PDA

View Full Version : i hate grids 1in is 5ft



nealpb
2010-12-07, 11:32 PM
must games usese a grid (A square on the battle grid is 1 inch across, representing a 5-foot-by-5-foot area.) has any tryed to play a game w/o useing a grid?

this is what i mean some rules in D&D any (E) or any game i played you cant put more then one char in a 5ft square thats bull. what i trying to do is change it to 1in is 5ft. for the table all you will see is even space building, hallways, door ways, est. but no grid to tell you any range. change the spells to in's VS ft.

The Antigamer
2010-12-07, 11:49 PM
I think this might belong in Roleplaying Games.

To address your issue though, I've never had a problem with grids.

"some rules in D&D any (E) or any game i played you cant put more then one char in a 5ft square thats bull"
There are rules for moving into another's 5' space. Look at tiny creatures, they can only attack from the same space as the creature they're attacking.

Serpentine
2010-12-07, 11:56 PM
I use centimetre graph paper for my battle maps when necessary, but we often just wing it, especially if it's just a quick battle or simple terrain.
No, you don't need to use a grid. They're basically just there to help you work out distances and areas for effects. If you can make do without them - I believe some people use rulers - there's no reason why you shouldn't.

Mystic Muse
2010-12-07, 11:59 PM
most games use a grid (A square on the battle grid is 1 inch across, representing a 5-foot-by-5-foot area.) has anybody tried to play a game without using a grid?

This is what I mean. some rules in D&D, any edition or any game that I've played, you cant put more than one character in a 5ft square. That's bull. What I'm trying to do is change it to 1 inch is 5ft. for the table all you will see is even space building, hallways, door ways, ETC. However, no grid to tell you any range and change the spells to inches instead of feet.

Changed to be easier to read.

In response to your idea, I don't think it's Necessary. In fact, It sounds like not only will it make the game needlessly complicated, it also involves a huge workload for the DM to change every spell to scale with inches instead of feet/squares.

Also, you'll get more responses nealpb if you use proper grammar. It just makes it so much easier to read and understand what you're trying to say if you use proper grammar.

Vaynor
2010-12-08, 12:14 AM
I rarely use a grid, sometimes the DM will keep track of it in the background if it's necessary, though.

Also:

The Red Towel: Moved to Roleplaying.

Mando Knight
2010-12-08, 12:50 AM
this is what i mean some rules in D&D any (E) or any game i played you cant put more then one char in a 5ft square thats bull.
It's fighting space, not physically-occupied space. It represents having enough room to get around and fight in. Watch fencers or something sometime. If they got in as close as they could, they would be too close to fight unless they were wrestling... which isn't valid in fencing and can be fairly impractical at times with other weapon-based martial arts.

Hallavast
2010-12-08, 01:07 AM
Years ago, when I first started gaming, we didn't use grids. When I was learning the game I didn't even know they were used at all. Then I discovered my uncle's miniature collection and was amazed that they were for the same game I'd been learning and playing. About the time D&D 3e came out I had started my own gaming group and I used the grid and miniatures more and more (and started my own collection). In recent years, our games have been less and less focused on complicated combats and more focused on narrative and story detail. So now we only use the grid for complex combats (those that will probably last more than 4 or 5 rounds). Mostly we just describe combat movement, distances, area of effect, and targeting the same way we'd describe any other thing in the game. It makes for a smoother narrative, and the tension is rarely broken by the "STOP! Roll initiative!" effect.

I've also played a number of games with hexgrids instead of squares. And I believe Star Wars Saga is measured metrically by default (rather than English) which is a nice little change if you're not used to it.

Callista
2010-12-08, 02:13 AM
It's fighting space, not physically-occupied space. It represents having enough room to get around and fight in. Watch fencers or something sometime. If they got in as close as they could, they would be too close to fight unless they were wrestling... which isn't valid in fencing and can be fairly impractical at times with other weapon-based martial arts.Appropriately, if you are wrestling, you enter the other person's square.

Dumping the grid is something you shouldn't do without doing a lot of thinking first. Tactically oriented characters like the rogue, wizard, and fighter aren't going to be very happy about suddenly having no way to figure out things like whether they're flanking, whether they get an attack of opportunity, or whether their spell will cover the enemies without hurting their allies.

You don't have to use a grid for everything, of course; but if you're in a fight to the point that you're rolling initiatives, you almost always want to use one.

Ozreth
2010-12-08, 02:40 AM
This is one of the reasons I am looking forward to getting into AD&D2e. I want to drop minis (and grids for the most part) and I have no idea how anybody could do this with 3e+. I would lose track of where everybody is standing after the first round.

Quick, vaguely detailed battles with a rules light system seems like perfection to me : )

Eldan
2010-12-08, 04:38 AM
Never used the grid, don't plan on ever doing it. It only gets in the way and makes combat even more boring than it already is. Just wing it. "You hit X people with your fireball if you aim over there" or "This one gets an attack of opportunity if you run up to that guy" is entirely enough to make it work.

J.Gellert
2010-12-08, 04:55 AM
I never really use one as a DM, either. Monsters and foes are boring, far less threatening as miniatures, and besides, we never seem to have enough to portray everything.

If a player says "I want to charge that guy" I allow it based on the number of enemies (is he charging the guy on the front or the boss covered by mooks?), the state of the room (does he have acrobatic charge?), whether or not he is slowed down (is he charging an archer in heavy armor?) and the image of the fight as it runs in my head (where is he, exactly?).

If he wants to cast something like fireball, I just tell him the maximum number of mooks he can hit with it, assuming best positioning possible. And sometimes I give a choice: "You can hit 4 minions, or two minions and that sniper, or 8 minions and your party fighter".

It's not as simple, but really, moving around miniatures is tedious, and tracing lines can be very time-consuming. I've been in games with miniatures as a player and you don't really gain much.

On the other hand, I sometimes use large-scale maps to portray other events. "The village is over there, the temple is there, and you are in the castle here. The orks are coming from this way and this way. You can be there or there in ten minutes." These maps don't have a grid.

It's probably because we started with 2nd edition AD&D. Judging from combat chapters of the newer Player's Handbooks, it's almost assumed that miniatures (or at least counters) will be used. Still it reminds me too much of Hero Quest.

Which was fun, but in my mind, miniatures and a grid map is the distinction between a tabletop game and a role-playing game. :smallsmile:

Psyx
2010-12-08, 05:52 AM
I've only ever used a grid when playing 3e. And then not all of the while.

It generally detracts and makes the game feel more like a wargame than an RPG, IMHO. It also seems to double the amount of time it takes to run a combat. Maps are Sllllooooow.

If I'm running a complex fight in another system, I'll scribble a map out on a bit of paper and then just put lots of pencilled arrows on it, or maybe use dice to represent monsters/characters.

AslanCross
2010-12-08, 06:17 AM
Having a group full of science/math students who can do the Pythagorean theorem off the top of their head is great when using a grid.

The grid hasn't slowed down my games or ruined versimilitude in any way. I think it really depends on the group's playstyle. But yeah, the 5-foot grids make sense in that a human-sized creature can only fight effectively with some clearance. That's why there are rules for squeezing in narrow spaces and occupying another character's space (grappling, smaller characters, etc).

Dr.Epic
2010-12-08, 06:20 AM
I don't see how you can play a game without a grid. I mean I have but combat is really confusing. A grid is really the best way to simulate combat in terms of visuals.

Zeta Kai
2010-12-08, 06:31 AM
I mean, I make my encounter maps to the proper scale without exception, but I don't always make the grid a visible thing. It depends on how sure I am that combat will occur on a particular map; if it's a sure thing, then the grid will be displayed, if it's merely possible, then I might not if may spoil the mood. It's not that big a deal, though. Why the hate, OP?

Eldan
2010-12-08, 06:33 AM
I tend to run combat entirely by description, really, and improvise if necessary. It works well enough. I haven't myself run a game with a battlemap, but whenever I saw other DMs doing it, it absolutely broke the flow of the game and the immersion. "You are walking down the corridor. It is quiet save for the dripping of water in the distance. There is a sharp, unpleasant scent in the air. Suddenly, as you walk around the corner... HUGE SHEET OF PAPER AND PLASTIC FIGURINES!"

Psyx
2010-12-08, 06:42 AM
But yeah, the 5-foot grids make sense in that a human-sized creature can only fight effectively with some clearance.

Which is why all those armies who fought in close ranks were rubbish and lost all the while, due to there squeezing penalties.

cf: Roman legions, Greek phalanxes, Napoleonic era infantry, Saxon shield walls, pike blocks...

Poil
2010-12-08, 06:56 AM
I like grids because it makes it a lot easier for me to see and be able to remember where everything is. However my group bought a small whiteboard a while back and it's been completely awesome. It's put up against one of those stands you use when painting next to the dm. "You guys are here, the walls go here, here and here and all the werewolves are coming from there."


Which is why all those armies who fought in close ranks were rubbish and lost all the while, due to there squeezing penalties.

There is a slight difference between a dozen people and thousands though. :smalltongue:

Sir Swindle89
2010-12-08, 08:04 AM
We use grids in 3rd most of the time unless it's somthing not worth it. 4E basically requires ine since it's basically a war game any way. Every thing else, simple sketches get used if a discription becomes too confusing.

I get really enraged when people think their game world happens in 5ft chunks. I mean people actually avoid diagonaly hall ways to stay in lines with the grid! It's dumb.

I specifically recall my AD&D rule book saying it is a perfectly valid option to stand on a corner or a line of the grid. Since 3rd never said any thing different i just assumed the same and never did it because it didn't matter.

Psyx
2010-12-08, 08:11 AM
There is a slight difference between a dozen people and thousands though. :smalltongue:

There's a slight difference between a dozen people fighting with a <5' frontage and a thousand? Not mechanically there isn't. In the same way that there's no difference between an inch on a foot ruler and an inch on a yardstick...

Irbis
2010-12-08, 08:46 AM
There's a slight difference between a dozen people fighting with a <5' frontage and a thousand? Not mechanically there isn't. In the same way that there's no difference between an inch on a foot ruler and an inch on a yardstick...

Mechanically, yes, there's a difference, as the game tries to simulate a band of skirmishers, not tightly packed (due to the lack of space) army. Both styles of combat are completely different.

Killer Angel
2010-12-08, 08:52 AM
With AD&D no grid, but mere description; with 3.x, I always use grid.

Anyway, I like more a hexagons' grid. It's easily to use for movement, area of effect, ect.

Yuki Akuma
2010-12-08, 08:55 AM
There's a slight difference between a dozen people fighting with a <5' frontage and a thousand? Not mechanically there isn't. In the same way that there's no difference between an inch on a foot ruler and an inch on a yardstick...

