# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## Backporting Tome to 3.0E

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

37 posts

- Previous
- 1
- 2

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:04 pm

I really do not fucking understand all this bullshit about XOXOXOX flanking chains. For fucks sake, initiative delay and Lightning Bolt are things that exist.
I am hard pressed to imagine a single situation ever in any combat in which a flanking chain would ever be either sides optimal move. Things like Stinking Cloud and the ability for you to kill someone in a single full attack make the very idea of wasting even a single action trying to set one up absolutely absurd.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Scrivener
  Journeyman
  Posts: 127
  Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Scrivener » Fri Jan 09, 2015 1:05 am

What? Who lighting bolts their own people?
Flanking is better than not flanking, you can agree with that right? A +2 is better than a +0. Being next to allies of artillery discourages AoE because most people avoid friendly fire, unless effort has gone to make it inconsequential.
When charging into combat a rational person will attempt to flank, on both sides. So if you have two teams of two, a&b and 1&2, if anyone is flanked like 1a2, the most advantageous charge point is b1a2 or 1a2b. Heck if any of these combatants have sneak attack it makes this configuration more likely.
Now if your point is "why worry about martials?" Sure, they get out classed, but that doesn't mean there aren't issues.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:42 am

> Scrivener wrote:What? Who lighting bolts their own people?

Hence why I stated that delay exists.

> Scrivener wrote:Flanking is better than not flanking, you can agree with that right? A +2 is better than a +0. Being next to allies of artillery discourages AoE because most people avoid friendly fire, unless effort has gone to make it inconsequential.

High Ground is better than not right? So clearly everyone is always fighting on tables.
Your idea is incredibly simplistic and stupid. Stupid because if you are not a Rogue, and the enemy team has any non zero number of Rogues, you are not going to trade your flanking of them for their flanking of you, because they clearly get more out of it.
Simplistic because flanking doesn't have a zero cost to obtain and maintain. If you have to provoke even a single AoO to get flanking it instantly isn't worth it. Also since a full attack kills someone in one turn, the idea of trying to get a flanking bonus to kill and then more kill their corpse is meaningless.

> Scrivener wrote:Now if your point is "why worry about martials?" Sure, they get out classed, but that doesn't mean there aren't issues.

No my point is that if there exists a person who can cast stinking cloud on your team, then your best strategy is to form a wall, not let the enemy inside the wall, and fight with them in the stinking cloud and you not in the stinking cloud. And letting them get out of the stinking cloud or going into it yourself just so you have flanking is fucking retarded.
TL;DR: There are so many million things going on in every given battle that are more important than a +2 bonus that I have literally in 10+ years never seen this stupid conga line bullshit, and if you are every finding that a stupid +2 bonus is the most important factor in the combat determining everyone's positioning then you are clearly doing something stupidly wrong, possible using only level 4 warriors on both sides of the fight.
Last edited by Kaelik on Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Lago PARANOIA
  Invincible Overlord
  Posts: 10555
  Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

###

- Quote

Post by Lago PARANOIA » Fri Jan 09, 2015 3:17 am

Am I misremembering things or did 3.0E D&D have more detailed and useful rules for cover than 3.5E?

> Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
> In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.

Top

Judging__Eagle
  Prince
  Posts: 4671
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

###

- Quote

Post by Judging__Eagle » Fri Jan 09, 2015 3:53 am

> Lago PARANOIA wrote:Am I misremembering things or did 3.0E D&D have more detailed and useful rules for cover than 3.5E?

Yes.
Tower Shields used to grant some amount of cover; then got changed into granting +4 (equivalent of "half cover").
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
Top

OgreBattle
  King
  Posts: 6819
  Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by OgreBattle » Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:41 am

Riddle of Steel had an interesting premise for maneuvering in combat called the Terrain Roll. The way it works is...
1) Everyone involved in the melee makes a terrain roll
2) The person who rolled the highest gets to choose who he engages in combat OR chooses that he will not be engaged in combat
So lets say the PC is a knight chasing an injured ork that has been joined by two other fresh orks. Some possible results are
-Knight wins the roll: Knight has managed to outmaneuver the orks and chooses to target the injured one, the other orks cannot attack him for this round.
-Injured ork wins the roll, with knight in 2nd: The ork flees, the knight has to choose which of the two orks left he will engage but he only fights that one ork this round.
-Knight loses to all orks: all 3 orks get to make attacks on the knight this round.
I figure something similar can be adopted to grid-based D&D play
Last edited by OgreBattle on Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Koumei
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 13796
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: South Ausfailia

###

- Quote

Post by Koumei » Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:53 am

> Judging__Eagle wrote:Tower Shields used to grant some amount of cover; then got changed into granting +4 (equivalent of "half cover").

Yeah, they gave cover, which was really handy for hiding behind them, thus being able to make Hide checks.
And for flat-out negating all Attacks of Opportunity ever. Clerics just never provoked thanks to that one item. The friend who taught me the rules even had this little gesture of raising his arm then lowering it, miming "having a tower shield", for every time the MC mentioned provoking.

> Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.

Top

Schleiermacher
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 665
  Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:39 am

###

- Quote

Post by Schleiermacher » Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:13 pm

And this was a preferable state of affairs because...?
Top

ACOS
  Knight
  Posts: 452
  Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:15 pm

### Re: Backporting Tome to 3.0E

- Quote

Post by ACOS » Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:17 pm

> DeadlyReed wrote:I've decided to go back to 3.0e. Anything I should keep a lookout for in regards to using Tome material?

Facing?
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
- Robert E. Howard
Top

Ice9
  Duke
  Posts: 1568
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Ice9 » Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:06 pm

I don't remember 3.0 having facing, except perhaps as an alternate rule. It did have pseudo-facing for non-square creatures, in that they could be oriented one way or the other, but that still didn't define a fixed front or back, or have any such rules effect.
Top

Josh_Kablack
  King
  Posts: 5317
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Online. duh

###

- Quote

Post by Josh_Kablack » Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:30 am

Notably 3.0 shield had heavy pseudo-facing.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
Top

TarkisFlux
  Duke
  Posts: 1147
  Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:44 pm
  Location: Magic Mountain, CA
  Contact:
  Contact TarkisFlux
  Website

###

- Quote

Post by TarkisFlux » Sun Jan 11, 2015 4:29 am

Darkness is actually dark in 3.0.
The wiki you should be linking to when you need a wiki link - http://www.dnd-wiki.org
Fectin: "Ant, what is best in life?"
Ant: "Ethically, a task well-completed for the good of the colony. Experientially, endorphins."
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

37 posts

- Previous
- 1
- 2

Return to “In My Humble Opinion...”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS