obvious that you aren't going to change my mind. I certainly know nothing I can say will change your mind, or Unit's, or CB's. And I'm okay with that- you don't have to like what I like, and I don't have to like what you like.

As for the "valid criticism" piece, reread the parts of my posts that you didn't quote- I acknowledge many of those faults myself. Nowhere have I ever claimed Crusade is a perfect system; I prefer it to previous systems, for reasons that I've already explained here and elsewhere.

So, since no one is going to change anyone's mind, I've said everything I needed to say about Crusade.

 waefre_1 wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:
+1 for not understanding why 3.5 is brought up when talking about player freedom or narrative design - when I think of creating a character concept in 3.5, I think "OK, I'm going to need to get these items and take these feats in this order or my character simply won't function mechanically (and might not function until partway through the campaign anyways) and I'm probably going to get outclassed by a Cleric/Druid/Wizard regardless"

That's completely different than my experience.
Why would you even use a guide to make a d&d character? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of making your own character?...

It does. However, 3e/3.5e/PF is fairly notorious for being designed in a way that character classes (and thus character concepts) fall into tiers ranging from "can do anything really well, even the things it's not supposed to" to "can barely do the thing it's supposed to be good at". This meant that it was possible (sometimes downright trivial) to make a character that struggled to meaningfully contribute to the party when it came down to mechanical interactions, even when run in a group that didn't include any powergamers, and could have knock-effects that made the game less enjoyable for everyone. It wasn't an every-table every-session every-time thing, to be sure, but once burned, twice check-every-character-concept-is-even-feasible-before-bringing-it-to-the-table.

From what I've heard, that doesn't map 1:1 with Crusade's issues, but I'd wonder if there's a shared underlying cause (some combination of poor writing and inconsistent balance, perhaps? Something about unintended haves and have-nots, where some players can bring the character/army they want and have a good time where others can't, due to the character/army not being capable or perhaps not even existing (cf. complaints about the Crusade Paths from the Eldar book)?)

The way it maps to Crusade's issues is that some armies are dramatically worse than others, and it's no fun for, say, the AdMech player to lose all the time, which is what happened in the last Crusade league I was in, with the Tyranid player just beating everyone forever.

 vict0988 wrote:
Aren't you the one who is arguing for not using geometry? Whether it obscures half the range depends on how you define a height level and the exact size of the miniatures. You basically have to create zones around the hill that grant different levels of obscurement to different height levels of models, or we could just continue with TLOS.
https://imgur.com/a/SUYxweU

Your images show a wall, not a hill. A hill has a slope and a hill in that position would be unlikely to block much LOS. A wall would, but a wall is also appropriate for rules like "any model within 2" of a wall has cover", representing the fact that even if a model in a static pose is not obscured the real soldiers would be capable of ducking behind the wall and using it for protection.

Also, a wargame is not required to duplicate every single feature and edge case of TLOS to be a valid wargame. A certain level of abstraction is assumed, just like a game with TLOS makes certain abstractions that do not match reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
I've said everything I needed to say about Crusade.

Until next time you are, as you said, summoned to defend it. Hopefully next time you remember this discussion and the fact that, for many of us, Crusade is a deeply flawed and disappointing system that fails miserably when you attempt to use it for anything but a very specific type of story. I'm glad you enjoy that one story, but it's pretty sad to see narrative players defending a system that tells most of us "screw you, your stories aren't worth telling".

 vict0988 wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

nou wrote:
Lvl 2 hill between shooter on lvl 3 vs target on lvl 0 obscures the target along half of the whole range.

And you're also bad at geometry. How much a hill obscures depends on the slope of the hill, among other things. There is no single answer like "half of the range" that applies to every possible situation. In many cases a level 2 hill will obscure none of the range, and in most cases the region where the hill obscures TLOS but the model isn't standing on the hill (and therefore subject to area terrain rules) is relatively small.

Aren't you the one who is arguing for not using geometry? Whether it obscures half the range depends on how you define a height level and the exact size of the miniatures. You basically have to create zones around the hill that grant different levels of obscurement to different height levels of models, or we could just continue with TLOS.
https://imgur.com/a/SUYxweU

What? Why?