Actually, mechanically, there is.

There are rules for large groups of humanoids. They're treated as swarms, more or less. DMG2.

Loren
2010-12-08, 09:11 AM
I find the importance of a battle map varies with system, play style, and nature of the combat. 4E basically requires the grid and makes very good use of it. 3.P makes use of it, but can function without if one were to run relatively simple combats. 2E doesn't need it, and doesn't do a good job of making it an important part of character design, but at times a map can be useful.

One thing I liked about 4E is they generally dropped squares converting to a defined space on the gound. How big is a square, roughly as big as a person can meaningfully expect to defend and still be able to attack into an equal sized adjacent area. From my exerience with one handed and bastard swords, 5 ft squares are a little big but not far off (I occupy a 2-3 foot by 1 foot area when in a combat stance, but I can easily cover a much larger area over the time it takes to receive and return attacks; my arm is about 20 inches, my sword is about 30 inches, therefore I can meaningfully hit things within 4 feet of me). I'd suggest that one square equals 4 feet would probably be more realistic.

edit
To argue against the above, I've also used two handed swords which give a noticable difference in reach. Making great swords and falchions reach weapons may destablise some games, although in RL their effective combat range is not much different than the reach weapons.
The moral ofd the story is D&D will always do a bad job of representing realistic combat if you follow basically any semblance of the rules.

Psyx
2010-12-08, 09:18 AM
Mechanically, yes, there's a difference, as the game tries to simulate a band of skirmishers, not tightly packed (due to the lack of space) army. Both styles of combat are completely different.

Erm..armies don't fight in a closely packed manner due to lack of space.
They do it deliberately because it's tactically effective. If you look to the left and right of shield walls and battle formations in paintings, there's normally quite large empty spaces there. ;)

You really don't need 5' of space to walk around in to use a weapon effectively. The basic assumption on the part of WotC that people can't effectively operate in a smaller area has lead to the knock-on effect of ridiculously over-sized
rooms. I don't think I've seen a peasant hovel less than 30' long!

If I were to use a grid for 3e/4e, I'd look to using a 3.3' sized square, giving a somewhat more believable frontage of three in a 10' passage.

Psyx
2010-12-08, 09:23 AM
Making great swords and falchions reach weapons may destablise some games, although in RL their effective combat range is not much different than the reach weapons.
The moral ofd the story is D&D will always do a bad job of representing realistic combat if you follow basically any semblance of the rules.


Remember that a 10' reach is kind of more like 12.5'. Far too far with a greatsword unless you move more than 5' (ie a square) or lunge (which is a feat).

But yes: Totally agree.
Adding grids to 3e in order to make it 'more realistic' or 'a better simulation' is like putting a fairing on a 50cc moped to make it more of a sportsbike. I understand the *need* in many cases for a grid in 3e, due to the artificial dependence of the rules on movement and reach, but that's a weakness and failing of them, rather than something that adds to the game in any way, in my eyes.

Sir Swindle89
2010-12-08, 09:23 AM
IDK about you guys but every "step" i take is at least 5ft :smallwink: (cuz all PC's are apparently 12 ft tall)

true_shinken
2010-12-08, 09:44 AM
I'm surprised with all the grid hate and how people don't use grids.
Maybe that's one reason why people so frequently say melee can't contribute; you can't perform lockdown successfully without precise battle positions. Attacks of opportunity for movement and great reach will both mean nothing when you don't know exactly where everyone is.

Duke of URL
2010-12-08, 09:52 AM
I see it as three distinct options, with possible sub-options:

1) Use a grid (square or hex). The game rules anticipate -- or, to be more precise, expect -- this, and this is the RAW way to play the game, with tactical positioning, etc., being an integral part of the game.

2) Go gridless, but use miniatures. If you've got the equipment and the patience, this can be awesome. Using the standard miniatures scale, 1 inch is appx. equal to 5' (2.5 cm is actually closer for our metric friends), so distances, movement, etc, just need to be measured. Space is taken care of by the miniatures themselves.

3) Chuck it all and go free-form. This removes some of the tactical elements for the game, but if you're not interested, no big loss.

EccentricCircle
2010-12-08, 09:52 AM
I've always thought that its interesting how polarising this issue is.
personaly i've always used miniatures and a grid in my games (primarly D&D 3.5)

I know some people find that they slow things down and complicate matters needlessly but I think it is very much down to the group. some people are very good at visualising spatial information and holding the entire thing in their heads, whereas others aren't.
people with shorter active memories find it a lot harder to keep track of which character is where and will often phase out or loose interest in combat if its not easy to see at a glance whats going on. (I find this myself when playing and so always try to make things as clear as possible when DM)

of course its possible to run a combat as a loosely defined narrative where exact movement makes less of an impact, and some games favour this aproach more than the detailed tactical system of D&D. but each edition of D&D seems to be getting more tactical. so I would always recomend grids even if you as the DM do not find them useful, its possible that some of your players do.
proper miniatures and dungeon tiles aren't essential. I know some people who sketch it on paper of a white board. but its usefult o have an up to date map of the area (preferably to scale) so that everyone knows whats going on.

that said a grid is just a tool, like a ruler or pencil. I frequently remind people that "the Squares aren't really there" and am happy to gloss over some of the more complicated movement rules if it will speed up combat, or they don't really add anything.

it annoys me when people say that using miniatures makes it a battle game rather than a roleplaying game. roleplaying is about using your imagination to create an interesting narrative. what tools and equipment you use to help everyone do that and share in that narrative is another matter entirely.

Winterwind
2010-12-08, 10:00 AM
I tend to run combat entirely by description, really, and improvise if necessary. It works well enough. I haven't myself run a game with a battlemap, but whenever I saw other DMs doing it, it absolutely broke the flow of the game and the immersion. "You are walking down the corridor. It is quiet save for the dripping of water in the distance. There is a sharp, unpleasant scent in the air. Suddenly, as you walk around the corner... HUGE SHEET OF PAPER AND PLASTIC FIGURINES!"Precisely this.

I've always found that "So, how far away is it from me?" - "About 30'." is perfectly enough for players to work with. Once there is a battlegrid, people tend to start viewing the whole game as a strategic exercise; they stop behaving in character and start having discussions like "So, if I go over here, and you go over here..." - "Nah, better move to this one field next to it, then I will be able to...". And I don't think battlegrids serve so much as a tool to help the players' imagination as as a tool to replace it - instead of trying to imagine that damp dungeon with the runes glowing on the walls and smoke wallowing down from the obsidian altar, they start seeing only the battlegrid, the miniatures on it, and the game of chess with slightly more complicated rules it represents.

Erom
2010-12-08, 10:05 AM
Once there is a battlegrid, people tend to start viewing the whole game as a strategic exercise;
Some of us use the grid because we like strategic exercises. The "You go here, I'll go to this space, then you do that" is a lot of the fun my group gets from dnd. To each his own, put personally a game with just role-play and no strategy bores me.

Also, for new players, using a grid as an "imagination crutch" (which, of course, it can be at times) can actually be pretty helpful. I have players who give up if I ask them to imagine the character they are playing AND the scene they are in at the same time.

Finally, to the OP: If you are talking about replacing a grid with a wargaming style ruler (you can move 5" this round, fireball is a 3" circle, etc.) be warned that I have tried that, and the extra time it takes slows the combat down a LOT compared to just using a grid. Grids are fast.

Sir Swindle89
2010-12-08, 10:23 AM
Finally, to the OP: If you are talking about replacing a grid with a wargaming style ruler (you can move 5" this round, fireball is a 3" circle, etc.) be warned that I have tried that, and the extra time it takes slows the combat down a LOT compared to just using a grid. Grids are fast.

I don't think he ever really implied that. But when you did it did you use cut outs like warhamer (large blast, small blast ect.)?

Erom
2010-12-08, 10:26 AM
I don't think he ever really implied that. But when you did it did you use cut outs like warhamer (large blast, small blast ect.)?
Yeah, and those helped. It was mostly movement paths v/ opportunity attacks that took FOREVER to resolve.

Winterwind
2010-12-08, 10:46 AM
Some of us use the grid because we like strategic exercises. The "You go here, I'll go to this space, then you do that" is a lot of the fun my group gets from dnd. To each his own, put personally a game with just role-play and no strategy bores me.Fair enough. If that's what you and your group want, all the better for you. Personally, I find that boredom is better prevented by appropriately dramatic scenes and giving players who come up with good and engaging ideas their credit (where "good and engaging ideas" is "I throw the rope around the chandelier and use it to swing myself away from the balcony and the henchmen following me and onto the back of the monster fighting my friends below", not "I move from square D5 to square E11!"), rather than strategical exercises, because while both manage to provide something interesting to the players and prevent boredom, the former does so without breaking immersion and disrupting the mood. And, in my experience, there is nothing that kills fun more quickly in a roleplaying game than a loss of immersion and mood.

(For the same reason I much prefer rules-light systems that don't get in the way. To me, the hallmark of a good system is that one doesn't notice most of the time that it is there.)

Stanlee
2010-12-08, 10:49 AM
I personally always liked the metric system. Its a bit large but you can convert 1in square into 2 meters. Makes all the other math really easy.

true_shinken
2010-12-08, 10:49 AM
Fair enough. If that's what you and your group want, all the better for you. Personally, I find that boredom is better prevented by appropriately dramatic scenes and giving players who come up with good and engaging ideas their credit (where "good and engaging ideas" is "I throw the rope around the chandelier and use it to swing myself away from the balcony and the henchmen following me and onto the back of the monster fighting my friends below", not "I move from square D5 to square E11!")
Why do you need to have one or the other? You could very well use grids for positioning and use the field to your advantage. My players do that all the time (we even have a swashbuckler type who is always swinging on chandeliers).
Just because you like tactics, doesn't mean you don't like drama.
Just because you are using a grid, doesn't mean you can't immerse yourself in the game.



I personally always liked the metric system. Its a bit large but you can convert 1in square into 2 meters. Makes all the other math really easy.
D&D in Portuguese uses the metric system. It goes with 1 square = 1,5meters.




(For the same reason I much prefer rules-light systems that don't get in the way. To me, the hallmark of a good system is that one doesn't notice most of the time that it is there.)
That basically means you don't like D&D. If that's the case, why you are on a thread about D&D basically telling people that like D&D that they are 'doing it wrong'?

Sir Swindle89
2010-12-08, 10:52 AM
D&D in Portuguese uses the metric system. It goes with 1 square = 1,5meters.

In a certain galaxy far far away they are 2 meter squares

Psyx
2010-12-08, 11:20 AM
you can't perform lockdown successfully without precise battle positions. Attacks of opportunity for movement and great reach will both mean nothing when you don't know exactly where everyone is.

Err...sure you can. If someone says 'I'm at the front, screening the squishies with my reach weapon' then that's what they're doing.

Every other game manages to keep track of things without a grid, and I really don't struggle to do so in 3e. In many ways a lack of map can be more generous to characters. A monster might be 65' away on a grid, but any GM keeping track of rough positions in their head will give the benefit of the doubt and count that as 60' if that's your charge allowance. After all, monsters are not going to deliberately position themselves 'far enough away so that if he runs at me with a weapon, he can't reach me and attack, and he'll stop just in front of me', because that's ludicrously artificial and essentially bending 'reality' to conform with rules.

Sure, sometimes players do need to say 'whoa...do I get an AOE?' but things generally run smoothly and it's still much much faster than moving on a map.

Besides: Maps and grids are clinical and precise. Melees aren't. Combatants move back and forth, rather than weld themselves to the spot.

As for maps stopping 3.5 being an RPG... I won't go that far. But I will say that if I want to play a wargame, then that's what I'll do (and I'll play a more tactically interesting one than 3.5!). I do like tactical exercises [it's not strategy...] a lot, but I don't need a grid to do that. It's just as tactical without a grid, really.

As regards the 'aids visualisation' thing, I find it does the opposite. Being stop bothering to visualise a spooky crypt with crumbling pillars and instead start seeing the dungeon as a series of grids to move around, with a Balance DC attached to some squares.

true_shinken
2010-12-08, 11:35 AM
Err...sure you can. If someone says 'I'm at the front, screening the squishies with my reach weapon' then that's what they're doing.
This basically means you will get as many attacks of opportunity as the DM wants. It's the same with battlefield control spells, even.


After all, monsters are not going to deliberately position themselves 'far enough away so that if he runs at me with a weapon, he can't reach me and attack, and he'll stop just in front of me', because that's ludicrously artificial and essentially bending 'reality' to conform with rules.
What? Let's see, you are an intelligent monster (say - a ghoul. Int 13, Wis 14, low enough CR to be used in packs against a mid-level group). You just saw a charger trounce your companion. You know being within 60ft of him means destruction (not death, since you are alreayd dead). Why the hell would you stay within 60ft of him given choice? Is that a deathdestructionwish?


Sure, sometimes players do need to say 'whoa...do I get an AOE?' but things generally run smoothly and it's still much much faster than moving on a map.
That's the thing. If you are playing a melee lockdown build, that won't happen 'sometimes'. It will happen all the time.


Besides: Maps and grids are clinical and precise. Melees aren't. Combatants move back and forth, rather than weld themselves to the spot.
And...?


As regards the 'aids visualisation' thing, I find it does the opposite. Being stop bothering to visualise a spooky crypt with crumbling pillars and instead start seeing the dungeon as a series of grids to move around, with a Balance DC attached to some squares.
That's a matter of personal taste.

In fact, all this thread is about personal taste. Yes, D&D 3.5 was designed to be used with grids. Yes, you can not use grids, same as you can play without character sheets, without dice or without the books. It will change a lot about the game. You can still enjoy the game even then, most probably. Just stop saying people who use grids are 'doing it wrong' because it's frankly stupid.

Mando Knight
2010-12-08, 11:44 AM
In a certain galaxy far far away they are 2 meter squares

Nope. They're 1.5 meters, in SAGA at least. SAGA Core, page 146, second paragraph under Speed: "Each square represents 1.5 meters."

Besides, it comes out a lot closer to 5ft than 2m-squares do. 5 feet is precisely 1.524 meters (by the definitions of inch and foot), and 2 meters is roughly (due to rounding errors thanks to the silliness of the Not-Right system, AKA the English, Imperial, US Customary, or Whatever-You-Wish-To-Call-It-Today system) 6.562 feet, or about 6' 6.74".

Sir Swindle89
2010-12-08, 11:49 AM
Nope. They're 1.5 meters, in SAGA at least. SAGA Core, page 146, second paragraph under Speed: "Each square represents 1.5 meters."

Besides, it comes out a lot closer to 5ft than 2m-squares do. 5 feet is precisely 1.524 meters (by the definitions of inch and foot), and 2 meters is roughly (due to rounding errors thanks to the silliness of the Not-Right system, AKA the English, Imperial, US Customary, or Whatever-You-Wish-To-Call-It-Today system) 6.562 feet, or about 6' 6.74".

I have relativly limited experience with Saga i just remember my GM saying 2 meter steps at one point. Both are arbitrary distance assignments any way so it really doesn't matter, We could have a gurren leggan RPG and use some where between 5ft and 5 parsec squares.

Winterwind
2010-12-08, 12:42 PM
Why do you need to have one or the other? You could very well use grids for positioning and use the field to your advantage. My players do that all the time (we even have a swashbuckler type who is always swinging on chandeliers).
Just because you like tactics, doesn't mean you don't like drama.
Just because you are using a grid, doesn't mean you can't immerse yourself in the game.As I said before - in my experience, as soon as there is a grid, players tend to completely focus on that. Their entire attention shifts from immersion and drama to the strategical challenge at hand. If your experience has been different, my sincerest congratulations to your players for being able to pull off something that we were unable to. :smallsmile:


That basically means you don't like D&D. If that's the case, why you are on a thread about D&D basically telling people that like D&D that they are 'doing it wrong'?No need to become hostile. I wasn't. :smallconfused:

Firstly, if you re-read the OP, you will find this thread was not limited to D&D. I never mentioned D&D anywhere in my post, and never spent any thought on D&D when I composed it. Why you bring up D&D all of a sudden, or think I somehow intended for my post to be a backhanded insult at it or something, is beyond me.

Secondly, in the very same post, I stated that if people want something, then this is what they should do. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of your insinuated "you're doing it wrong".

Thirdly, I only stated what I prefer. I. Not what I want everyone else to do. How you can go from "this is why I prefer X" to "You are doing it wrong because you don't do X" is incomprehensible to me, and I take offense at you twisting my words around like that. :smallannoyed:

Fourthly, I only brought this up because I figured it was a good illustration of the same principle that lies at the basis of me preferring no grids - grids and rules-heavy systems do the same thing in my eyes, which is to draw attention from drama, mood and immersion to themselves.

bokodasu
2010-12-08, 01:00 PM
I never used grids pre-3.5, and I've played 3.5 both ways; I prefer grids for it, although other systems work better with hexes or nothing, depending on how they were written. I don't really see the problem with 5' squares being the "wrong size" - 5 just makes the math easier. If you're really bothered by it, declare that 1' = 8" in your universe. (Inappropriate anatomy joke goes here.)

Keld Denar
2010-12-08, 01:13 PM
If playing on a grid is clumsy for you, you clearly (http://www.steelsqwire.com/prod01.htm) don't have (http://www.steelsqwire.com/prod02.htm) enough toys (http://www.steelsqwire.com/prod03.htm).

nealpb
2010-12-08, 01:14 PM
thank you i can see both ends of this one ppl need or willing use a grid because it makes it a lot easier for the payers and the GM OR DM. on the other end i hate useing a grid on the table because what i keep saying when i use a grid "no perange your spell place it in a intersection and start form there" but ppl going to do it anyway. two why a intersection why can i place in a spuare? thats what the core book says a intersection that bull with no grid they can place the spell anywere they like.


IDK about you guys but every "step" i take is at least 5ft :smallwink: (cuz all PC's are apparently 12 ft tall)
i was going to start a other post about that? i should more then a 5ft step of i'm bigger the large its not scale up at all.



I rarely use a grid, sometimes the DM will keep track of it in the background if it's necessary, though.
Also:
The Red Towel: Moved to Roleplaying.
thank you for the move but i start it in homebrew because i was going to start making rules for not using a grid. i should make it more clearer i want to bed after i posted it sorry.


I see it as three distinct options, with possible sub-options:

1) Use a grid (square or hex). The game rules anticipate -- or, to be more precise, expect -- this, and this is the RAW way to play the game, with tactical positioning, etc., being an integral part of the game.

2) Go gridless, but use miniatures. If you've got the equipment and the patience, this can be awesome. Using the standard miniatures scale, 1 inch is appx. equal to 5' (2.5 cm is actually closer for our metric friends), so distances, movement, etc, just need to be measured. Space is taken care of by the miniatures themselves.

3) Chuck it all and go free-form. This removes some of the tactical elements for the game, but if you're not interested, no big loss.

i would use 2) but i need some more help with it like spells, movement, est. but that what i was going to ask for.

nealpb
2010-12-08, 01:25 PM
Finally, to the OP: If you are talking about replacing a grid with a wargaming style ruler (you can move 6" this round, fireball is a 4" circle, etc.) be warned that I have tried that, and the extra time it takes slows the combat down a LOT compared to just using a grid. Grids are fast.

fixed



I don't think he ever really implied that. But when you did it did you use cut outs like warhamer (large blast, small blast ect.)?

i would if its to scale

ajkkjjk52
2010-12-08, 01:29 PM
I have played on a whiteboard, and also played games where everything was verbal, with no visual representation.

However, I prefer the grid. If you want more degrees of movement freedom, use a hex grid or homerule that multiple characters can be in a square, but there's really no better way to be "fair" than with an absolute--even if it is arbitrary--definition of distance and space.

Psyx
2010-12-08, 01:30 PM
This basically means you will get as many attacks of opportunity as the DM wants. It's the same with battlefield control spells, even.

Which is fair, as the GM is the ref! In any RPG, you are as successful as the GM wants at the end of the day. I understand that in some groups the GM himself requires to be adjudicated via a grid!


You know being within 60ft of him means destruction (not death, since you are alreayd dead).

No you don't. You have absolutely no idea how far a person can run and kill someone in 'a combat round'. And even if you can assign threat radii, how would you know that the charger's 'limit' is 60'? You don't. And if you did, would you - mid combat in a darkened room - be able to tell the difference at a glance between 60' and 65' by eye? Of course not. The monster only 'knows' if it metagames. I would hope my GMs wouldn't do that.



If you are playing a melee lockdown build, that won't happen 'sometimes'. It will happen all the time.


Erm.. not with a fair GM. Again, I understand some GMs have a more 'versus' attitude and wouldn't be so fair about it. But short of removing their screen to see their dice and only allowing them to run pre-published adventures which are afterwards cross-checked by players, a GM needs to essentially be trusted to be fair at some point.

And even if so... then so what? Is it a bad thing that players have to pay a bit of attention and listen, instead of picking their nose when it's not their turn? Getting players involved outside of their turn is a very good thing for any game in my opinion.



And...?