There are systems out there now that use a height system for models and terrain perfectly fine, without resorting to geometry and without needing TLOS. GW used to use one. There's no reason why you can't simply draw a line between two bases, determine the heights of each model versus the heights of any intervening terrain and determine LoS systetmatically. The exact angle of elevation doesn't need to be modelled.

pgmason wrote:
@Karol

What you just described is exactly how it worked in 3rd and 4th ed 40k. Models and terrain had size/height values. For some unfathomable reason this was discarded in the change to 5th and the game has been poorer for it ever since.

100% categorically false. Every single edition has used TLOS. The sole exception was 4th's area terrain rules, which had height categories. All other terrain used TLOS.

3rd ed. Rulebook page 36- "Sometimes it may be hard to tell if a LOS is blocked or , so players must stoop over the table for a "model's eye view". This is the best way to see if LOS exists...
Enemy models and all vehicles, friend or foe, do block a unit's LOS if they are in the way, just like buildings and other terrain. enemy models will block the LOS to other models up to twice their height."

2nd ed. rulebook page 26- "However in some cases it will be difficult to tell if a LOS is blocked or not, and players must stoop over the table for a model's eye view. This is always the best way to determine if LOS exists- some players even use small periscopes or mirrors to check the views from their models!..."

Oh look, TLOS.

nou 805972 11408469 wrote:

Now answer this: does a lvl 2 hill blocks LoS between a height 1 shooter on lvl 3 and a height 1 target on lvl 1. If you don’t immediately understand why you need TLOS for that, take your time. I’m not talking any heresy here, only simple geometry. TLOS is the only way to test that and every miniatures wargame designer knows this. If you abstract this fundamental problem away from your game you are approaching chess levels of „terrain” abstraction and no longer talking about miniatures wargame as historically defined and commonly understood.

No. Why would they block LoS, if you are on a pice of terrain your hight is that of the tier you are on. So if you are on a tier 3 building shoting at a tier 1 target, and the terrain being shot through is not tier 2 or higher, the target is visible and there for open to be shot at. No TLoS needed.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Why would you even use a guide to make a d&d character?

Because of this: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats

Because of this: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/spell-lists-sorcerer-and-wizard

The sheer number of options makes having a build guide necessary for most players. Good luck even getting a normal person to read all of those rules. And only a tiny minority of hardcore character optimizers are going to be able to keep track of it all, evaluate the options, and make an informed choice about how to build their characters. For everyone else you either use a build guide that at least narrows down the options to a handful of key choices or you end up with a broken character that flails impotently while the players who used build guides are trashing everything with +20 to hit, +50 on every skill roll, and spells with 100D6 damage.

I'm very aware of the sprawl of 3.5e (I have a very large folder of downloaded books that I would peruse while coming up with and building new characters). Part of the fun for me is that there's always some new feat or spell that you missed or haven't encountered yet. If you are only going to play a single character ever, then I guess you would need to make sure you knew everything so you didn't miss out on something. But for most folks, there's (almost) always the option of swapping out a character mid campaign (permanently or temporarily), playing a short campaign (a single adventure sort of thing), or just the natural turnover in campaigns dying out and a new campaign starting up again.

If you've got an experienced DM, they will work to curtail excessively powerful builds without sacrificing the fun that min/maxers have in min/maxing their characters. My personal favorite that I've seen is limiting players to the core books plus a certain number of additional books (usually one or two) of their choice that that player can use to build their characters. Less experienced DM might opt to simply limit the book selection to everyone using the same limited set (shouldn't be a problem if they're up front about it).

A really amazing DM can also craft an adventure where entire sessions are largely dominated by roleplay rather than roll-play (see what I did there... I'm not ashamed to laugh at my own joke). I'm blessed to know multiple people that have that sort of skill (and doubly blessed to be playing in one of their campaigns). There's a balance of course, because some prefer the combat and rolling while others prefer the roleplay and still others are in between those two.