And D&D doesn't do that. Once you start full attacking, there is not flow of combat. No circling a foe. No give and take of ground.



In fact, all this thread is about personal taste. Yes, D&D 3.5 was designed to be used with grids. Yes, you can not use grids, same as you can play without character sheets, without dice or without the books. It will change a lot about the game. You can still enjoy the game even then, most probably. Just stop saying people who use grids are 'doing it wrong' because it's frankly stupid.

It makes a minor difference to combat. Sometimes.

And I most certainly haven't said 'you're doing it wrong', just expressed our own preferences.

In fact, can you please stop accusing both myself and others of claiming that we're saying 'you're doing it wrong' and inferring that we're stupid for offering a differing opinion. Please quit with the confrontational tone.



Nope. They're 1.5 meters

It was 2m pre-saga edition, I recall.



If playing on a grid is clumsy for you

We have wipe maps and all kinds of stuff. Or the GMs that use grids do. It still takes time to draw out, and everyone takes longer on their turn, because they have to count out movement and query terrain instead of saying 'I move around the side' or whatever.

And you have to move the pizza, tea and jaffacakes out of the way...

Eldan
2010-12-08, 01:53 PM
I agree with several other posters here: I like D&D 3.5 very much for it's rules system. It has versatility while still having well-defined classes, and manages to create unique and interesting abilities for a lot of it's classes (not all of them, clearly). However, it's base assumption that combat should be grid-based is not one I've ever shared.
It's strange, really: I like everything about D&D 3.5, except the combat. But I've never found a system I liked more. Not systems with more "realistic" combat, not systems with more rules-lite combat, not systems without much combat. I just like D&D too much.
Still, I handle combat completely by talking. As Winterwind said: for me grid maps destroy the atmosphere, whether I'm DMing or playing. Suddenly, you are no longer fighting a threatening enemy, you are pushing figurines over a piece of plastic or paper. It's no longer Lord Perod Angrimm you are fighting, it's a mini representing a guy with 25 HP and AC 18 standing on square E12.
As I said, that's for me, personally. If people can keep the atmosphere alive while taking out a battlemap, Kudos to them, I never managed it.

true_shinken
2010-12-08, 04:16 PM
Which is fair, as the GM is the ref! In any RPG, you are as successful as the GM wants at the end of the day. I understand that in some groups the GM himself requires to be adjudicated via a grid!
Playing without a grid just gives the DM more work. 'Hey, where was he anyway? Damn, can't remember. Where did the invisible guy go? Oh, damn it, I'll never use more than 2 oponents without a grid again'.



No you don't. You have absolutely no idea how far a person can run and kill someone in 'a combat round'. And even if you can assign threat radii, how would you know that the charger's 'limit' is 60'? You don't. And if you did, would you - mid combat in a darkened room - be able to tell the difference at a glance between 60' and 65' by eye? Of course not. The monster only 'knows' if it metagames. I would hope my GMs wouldn't do that.
It's funny you think like that, because that's how actualy combat works.
Also, metagaming is not necessarily a bad thing like you mean. Creating intertwined backstory? That's metagaming - you're doing it because D&D is a groupe game. Not splitting the party because you don't want others to be bored? That's metagaming as well.




Erm.. not with a fair GM. Again, I understand some GMs have a more 'versus' attitude and wouldn't be so fair about it. But short of removing their screen to see their dice and only allowing them to run pre-published adventures which are afterwards cross-checked by players, a GM needs to essentially be trusted to be fair at some point.
You mean not with a fair DM somehow can remember the position of 5-6 enemies, battle effects (like solid fog), furniture and the player characters. A DM won't do that to screw over a player, he will do that unkowingly because he has better things to worry about than throwing a player a bone.
If anything, using a grid allows a DM to think over each combatant's personality and motives during any encounter better because he doesn't have to worry about positioning.


And even if so... then so what? Is it a bad thing that players have to pay a bit of attention and listen, instead of picking their nose when it's not their turn? Getting players involved outside of their turn is a very good thing for any game in my opinion.
And when players disagree? 'No, he was here.' 'Dude, I'm sure he was 3m away from me.' 'No he wasn't. There's a door there.' 'Where did that door come from?' 'Oh, yes I couldn't have cast fireball then. Maybe we should rewind the whole scene.'


And D&D doesn't do that. Once you start full attacking, there is not flow of combat. No circling a foe. No give and take of ground.
Except, of course, when it does. :smallamused:
'I full attack, hit him twice, use my quicksilver boots and move away, so he spends his AoO on me and GishGuy is safe from an AoO next round.'
Or the melee Warlock: 'I use Flee the Scene, teleport behind him, hit him twice due to Sun School + Snap Kick, then I use Bolt Shirt, and hit him twice again. Oh, he drops? Then I use Blend Into Shadows to get HiPS and go undetected.'
D&D is all about movement. Standing still and full-attacking is just asking for trouble.



It makes a minor difference to combat. Sometimes.
It makes you ignore half the book. All the time.


And I most certainly haven't said 'you're doing it wrong', just expressed our own preferences.In fact, can you please stop accusing both myself and others of claiming that we're saying 'you're doing it wrong' and inferring that we're stupid for offering a differing opinion. Please quit with the confrontational tone.
I didn't mean to be controntational. It's just that while stating your different point of view you (and others) have claimed grids to be stupid, pointless and other outright negative statemens. And if you say someone is doing something stupid and you are not, well, you're basically saying they are doing it wrong.



If people can keep the atmosphere alive while taking out a battlemap, Kudos to them, I never managed it.
Now that is a good way to express your opinion. I've seen players complain about atmosphere because of a grid before, but after a few sessions they seemed to get over it. When you add good descriptions to everything, it's hard to be distracted, I think.

Ormur
2010-12-08, 04:19 PM
I don't feel like grids eliminate immersion. since we don't pull them out until we're sure there's going to be combat we usually have a description of the battlefield beforehand that we can just superimpose on the grid. Most often we don't bother with drawing much on it, just placing the chess pieces and drawing in major obstacles.

We don't always use it but having a clear picture of the size and shape of the battlefield and where the creatures are on it makes it easier for me to do complicated battles. I always feel as if I'm being left in the dark if there's a lot going on and I only get a vague description of it. I can't interact properly with a complex battlefield I can't picture.

Goober4473
2010-12-08, 04:31 PM
I used to use miniatures without a grid when I ran a lot of 3.5. I got a nice gridded mat around the time I started with 4e, and now I use it on occasion in other games (3.5, GURPS, etc.).

Non-gridded combat with miniatures is easy in 3.5, since everything is measured in distance and radius, rather than NxN square areas. And by estimating distances, you elimate the need to count spaces, which can take a lot of time.

nealpb
2010-12-08, 05:33 PM
I used to use miniatures without a grid when I ran a lot of 3.5. I got a nice gridded mat around the time I started with 4e, and now I use it on occasion in other games (3.5, GURPS, etc.).

Non-gridded combat with miniatures is easy in 3.5, since everything is measured in distance and radius, rather than NxN square areas. And by estimating distances, you elimate the need to count spaces, which can take a lot of time.

what rules do you use when not using a grid movement est.?

Goober4473
2010-12-08, 06:17 PM
what rules do you use when not using a grid movement est.?

1 inch = 1 square, estimated, is what I did. A fireball hits a 4-inch radius circle, an AoO is provoked when moving away from base contact, moving past an enemy without an inch of room, or doing something that provokes one while in base contact, etc.

Serpentine
2010-12-09, 12:35 AM
Which is why all those armies who fought in close ranks were rubbish and lost all the while, due to there squeezing penalties.

cf: Roman legions, Greek phalanxes, Napoleonic era infantry, Saxon shield walls, pike blocks...Completely different combat system. As I believe someone else mentioned, those are large-scale wars with masses of professional soldiers who all trained together in the same tactics. D&D generally simulates small-scale battle between individuals with very different tactics to each other. And, as also mentioned, there are rules in D&D (see: Complete Warrior, Mob rules) - although not very many and probably flawed for the same reason I mentioned above, that that's not what D&D is usually for - that do attempt to simulate those methods of battle.

tl;dr: A swashbuckling pirate or a lone sword-swinging knight does not have the same methods nor the same space needs as a highly disciplined Greek phalanx unit, and it is this that D&D usually has to cope with.

Fhaolan
2010-12-09, 01:34 AM
I started as a Napoleonics wargamer over thirty years ago, and have played a lot of different editions of D&D and other RPGs. I've played gridless with wargaming rulers and templates, square grids, hex grids, as well as no battle maps but all in the player's heads. In a car, with the players rotating as drivers from Ontario to Kentucky to go see Mammoth Caves National Park. [Which is an astonishing place to visit, by the way. It redefines what you think of as 'reasonable' for an underground civilization.]

There is no one solution. It all depends on what the players are used to and are able to accept. Wargaming rulers and templates can be extremely quick to use if the entire group is used to them. If they've only been using those for a year or less, they are unlikely to be used to them by my standards. They will be slower than people who have been doing Napoleonics in the attic for over thirty years. :smallbiggrin:

Some people are also quite comfortable with ignoring half the rulebooks to do mapless combat. Some of them because they've spent quite a number of years doing so and *can* track skirmish battles of about 10-20 combatants in their head and a few pieces of notepaper because that's what they unknowingly trained themselves to be able to do by playing wargames for over thirty years. :smallbiggrin:

Don't limit yourself based on what a bunch of strangers on the Internet tell you is 'right' or 'wrong' about playing RPGs. Experiment. Find the balance that works for you and your group. And just because the balance is right now, doesn't mean that in the future you won't find that balance will fall in a different place. Maybe mapless is too esoteric for you right now, and gridless too slow. That doesn't mean that in a year or two gridless might turn out to be the best option for you.

Saph
2010-12-09, 04:49 AM
I've used various ways of doing it: visual description, sketch-maps, and a battle-mat with a grid.

Having used a grid, I've never gone back, for one simple reason: with a grid, the players actually know where things are.

You would not believe the amount of miscommunication that goes on when you try to describe a tactical layout with words, especially when you have a largish group of 5-7 people. Everyone has a completely different mental image of what's going on. This is fine as long as they're all doing their own thing, but becomes a nightmare when the players try to work together.

I'll do sketchmaps or nothing at all for casual encounters, but for anything that requires involved tactical movement, the battle-mat comes out.

Psyx
2010-12-09, 06:38 AM
Playing without a grid just gives the DM more work.

I disagree, I'm afraid. I find it far easier -as do my players - to simply keep an idea of what is going on in my head, rather than drawing it out. Drawing it all out and then moving 15 kobold minis around is -to me- infinitely more work.
If I'm running a fight that's truly epic or confusing, I can spend 30 seconds scrawling a map on a bit of paper, and drawing some arrows on. We find it so much easier and faster.
It can also lead to a more cinematic game, with players receiving the benefit of the doubt to gain terrain advantage. Feng Shui for example outright mocks the concept of maps and actively encourages players to participate in the visual population of the environment.




It's funny you think like that, because that's how actualy combat works.


Expand, please? One does not see a viking run up to a friend and kill them and then think 'If I step back ten feet, then he'll run at me, but won't be able to hit me at the end of it, and I can just step forward 5 feet and stab him three times'. It's clearly a metagame construct and one that detracts from the 'feel' of combat to our eyes.



Also, metagaming is not necessarily a bad thing like you mean.


Metagaming combat to make it less realistic in nature by playing up to the flaws in the simulation is bad metagaming to my mind.




You mean not with a fair DM somehow can remember the position of 5-6 enemies, battle effects (like solid fog), furniture and the player characters. A DM won't do that to screw over a player, he will do that unkowingly because he has better things to worry about than throwing a player a bone.


Remembering where six people are standing in a room with furniture in is not rocket science. :smallconfused:
It's like remembering where the cheese is in the 'fridge. I've been able to remember where combatants are in every other game I've ever played and run. Playing 3.5e does not drop my IQ by 75 points. [That's 4e's job! :smallwink: ]

Additionally 'A wall of orcs rush towards you down the passage' is a lot more interesting than putting down minis. Using actual descriptions more for combat is more interesting and atmospheric because of the uncertainty. How many orcs? It's a six second combat round... are you going to stop and count them? Can I fight through them? You can't see past the fist wave... who knows? Combat is about fear, uncertainty and risk. Grids immediately sterilise a lot of that and turn it into a dry wargame. The fog of war is no longer there.

Ask a wargamer what the best wargame that he's ever played is, and he won't mention a grid-map. If he's done a lot of gaming then his highpoint for 'feel' and fun was likely to have been one where he never even saw the proper map, having been sat in a room with his team, receiving vague written reports from the field, handed to him by a ref. We use grids in games as a crutch, rather than an aid to immersion. And if a rules system makes itself dependant on that crutch, then it's possibly failing in some manner.




And when players disagree? 'No, he was here.' 'Dude, I'm sure he was 3m away from me.' 'No he wasn't. There's a door there.' 'Where did that door come from?' 'Oh, yes I couldn't have cast fireball then. Maybe we should rewind the whole scene.'


I've never encountered that. If a player misses something, then their character missed something or the GM adjudicates. I imagine the time spent doing so is far less than the time spent moving minis. In fact, you've given a great example of the downside of grids: Players don't bother listening as much, because it's not so important. We rely on our eyes a lot, and if something is presented in a visual format we allow that to over-ride the other senses. and I don't want the image of a grid and some minis to over-write the 'boxed text'. If players HAVE to listen to the GM as he describes the room and ebb and flow, they are much more attentive.



'I full attack, hit him twice, use my quicksilver boots and move away...


None of that needs a map. You described it perfectly. And your description - though mechanical - was FAR more interesting to listen to than just moving a bit of plastic around. Go on: Read it out aloud. Wasn't that cool? Now imagine the table full of others hearing that. Now everyone is involved with what your player does. Or they can just watch you poke a mini around.

D&D lacks ebb and flow of movement without magical crutches holding it together. We play a *lot* of low magic style games where there are no magic items of teleport and everyone is a 'fighter'. In D&D, they'd just stand there pretty stationary on a map. In our heads, they can be weaving through foes, chopping all the way!



It makes you ignore half the book. All the time.


If you're going to make a blanket statement like that, you'll need to expand on it. What am I ignoring, exactly?



I didn't mean to be controntational. It's just that while stating your different point of view you (and others) have claimed grids to be stupid


I only see one accusation of stupidity on the page. We're debating. Just because we don't agree with your opinion, it doesn't mean we're calling it stupid.


We don't always use it

Which is important. Some people do. All the time. Even when it's a 'talky' encounter sometimes! AAAAAHHHHHH!


D&D generally simulates small-scale battle between individuals with very different tactics to each other.

I still disagree: It does not take a 5' frontage to fight. One can do it with less (ok... maybe not with a dire flail or spiked chain...) without penalty, without difficulty. In fact, it would be positively insane to have a fighting front of 2 in a 10' passage, when you have another able swordsman standing around behind you.


Some of them because they've spent quite a number of years doing so and *can* track skirmish battles of about 10-20 combatants in their head.

Maybe. There have been plenty of games I've played in the past where we've experimented with grids, but it's never added anything to the game in any way. I think perhaps 3/4e's dependence on it is perhaps down to either poor design or a deliberate move towards skirmish wargame rules.

Although the concept of AoOs is excellent and one seldom encountered before in games (WFRP's 'free hack' being the example that jumps to mind), the way it's turned out, it has resulted in almost chaining the game to grids for many players. We tend to use the AoE rules under the catch-all phrase of 'doing something stupid in melee? That's an AoE!'. 4e is even worse for it, taking the concept of AoE and turning it into more of a rules construct and tactical option while loosing sight of the original intention. Apparently these days it's perfectly safe to pop out a potion and chug it while in single combat without getting stabbed!

Also: 'Napoleon's Battles' ftw.

EccentricCircle
2010-12-09, 06:41 AM
I'm intrigued by the coments to the effect that the maps are only deployed as combat starts. (and not intrigued in a bad way... its always interesting to see how other groups do things.)
my aproach has always been to keep a map on the table regardless of whether its a combat situation or not. Partly so the players never know whether a battle is about to break out,(more often than not it won't) and partly so that I don't need to go through the whole "its a 10 foot by 20 foot by 35 foot room with three exits evenly spaced along the righthand wall" stuff but can focus on evoking the scene in more dramatic terms. "the intricately carved walls drip with slime and a dank and foetid odor suffuses the space, a clinging mist coils around your feet as you advance into the room"

I feel that if I had to spend lots of time defining the former I wouldn't have time to describe the latter in as much detail as i'd like, or would have to break the flow in order to do so before I described the second bit. certainly thats what I often find when reading such descriptions in published adventures. my opinion is that that would break the players sense of immersion much more than the fact that i'm rearranging some tiles while i'm Narating.

I would postulate that if the players are used to having a board there all the time regardless of whether combat is happening or not then imersion is less likely to be shattered by the sudden transition to a different way of playing the game. this point is slightly concerning as I should probably check that my players feel the same way but that has always been my aproach and feedback has generally been positive.

Saph
2010-12-09, 07:28 AM
Yeah, for dungeon exploration I try to draw out the dungeon on the battlemat as the PCs go along. It gives the players a much better feel for the layout, and it means you can go into combat fast when a fight starts.

The only drawback is that it's hard to do a really big dungeon, as it won't fit on the battlemat.

Eldan
2010-12-09, 07:29 AM
Ah. That's another reason why I don't use maps, I suppose: I don't use dungeons. At all, or at least not in the classical sense. I've done some infiltration into mansions, a cave exploration or two, but, as far as I can remember, I've never used traps in my entire GMing time.

Saph
2010-12-09, 07:34 AM
'Dungeon' is a very elastic term. A cave complex can be a dungeon. So can a fortress, a prison, a ship, a warehouse, a factory, a tomb, or an office block. The D&D definition of a dungeon is basically "anything with walls* that has enemies** in it."

*Usual but not essential.
**Defined as 'anything you can get XP from'.

Eldan
2010-12-09, 07:39 AM
Right, still. Even that is pretty rare when I do it... players rarely explore buildings, or caves, or anything. And if they do, it's usually, two, three rooms, not more.

LibraryOgre
2010-12-09, 11:43 AM
I try to avoid grids, except in places where the fight is important and the placement is limited. However, I do like 4e's more abstract "every direction is 5'" over 3.x's "10' then 5' on diagonal movement".

Of course, the problem is solved by using hexes, but... eh.

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-09, 11:59 AM
I try to avoid grids, except in places where the fight is important and the placement is limited. However, I do like 4e's more abstract "every direction is 5'" over 3.x's "10' then 5' on diagonal movement".

Of course, the problem is solved by using hexes, but... eh.

I've never used hexes myself, but both my battle-maps have them on the back, so I have considered it once or twice. Think it would be interesting just to shake things up, or perhaps represent some kind of planar-change? just a small detail that makes everything feel...different.

Saph
2010-12-09, 12:12 PM
I try to avoid grids, except in places where the fight is important and the placement is limited. However, I do like 4e's more abstract "every direction is 5'" over 3.x's "10' then 5' on diagonal movement"

It speeds up calculation, but leads to some pretty weird effects. Our Pathfinder DM's started using that rule, with the result that we now get Firecubes instead of Fireballs.

LibraryOgre
2010-12-09, 12:23 PM
It speeds up calculation, but leads to some pretty weird effects. Our Pathfinder DM's started using that rule, with the result that we now get Firecubes instead of Fireballs.

On the grid, yes, but since every point X squares away is equidistant, you're throwing perfect balls.

Sir Swindle89
2010-12-09, 12:26 PM
On the grid, yes, but since every point X squares away is equidistant, you're throwing perfect balls.

Consider your mind blown

what about 2 square wide hall ways? are they actually some wierd multidimensional "S" shape?

Eldan
2010-12-09, 12:39 PM
They are Hypercubes, of course.

LibraryOgre
2010-12-09, 12:43 PM
Consider your mind blown

what about 2 square wide hall ways? are they actually some wierd multidimensional "S" shape?

Depending on how you view a 2-square shape, they may also look like the Mastercard logo, with two overlapping circles. ;-)

Sir Swindle89
2010-12-09, 12:52 PM
Depending on how you view a 2-square shape, they may also look like the Mastercard logo, with two overlapping circles. ;-)

We'll just stick to the don't think about it too hard or your mind becomes a portal to the Far realm route. :smallbiggrin:

Psyx
2010-12-09, 12:54 PM
They are Hypercubes, of course.

Ah...try putting THAT on a grid.

Dragon did an excellent article on non-Ecludian dungeons a while back* and I love to throw in some 4 [spacial, before the pedantry] dimensional stuff sometimes.



*Oh my. A VERY long while back

Eldan
2010-12-09, 12:54 PM
PI is exactly three!

Sir Swindle89
2010-12-09, 01:00 PM
Ah...try putting THAT on a grid.

Dragon did an excellent article on non-Ecludian dungeons a while back* and I love to throw in some 4 [spacial, before the pedantry] dimensional stuff sometimes.



*Oh my. A VERY long while back

It's in the dragon compendium IIR.

Grendus
2010-12-09, 01:16 PM
I've always been partial to hexes myself, but then I started with The Fantasy Trip (precursor to GURPS) so they feel more natural to me.