Also, I've played in a 5e adventure where I was waaaay underpowered compared to everyone else (I played straight up barbarian). Still had a lot of fun playing my character who had a loud excited "I'm confident in my own strength carrying me through any challenge" personality despite the fact that he would have almost certainly lost to any other character if they fought one on one. It's role playing. So what if you aren't The Best Character (tm).

Finally, why is it a problem if someone reaches for different games to scratch different itches? We're not 1D memes, we're people.

yeah if someone's looking at build guides for D&D, I'm suspecting he's not playing for the reason I am.

Why on earth would you use a build guide for dnd? I haven't played dnd since AD&D 2nd and would ridicule someone non-stop if they resorted to "outside help" building a character. If this is how "modern" dnd is like, I'm glad I ditched it decades ago.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Why on earth would you use a build guide for dnd? I haven't played dnd since AD&D 2nd and would ridicule someone non-stop if they resorted to "outside help" building a character. If this is how "modern" dnd is like, I'm glad I ditched it decades ago.

You use a build guide in D&D to avoid building a helplessly useless character.

While I haven't played must 5th Edition, both 3rd, 3.5, and 4th Edition had so many choices that it was easy to make bad choices that yielded a character far less powerful than their level would indicate. At the same time, it was possible to make characters (especially in 3.5) that were far more powerful than their peers. Build guides helped you avoid the trap mistakes that were far too easy to make because they looked cool.

Glad to know I ditched at the right time. My local group is constantly begging for me to join but it just interests me absolutely zero.

 alextroy wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Why on earth would you use a build guide for dnd? I haven't played dnd since AD&D 2nd and would ridicule someone non-stop if they resorted to "outside help" building a character. If this is how "modern" dnd is like, I'm glad I ditched it decades ago.

You use a build guide in D&D to avoid building a helplessly useless character.

While I haven't played must 5th Edition, both 3rd, 3.5, and 4th Edition had so many choices that it was easy to make bad choices that yielded a character far less powerful than their level would indicate. At the same time, it was possible to make characters (especially in 3.5) that were far more powerful than their peers. Build guides helped you avoid the trap mistakes that were far too easy to make because they looked cool.

And those guides are complete crap as far as doing pretty much anything other than MOAR DAMAGE is concerned. They cannot take into account what type of game you're actually in nor any actual character development that might occur storywise.

Any good guide will tell you what is good for what and what is just all around bad. It is up to you to decide if you want to worship at the idol of MOAR DAMAGE or make a more rounded character. Which is the better decision also depends on the nature of the game you play. Taking skills is good if the GM has lots of skill checks in the game, but is a bad decision if you are mostly smashing monsters.

I still don't get it but to each their own. You seem pretty convinced you need a guide to successfully build a character. I've just never run into that problem at any time during my years of playing d&d. Sure, I've built characters that weren't able to pull their own weight, but I didn't feel like they were "bad" characters. The only "bad" character I can think of was the time I built a paladin prestige class and the only reason he was bad was that we had a necromancer in the party and I fell into the jerk paladin trope. I ditched the character after a couple sessions and made a new character that was a lot more fun (I think they were a true necromancer prestige class actually... whichever was the one that switched your familiar for an undead minion)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So I just tallied it up and here's the breakdown of my characters by edition/system
3.5e: 19 (a couple of those the campaigns fell apart before the first session or I came up with another idea and wanted to play that more for whatever reason)
4e: 1
5e: 4
D20 modern/future: 4
Dark Heresy: 1
Orpheus: 1 (we all built ourselves in 10 years...it was kind of fun)
GURPS: 1
(Edit: also 1 in the werewolf system)

And like I said, only one character in that batch was bad and that's because of how I played him interacting with our necromancer, tbh. The class was Shadowbane Inquisitor, btw.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Why on earth would you use a build guide for dnd? I haven't played dnd since AD&D 2nd and would ridicule someone non-stop if they resorted to "outside help" building a character. If this is how "modern" dnd is like, I'm glad I ditched it decades ago.

The 3.x DnD system was very fun and there was a lot of freedom in character builds. You could make quirky or interesting setups and there was the oportunity for creativity in *mechanics* as well as story.