As to the thread, I like the grid, personally. Sure, you can do single combat or combat without a lot of tactical movement without it, but it takes a lot of the fun out if it. It's one thing to have the int 4 barbarian charge the titan. It's another to watch his 1x1 miniature charge the soccer trophy your DM used in place of a miniature because he couldn't find a plastic figurine big enough (btw: hilarity ensued, and one true resurrection later we brought the titan down). Do they break immersion? Maybe a little. But then, not using the grid doesn't give you a good idea of how the combat is working either, so it's one or the other. I like the tactical combat. If you don't, that's your call.

randomhero00
2010-12-09, 01:17 PM
We play games without the grid all the time. Especially when fighting huge enemies. Or going a more rules lite approach. Or roleplaying approach.

edit: I am very curious about the hex grid tho, I've always wanted to try it. I think its better than square, but unfortuneatly most games aren't meant to be played on it (like 4e).

Psyx
2010-12-09, 01:19 PM
It's in the dragon compendium IIR.

Which one?



I like the tactical combat.

I like tactical combat too. I just don't like/need/want to involve the grid in it.

Eric Tolle
2010-12-09, 01:22 PM
Wow, it's almost like people have different learning and playing styles! :smallbiggrin:

As for me, I'm an old-time Champions player, so I don't have much of a problem with grids, though I have to wonder about what 4E would be like if it used hex grids. On the other hand, I've played in plenty of games without grids or maps, including AD&D and Hero. For games with abstract, descriptive combat such as Pirates of the Seven Skies or FATE, good description and maybe a crude line drawing makes things work well enough.

It occurs to me that simple description makes it a bit easier for me to say yes whenever a player as if there's something present. But it's not that different.

Sir Swindle89
2010-12-09, 01:30 PM
edit: I am very curious about the hex grid tho, I've always wanted to try it. I think its better than square, but unfortuneatly most games aren't meant to be played on it (like 4e).

4E has a conversion side bar i believe. but other wise they would function the same either way. There really is no difference between a square and hexes in practice. hexes just don't have to deal with moving to corner squares.


Which one?

The one with the silver dragon on the front.

Grendus
2010-12-09, 01:47 PM
4E has a conversion side bar i believe. but other wise they would function the same either way. There really is no difference between a square and hexes in practice. hexes just don't have to deal with moving to corner squares.


You do have problems with moving in a straight line though. It becomes more of a zig-zag to get to your target. Makes charging rules more difficult. My sister plays a charger, and you'd be amazed at the amount of finagling she has to do to get those charge bonuses. But once you get used to that, it's actually a really good system.

ericgrau
2010-12-09, 02:07 PM
this is what i mean some rules in D&D any (E) or any game i played you cant put more then one char in a 5ft square thats bull.
D&D rules say you can fit more than one character in a square outside of combat, but in combat you can't fight effectively this way so to keep it simple you can't normally put a 2nd creature there. But you can move through such a square. In hallways that are half of 5 feet wide you in fact get a -4 to attack rolls and AC.

As for whether or not to use grids in general, that's up to you. People do it successfully either way.

nealpb
2010-12-09, 02:09 PM
I full attack, hit him twice, use my quicksilver boots and move away...
None of that needs a map.

true but my points is yes some ppl can image the combat in there head some cant for me i need to map to see were he moved to when you start using cover its a pane to image stuff like that it hurts map plz.


Yeah, for dungeon exploration I try to draw out the dungeon on the battlemat as the PCs go along. It gives the players a much better feel for the layout, and it means you can go into combat fast when a fight starts.

The only drawback is that it's hard to do a really big dungeon, as it won't fit on the battlemat.

true, that why i hate grids caves or other places that takes haft the square doing movement thro haft square is a pane


Right, still. Even that is pretty rare when I do it... players rarely explore buildings, or caves, or anything. And if they do, it's usually, two, three rooms, not more.

you are missing out on the half the game

nealpb
2010-12-09, 02:12 PM
D&D rules say you can fit more than one character in a square outside of combat, but in combat you can't fight effectively this way so to keep it simple you can't normally

thats why im going to gridless so my them one character fit in one square

BigDumbWeirdo
2010-12-09, 02:12 PM
I used to alway play without a grid or miniatures, however I began to notice that tactics became pretty meaningless without incorporating elements that a miniature set brings. Without using miniatures at all, there's nothing to indicate who is where, which opens the way for behavior which would normally be considered cheating, but doesn't appear to be so. For example, my gaming group once got into a fight with a group of hobgoblins in a narrow hallway, and after reviewing the action, the following ridiculous things happened. The unbuffed halfling rogue leapt over two burly barbarians without any penalty and managed to move 200' in a single round in order to set up for some sneak attacks. The wizard in the back had unbroken line-of-sight to all of the enemy, despite the 4' wide hall being filled by two barbarians fighting side by side. In case you hadn't noticed, two barbarians fought side by side in a 4' wide hall (both large men, over 6'5" and both using two-handed weapons). Also, an elven ranger managed to kill 3 hobgoblins before they engaged (which, despite having to cover 250', they did so in one round) from behind the barbs. The last is questionable because he was an elven ranger with lots of bow experience, but still. The point was that even though these things should not have been possible, I let my players get away with them because I didn't realize at the time that they would be impossible.

All in all, I realized after that session that it wasn't practical not to use miniatures. Yet at the same time, I had a problem with 1" = 5' grids, too. So I changed it to 1" = 2'6". a 2'6" square is just about the perfect size for a person, it makes quick drawings of impromptu caves easier by giving you a bit more leeway to use the grid as a guide, and I got around the whole "room to fight" issue by requiring long weapons (basically anything but cestii, handwraps, knives/daggers and hand crossbows) to need an extra square on at least two sides (including the forward-facing side) for effective fighting.

Sir Swindle89
2010-12-09, 02:19 PM
You do have problems with moving in a straight line though. It becomes more of a zig-zag to get to your target. Makes charging rules more difficult. My sister plays a charger, and you'd be amazed at the amount of finagling she has to do to get those charge bonuses. But once you get used to that, it's actually a really good system.

You silly silly man, think from a character perspective. If you have an unobstruced path between you and your target you charge in a straight line at them. imaginary lines be damned. just put your self in an adjacent hex at the end.

additionally their are 2 more "straight lines" in hexes than in squares


true, that why i hate grids caves or other places that takes haft the square doing movement thro haft square is a pane

I really want to say that the lines aren't there but no one whose presented a problem like this seems to be able to grasp that.sucks to be you.

Callista
2010-12-09, 02:34 PM
I'm surprised with all the grid hate and how people don't use grids.
Maybe that's one reason why people so frequently say melee can't contribute; you can't perform lockdown successfully without precise battle positions. Attacks of opportunity for movement and great reach will both mean nothing when you don't know exactly where everyone is.Yeah, if you're combining melee and spellcasters, you absolutely need a grid, or the melee guys won't be able to get into tactically useful positions and the spellcasters won't face the problem of placing their spells effectively without hurting their allies. If you're not using a grid, you're making the fighter's life way harder than it needs to be; and the rogue might as well not exist. Everything the rogue does depends on position and movement.

There's no need to use specific miniatures. In fact, I don't like using them. Maybe the PCs will have miniatures; that makes sense because the PCs are consistent from battle to battle. But getting minis for all the possible enemies you could ever fight is just a ridiculous proposition--it's too expensive, there are just too many of them, and it doesn't add anything that your imagination doesn't. I use glass beads, pebbles, or other such counters, color-coded for opponent type and sized smaller or larger depending on opponent size. Those are easy to find (check craft stores) and can be brought to the game in a single dice-bag-sized container.

Mando Knight
2010-12-09, 03:11 PM
On the other hand, the big bad guy? Make sure you've got one for him. Nothing says "It's go time" quite like pulling out the Colossal Red Dragon and setting it on the table.

Sir Swindle89
2010-12-09, 03:18 PM
On the other hand, the big bad guy? Make sure you've got one for him. Nothing says "It's go time" quite like pulling out the Colossal Red Dragon and setting it on the table.

or just stick to the darth vader action figure :smallwink:

Mando Knight
2010-12-09, 03:44 PM
or just stick to the darth vader action figure :smallwink:
Hey, I have like three Vaders and two different sizes of Red Dragon (as well as 3 AT-STs and an AT-AT). Sometime, I may just use them. With my countless number of Stormtroopers as backup. If I ever DM an actual tabletop game, that is.

true_shinken
2010-12-10, 11:05 AM
Yeah, if you're combining melee and spellcasters, you absolutely need a grid, or the melee guys won't be able to get into tactically useful positions and the spellcasters won't face the problem of placing their spells effectively without hurting their allies. If you're not using a grid, you're making the fighter's life way harder than it needs to be; and the rogue might as well not exist. Everything the rogue does depends on position and movement.
Exactly. Thanks for pointing it out better than I did.


There's no need to use specific miniatures.
Not at all, but I really like them. ^^
It's funny, I have only two Large miniatures (a fire elemental and a weretiger) so whenever my players go against something Large, I use one of those or just use someone's cell phone that occupies roughly the same space. One of my players, though, gets angry on the weretiger miniature all the time - because it reminds him of Tony from Kellogs ads. Someone always mentions 'Grrrreat!' when I put that mini on the grid. :smallbiggrin:
But yeah, you don't need them. You could use, dunno, poker chips even.

Sir Swindle89
2010-12-10, 11:27 AM
I also love it when a random Collosal+ feline monster randomly appears on the battle field :smallbiggrin:

Kerrin
2010-12-10, 12:56 PM
Yeah, for dungeon exploration I try to draw out the dungeon on the battlemat as the PCs go along. It gives the players a much better feel for the layout, and it means you can go into combat fast when a fight starts.
This is what I do as well. I use a large, poster-sized pad of paper with 1-inch grid lines from an office supply store, and draw on the paper with a multi-colored set of Sharpie markers as the characters move along.

When combat or other position-important events pop up the map is already setup and everyone is already on the map.

Oh yeah, the players also like to write on the map various things as reminders for later.


The only drawback is that it's hard to do a really big dungeon, as it won't fit on the battlemat.
Hmm, I haven't hit this yet but maybe I haven't run any large enough dungeons* for it to matter. I do occasionally pre-figure where on the page to start the dungeon do I can use fewer sheets of paper but otherwise it hasn't really mattered.

( * for various definitions of dungeon )

Goober4473
2010-12-10, 01:32 PM
On the other hand, the big bad guy? Make sure you've got one for him. Nothing says "It's go time" quite like pulling out the Colossal Red Dragon and setting it on the table.

Or http://www.seibertron.com/transformers/toys/beast-wars-metals/optimal-optimus/524/1/11/ which I used for a final boss fight one time. Put him on an 8x8 inch cardboard base, since it was 4e and I was using a grid. Had him hidden in a bag until it was time to fight him, along with a dinosaur toy on 6x6 inch base for a dragon.

tbarrie
2010-12-10, 02:39 PM
As for me, I'm an old-time Champions player, so I don't have much of a problem with grids, though I have to wonder about what 4E would be like if it used hex grids.

Not much different. The only non-obvious decision I can think of is what close blasts are going to be shaped like.


You do have problems with moving in a straight line though. It becomes more of a zig-zag to get to your target. Makes charging rules more difficult.

It's no different from squares in that respect. And I can't imagine any DM ruling that you only get charge bonuses if the straight-line path to your target happens to match up with the imaginary grid in use.

LibraryOgre
2010-12-10, 03:12 PM
For things like dungeons, I make players do the mapping. Some small areas might get drawn for combat, or large, open areas.

Callista
2010-12-10, 03:22 PM
I also love it when a random Collosal+ feline monster randomly appears on the battle field :smallbiggrin:Those are the most dangerous. They don't even use normal initiative order, and they can perform Trip and Bull Rush actions at will with no save! Even the party barbarian can be lying prone a hundred feet away before he knows what's happened to him. Nasty, nasty monsters, those. :smallbiggrin:

Salanmander
2010-12-10, 04:34 PM
No you don't. You have absolutely no idea how far a person can run and kill someone in 'a combat round'. And even if you can assign threat radii, how would you know that the charger's 'limit' is 60'? You don't. And if you did, would you - mid combat in a darkened room - be able to tell the difference at a glance between 60' and 65' by eye? Of course not. The monster only 'knows' if it metagames. I would hope my GMs wouldn't do that.



You probably don't know that they will stop 5' in front of you. You probably /do/ know, however, that if they're that far away, based on how fast you've seen people run, you'll probably have time to react and stab them first if they charge you from how far away you are, but not from any closer.

The conceit I usually play under is that the D&D rules describe how the world /actually works/, and so good fighters would be used to ways they can use them to their advantage.

true_shinken
2010-12-10, 04:53 PM
The conceit I usually play under is that the D&D rules describe how the world /actually works/, and so good fighters would be used to ways they can use them to their advantage.

This. It's like playing basketball. You might not know the guy is 10ft away from you, but you know he is a few steps away and you know how much time you have to throw your pass before he gets near you to steal the ball.

Zeful
2010-12-10, 05:09 PM
Playing without a grid just gives the DM more work. 'Hey, where was he anyway? Damn, can't remember. Where did the invisible guy go? Oh, damn it, I'll never use more than 2 oponents without a grid again'.

4 PCs, 8 opponents, 6 non-combat NPCs, difficult terrain, and the position of 4 relevant trees and 4 large covered wagons. I've run this combat entierly in my head and managed to communicate this to my players in such a way that we didn't even need a map. Visualisation of the above is so trivally easy for me, that I would have a harder time with a battle mat to run this.

true_shinken
2010-12-10, 05:13 PM
4 PCs, 8 opponents, 6 non-combat NPCs, difficult terrain, and the position of 4 relevant trees and 4 large covered wagons. I've run this combat entierly in my head and managed to communicate this to my players in such a way that we didn't even need a map. Visualisation of the above is so trivally easy for me, that I would have a harder time with a battle mat to run this.

Then I congratulate your 'mental battle positioning' skills, because I couldn't do that if my life depended on it.

Callista
2010-12-10, 05:14 PM
Unless it's also that trivially easy for all your players too, you still need one.

stainboy
2010-12-10, 05:59 PM
Unless it's also that trivially easy for all your players too, you still need one.

Agreed on this. It's a lot easier for the DM to keep track of everything because the DM is engaged with combat at all times and isn't relying on another person to describe the environment.

I usually sketch things on graph paper unless the fight is pretty simple - one or two enemies in the middle of a clearing. I dislike minis though, and not just because I can't afford them. When I look at a bunch of minis it's hard to visualize the action as something other than pieces in a board game.

Zeful
2010-12-10, 09:16 PM
Then I congratulate your 'mental battle positioning' skills, because I couldn't do that if my life depended on it.

Really? I honestly doubt that, it's just spacial reasoning. You likely don't know how to do it, but I'm pretty sure you could.


Unless it's also that trivially easy for all your players too, you still need one.

All you have to do is get them to ask the right questions and put themselves in the right mindset for receiving the information, which is easy, getting them to remember and process it all is the hard part, and is likely to cause problems.

LibraryOgre
2010-12-10, 09:17 PM
Agreed on this. It's a lot easier for the DM to keep track of everything because the DM is engaged with combat at all times and isn't relying on another person to describe the environment.

Conversely, doing it this way keeps everyone focused on the fight.

true_shinken
2010-12-10, 09:26 PM
Conversely, doing it this way keeps everyone focused on the fight.
Or rather, makes you spend ten minutes explaining positioning to someone that isn't focused.

LibraryOgre
2010-12-10, 09:34 PM
Or rather, makes you spend ten minutes explaining positioning to someone that isn't focused.

Ah, that's the time when you say "You don't know? Ok, you can act when you do."

Zeful
2010-12-10, 09:44 PM
Ah, that's the time when you say "You don't know? Ok, you can act when you do."

That's pretty unnecessary, you should at least give a warning first if someone is deliberately not paying attention, but if someone can't actually hold the battle in their head, which is apparently possible, you should probably try describing things more centered around their character.

LibraryOgre
2010-12-10, 10:07 PM
That's pretty unnecessary, you should at least give a warning first if someone is deliberately not paying attention, but if someone can't actually hold the battle in their head, which is apparently possible, you should probably try describing things more centered around their character.

Some people are unable; others are chronically unwilling. I have no trouble skipping over someone whose response to "Dude, it's your turn" is "Huh?"

Kuma
2010-12-10, 11:15 PM
I'm normally about 50-50 with grids. I'll use graph paper to map out a dungeon crawl and during combat will use it for general reference, but on the whole will generally wing it for most of the game.

AslanCross
2010-12-11, 12:00 AM
I've used various ways of doing it: visual description, sketch-maps, and a battle-mat with a grid.

Having used a grid, I've never gone back, for one simple reason: with a grid, the players actually know where things are.

You would not believe the amount of miscommunication that goes on when you try to describe a tactical layout with words, especially when you have a largish group of 5-7 people. Everyone has a completely different mental image of what's going on. This is fine as long as they're all doing their own thing, but becomes a nightmare when the players try to work together.


I agree completely. As smart as my players are, some of them don't exactly have stellar attention spans. They sometimes miss out on things I narrate.

I always have the grid on the table and I do draw the general area on the map so that the players have a tangible representation of their physical space. That does not say that I don't describe anything; I make sure I do a lot. Breaking out the map (especially when it's a rigid laminated A3 like I use) only when there is an encounter and then pausing to draw the area would likely break immersion, but as I already have it out there, I don't really run into the problem.

nealpb
2011-01-04, 01:14 AM
sorry it taking me so long to post my motherbord died on me not have the harddrave to get my save websit back slowed me down a lot

other Q&A about savethrows how much of the monster or char in the blast template (exp a fire ball 4in blast) 1/2, 1/4 touching the char or monster or dont care to make a save for the spell?

Escheton
2011-01-04, 01:36 AM
Always use grids, always want to stand in between hexes. Always catch flak for it.

Salbazier
2011-01-04, 02:18 AM
Expand, please? One does not see a viking run up to a friend and kill them and then think 'If I step back ten feet, then he'll run at me, but won't be able to hit me at the end of it, and I can just step forward 5 feet and stab him three times'. It's clearly a metagame construct and one that detracts from the 'feel' of combat to our eyes.



But that is the player thinking, not the PC. The player are doing with rules that is abstraction of reality, of course it will be messed up if we assume that PC must think and perceive events in the same way.

PC's thought after seeing the viking's charge: "I need to take more range from him, so if he's coming to me I'll have more time to react in order to defend and find an opening to attack. I can surprise him by coming forward to him instead of letting him come to me and kill him even before he have chance to react".

AslanCross
2011-01-04, 02:48 AM
sorry it taking me so long to post my motherbord died on me not have the harddrave to get my save websit back slowed me down a lot

other Q&A about savethrows how much of the monster or char in the blast template (exp a fire ball 4in blast) 1/2, 1/4 touching the char or monster or dont care to make a save for the spell?

I think by default, anything that has even just one square inside a part of the area is required to save. It simplifies things.

It is probably a logical houserule to allow creatures with only a small part of them inside the blast zone to have Evasion for the purposes of that particular blast. This will rarely figure for PCs, though, as they're usually medium. It will make large monsters more annoying, however. :smallamused: To this end, perhaps using a compass or two pencils strung together might help determine a true circular blast zone.

Lord.Sorasen
2011-01-04, 03:35 AM
Erm..armies don't fight in a closely packed manner due to lack of space.
They do it deliberately because it's tactically effective. If you look to the left and right of shield walls and battle formations in paintings, there's normally quite large empty spaces there. ;)

You really don't need 5' of space to walk around in to use a weapon effectively. The basic assumption on the part of WotC that people can't effectively operate in a smaller area has lead to the knock-on effect of ridiculously over-sized
rooms. I don't think I've seen a peasant hovel less than 30' long!

Such a tactic is very effective within an army. Large numbers means very different tactics. However, being very close together in a small group would be completely different. On the top of my head, you would lose mobility (specifically anyone in the middle), risk harming your allies, become more vulnerable to anything with a blast radius, become slower (moving close to someone is much harder than moving on your own do to the fact that you can't afford to move too fast and hit them). In large armies, these things are less important (with the exception of blast radius, but with the invention of such weapons the close formation became less effective as well).

Honestly, if your DM made a peasent hovel suitable for combat than it's not the grid's fault. A 4 vs. 4 fight with fully armed combatants and blast radius magic should be inconvenient in such an environment.

I guess the real problem with the grid system is that, should 5 feet be the right amount of space for a single fighter, a grid still isn't the most realistic. Consider two fighters clashing swords. Both fighters move back 3 feet. There. You've moved an amount of space incompatible with the 5 foot grid, but logically no one is inconvenienced. Ultimately, the most realistic system with 3.5 would eliminate the grid, and use a ruler to figure out unit reach, movement, etc. It would allow movement in directions of increments not divisible by 45 degrees, and allow for distances not divisible by 5. Ultimately, however, this would take much longer, and the grid, while not perfect, is certainly a lot more convenient.

I come from the video game era though. That might say a lot about me. I mean, in this regard I'm entirely used to grid based combat systems. I don't really mind that sometimes they don't make sense: honestly, it's far less broken than other parts of the system (talking is a free action, so you can say things that take longer than 4 seconds within 4 seconds), gigantic creatures cannot target more than one creature with a broad sweep of the sword without taking a feat (consider a colossal creature with an ax just swinging one, and consider why they can only occupy the space of a single creature with this swing. Also consider why they can attack creatures within their range while still having reach, when a weapon with reach cannot), etc etc.

I wonder how the OP feels about grids where there is no specified distance?

huttj509
2011-01-04, 04:36 AM
I personally like grids and maps, for a couple reasons.

a) this is the biggie for me. Playing ADnD in middle/high school, there were times when I'd think something was an option and plan for it, the DM thought it wasn't, and it turned out to be a miscommunication on the actual setup of the battle. Whether on the DM's part, or my part understanding, I dunno, it was like 15 years ago, probably both at different times.

The DM already had a sketch grid for terrain and enemy layout so he could describe it and have a visual aid to keep track of things, we just took it to the other side of the DM screen, basically.

3E then seemed to be assuming this sort of situation more (heck, they included dungeon tiles for some common rooms, and the combat rules talk about intersecting square edges etc). 4E continued this assumption, and built it into the power descriptions to avoid the "well, does this circle cover half the square?" type situations, though I can see how the nomenclature change would rub some folks the wrong way.

b) I find a visual aid very helpful to keep track of things. Oh yeah, I can mentally envision the situation, but with a visual aid I can more easily notice "oh, there was a guy standing there I forgot about". I actually tend to have good visualization of the tactical layout, I just don't trust myself that I do. Helps when people are thinking about their turns, and possibly needing to look up mechanic details (remember, started in ADnD....one word, grapple, that can take a while :-P).


However, I can see it limiting some folks creativity. The temptation to say "this is what you see", while it can be effective if you have like a 3d mockup I've seen some folks do for big battles, if you just have a grid with poker chips it's less effective than describing the scene, then revealing the grid to mark positions.

Psyx
2011-01-04, 06:41 AM
But that is the player thinking, not the PC.

A rule system that takes a further step from 'reality' by requiring a player to utilise tactics which are based on pure abstraction and manipulating the grid and initiative system really isn't a very good rule system. Systems shouldn't require this extra 'distancing', and if using a grid makes players think in this manner, then it's another reason to avoid it to my mind.

But now we're the intricacies of why Ugo-igo initiative sequencing is bad, which is a whole new kettle of worms.


However, being very close together in a small group would be completely different. On the top of my head, you would lose mobility (specifically anyone in the middle), risk harming your allies

Erm... why. on the first count? Forming a short 4-man shield wall in a 10' passage makes so much more sense than having two guys doing all the fighting. Having a guy each side of you to go for openings your adjacent foe leaves is an excellent tactic.
Plus: Sideways mobility is seriously over-rated anyhow.
As to 'risk harming your allies': It's pretty hard to unintentionally hit someone you didn't want to with a weapon, despite what the fumble tables of many games state.

The 5' square really is a bit of a duff measurement. 3.3' works far better to my mind - if you insist on using a grid.

Salbazier
2011-01-04, 09:38 AM
A rule system that takes a further step from 'reality' by requiring a player to utilise tactics which are based on pure abstraction and manipulating the grid and initiative system really isn't a very good rule system. Systems shouldn't require this extra 'distancing', and if using a grid makes players think in this manner, then it's another reason to avoid it to my mind.



Then you should do away with the turn based system. Really that's the whole root of this 'distancing' issue not grids. And that isn't manipulation of initative system. IMO, that's a perfectly reasonable tactic in real life (took extra distance to get more time to react to enemy's attack). It just have to be modeled that way to make it into game rules

Unless you are LARPing, you can't have a game system that doesn't abstract reality somehow.

Psyx
2011-01-04, 10:21 AM
I disagree, in that I feel it's the fixed movement within the turn that's partly to blame. 'I charge him' is fine (And 'I counter-charge him' should be too). 'I stand 10' outside of his charge range' is clearly a game-y abstraction, and a bad one at that.

The character isn't 'getting more time to react to an enemy's attack' though. That might seem like justification, but what is actually happening is that they are placing themselves at precisely the correct distance so that a foe running at them doesn't have time to swing an axe before they get three attacks at them. Clearly this most definitely doesn't make much real-world sense. If they were to take 'even more time to react to a foe's attack' by stepping back another 20', then for some reason they don't get all those swings in.

Yes; ugo-igo is a poor abstraction, but grids are a worse one to my mind.



Unless you are LARPing, you can't have a game system that doesn't abstract reality somehow.

Larping too is a massive abstraction. Point beats edge... but only not if you're not allowed to use the point!

Gryndle
2011-01-04, 11:03 AM
When we played basic we never used Grids of any kind. Through 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D, some encounters we used grids, others were more free form where the DM (sometimes myself, sometimes others) simply kept up with positioning and described the scene to everyone.

With 3rd/3.5, 4th Ed and Star Wars Saga ed. we use grids almost exclusively.

I have never seen the use of grids or miniatures detract from the fun, the story or the roleplaying.

i played in one group for almost two years where the DM actually invested in Dwarven Forge and Heroscape terrain building sets used with minis. I always felt that added to the game, not subtracted from it.

Dwarven Forge is too expensive for my taste, but i am now building up my collection of Heroscape sets to use instead of the laminated 1" grid I used in the past.

I've seen more problems with free-form combat where people get confused, can't keep up with positioning in their head and arguments ensue over "I was there, not there!"

The things with grids, props, minis, or the lack there of comes down to implementation. Properly implemented they add great depth to combat. Poorly implemented they bog things down. It is all in the implementation.

As a side point, I take exception to those that say grids and minis interfere with story and role-playing.

My last game session, I had the heroscape terrain set up before hand. But most of the session focused on role-playing and story. (Which ius equally important to me and my gamers). When my group did find themselves in combat, we simply turned to the table, I placed their minis on the board at appropriate places, placed the monster mini's on the table (for the monsters they could actually see at that time) and described the scene.

The next session, there will likely be more combat, but that doesn't stop us from roleplaying. Each of my player's has there own style and approach to roleplaying, which they express as much in combat as out.

Kerrin
2011-01-04, 12:21 PM
Forming a short 4-man shield wall in a 10' passage makes so much more sense than having two guys doing all the fighting. Having a guy each side of you to go for openings your adjacent foe leaves is an excellent tactic.

Plus: Sideways mobility is seriously over-rated anyhow.

The 5' square really is a bit of a duff measurement. 3.3' works far better to my mind - if you insist on using a grid.
For your games you could rule that each square is 3.3 feet instead of 5 feet. Then your 10-foot passage goes from 2 squares wide to 3 squares wide.

I think the D&D 5-foot squares comes from picturing characters slashing, stabbing, whirling, and bashing with their opponents in a rather free-form manner (a'la books and films) and therefore needing a bit of room to do so - vs using a tightly packed Roman Legion style of fighthing. (Plus 5 is such a nice, round number!) :smallsmile:

Every game combat system is an abstraction. Even tabletop miniature war games that use rulers for measurement instead of square/hex grids have issues.

Regarding sideways mobility: Yes, in some fighting styles sideways mobility is completely irrelevant between two opponents who know what they're doing. It is precisely this reason why modern sport fencing (aka olympic style foil, epee, and saber) is done on a two meter wide strip - to dispatch with the circling movement and get down to the business of confrontation between the combatants.

Psyx
2011-01-04, 01:30 PM
For your games you could rule that each square is 3.3 feet instead of 5 feet. Then your 10-foot passage goes from 2 squares wide to 3 squares wide.

I would, if I used grids :smallbiggrin:



I think the D&D 5-foot squares comes from picturing characters slashing, stabbing, whirling, and bashing with their opponents in a rather free-form manner....

I'd love to believe that it was even thought of in that much depth. I suspect it's because only-school maps used to use either 10' or 5' squares, and it's a hold-over from that. It's funny that the very free-form combat that you mention doesn't actually happen in 3.5 if characters simply attack each other: They stay in place and trade blows. For fights to stray around the room in an interesting manner while still using full attacks, you have to throw out the rules and rely on GM narration... which is what I prefer.



Every game combat system is an abstraction.

I don't like it when a bad one is made worse though... AND slowed down... AND leaves no room for pizza in the middle of my table!

The Big Dice
2011-01-04, 01:37 PM
I think the D&D 5-foot squares comes from picturing characters slashing, stabbing, whirling, and bashing with their opponents in a rather free-form manner (a'la books and films) and therefore needing a bit of room to do so - vs using a tightly packed Roman Legion style of fighthing. (Plus 5 is such a nice, round number!) :smallsmile:
GURPS uses a 3 foot hex instead of a 5 foot square. It's much easier on my brain cell to think in those terms than D&D miniature ones. I can stand and reach something three feet away and three feet is also the rough length of most one handed swords. It's also the distance at which most fistfights take place.

So if I do use a grid (which is rare these days, we don't sit round a table to game anymore) that's the scale I tend to use.

nealpb
2011-01-04, 02:02 PM
if any one played warhammer 40K or systems like that im starting to like that more and more when i see other players play that type of game can i use the some (1in is 5ft rule) for movement? (human 30ft would me 6in exp)

i stall use minis becouse i like to kown were you are at the time i drap a fireball or a AOE spell i cant or never do it in my head i get lost a lot and i dont like playing with DM that dont use minis at lest (dont care if the map not to scall) i need to see were im killing to attacking i dont care if the minis not what it should be (fine 30ft by 30ft dragon mini "its not a dragon its a tarrasqus. that fine") now i know were it is

MeeposFire
2011-01-04, 03:02 PM
I think 5 foot squares were used due to ease of adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing.

I recently did a 4e game with no grid, battlemat, miniatures, etc.

It worked fine though it took a lot of description, more talking, and it did not save time. We decided to go back to using miniatures since we did not sense anything all that much better about going without but it was a fun diversion.

Gnoman
2011-01-04, 03:39 PM
When you have two fighter's standing in adjcacent squares pounding eachother with full attacks, they're not "really" standing rooted to the ground alternating swings. They're bobbing and weaving, hopping forward a little to get in a thrust, leaning back to avoid a slash, and generally dancing around. Good narration of what your character is doing is essential to visualize combat no matter how you're doing it. And grids really do help keep what's going on straight. The battle that made me switch to maptools (a virtual mapboard) instead of just IRC chat for my current campaign involved 5 PCs with a horse and wagon, 13 kobolds firing slings and a ballista, and a couple of fires prodicng smoke.