Playing without a grid

[Yora]

I think basing the game on a grid and miniatures is the one thing I dislike about the changes made to 3rd Edition the most. To me, it puts too much emphasis on abstract tactics and distracts from "cinematic narrative action". You just start thinking in squares and it's so easy to visualize rooms as empty 4x4 squares with nothing iside them, while combat can be made so much more interesting when players come up with ideas like toppling over tables and setting carpets on fire. Visualizing the scene is very important for that and having the figures on a grid just tends to make that part of the brain shut off

I certainly can see the appeal of abstract tacical maneuvers, but for that there already is a fully developed system. The 3.5e and PF Rules as Written. So let's have this thread under the assumption that we all want the game to be played without a grid. :smallwink:

I did some number crunching with the SRD and translated squares to radii, but looking at the finished result, it didn't really result in much progress. If you can make a 5-foot step in any direction and not just eight, you still have to keep track of precise distances and the relative positions of all characters. And other than d20 games, pretty much all RPGs I've ever seen work just fine without that. Yet it turns out quite a bit more difficult than I expected it to be, so I need all your input and experience.

I think a good starting point is to begin with stating, that characters can be either adjacent with each other and in range to strike each other with a normal weapon, or they are not.
Based on that, the 5-foot step could be defined as "moving away to get just outside of range", that is, not being adjacent anymore, and "moving up to an enemy that is just out of range to get close enough to attack", or getting adjecent to an enemy that is nearby.
That would mean there are three main relationships any two characters can have: "Adjacent", "just out of reach", and "far away".
If one would want to keep reach weapons (of which I am not really sure as of now) a fourth range would be added and the ranges would be "within normal range", "outside normal range but within reach range", "just outside reach range", and "far away". But I'm not sure if it makes even sense to have reach weapons at all in a game without squares.

The next question is, how to deal with movement speed? Without squares or rulers, all distances would be eyeballed anyway. Would it be the most sensible to reduce the relevance of speed to chases and engagement distances? For example, you could have the situation where the GM says, "as you reach the middle of the 60 foot long bridge, archers come out of hiding at both ends of the bridge". If your speed is 30 feet, you could move up to one of the archers and attack immediately, if the speed is 20 feet, you would have to double move (or make a charge). Or you see a kobold lighting a grenade to be ready to throw at his next turn, and you want to know if you can make it through a doorway on your turn or will still be in the room when he throws it. In those cases speed would matter, but it would hard to really use it when you try to navigate your way around a group of enemies while trying to stay out of their reach.

And that brings me to the fiendish dire elephant in the room, Attacks of Opportunity.
1. You provoke an attack of opportunity when you cast a spell while adjacent to an enemy.
2. You provoke an attack of opportunity when you go through your backpack and satchels for items, fiddle with a lock, or do any other things that require you to stand still and take your eyes of your enemies.
3. You provoke an attack of opportunity when you turn your back to your enemy to walk away. With the withdraw action, you back up without exposing your back.
That still leave the subject of blocking an enemies path. I think it's easy to say that when you stand in a corridor or doorway 5 feet wide, enemies can not get by you without moving through your occupied space. The rules would be just the same as for moving through an occupied square. In a grid, a character can stand in the center of a 15 feet wide hallway and threaten the entire space on either side of him. Asuming that you are not completely static in your position but can make three or four steps to the side to get at someone trying to pass you, a corridor or bridge about 15 feet wide seems about realistic. You couldn't threaten two people trying to pass you on both sides, but that's an affordable abstraction. If it's about 12 feet/4m you can make an Attack of Opportunity against everyone who wants to pass by you. On a grid, circling one enemy provokes attacks of opportunity for every square you leave, but I don't think that would need to be replicated on a grid-less battlefield. You could just assume that in such a situation, you keep your eyes and your weapon towards the enemy you are circling, which would negate the entire reason for AoOs.

This as a starting point. What do you think of it so far and what other situations do you think need to be adressed?

[Jack Zander]

I think "cinematic narrative action" isn't something DnD does well at all. It's a tactical miniature game. You're probably better off playing a different game that is made for what you want.

[avr]

Warhammer Fantasy RP 3rd ed does distances by "are the characters/monsters close enough to engage in melee combat" then scales out by how many moves away the characters are. "Engaged", "Close", "Medium" etc. Sounds fairly similar at first glance.

Unless your default answer is yes to any question of whether they can intercept attacks, this system is going to hurt the tripper or other fighter who tries to interpose him/herself between the enemies and those he or she is protecting. How much that matters depends on how important this character type is to your game.

[CaladanMoonblad]

A long time ago, I was a travel GM for one of my groups, and I forgot to bring my roll up battlemap.

So we made due with a ruler and a table. We crafted popsicle sticks for a 5 ft move, a 20 ft move, and a 30 ft move.

[joca4christ]

I hope this thread kicks out some more good stuff because I may be kicking off a game soon, and am grid-less and mini-less.

[Gildedragon]

I myself dropped grids and the like when I realized they were eating up our gaming time (get the snacks off, set the map up, move the figures around... etc)
I just use vague measurements (in melee range, in its reach, out of reach, near (for something that'll need a move and attack), charging distance, far, etc...) which work great. For setting up flanking I allow it, provided the characters have the forethought of sneaking around it (making getting into position take longer) or tumbling past.
It's worked great with my group so far, and it really streamlines play.

[limejuicepowder]

A more natural but no less mechanical system would be to use Mage Knight/Heroclix figures and a flexible ruler. 1" = 5 ft. Players would probably still think tactically (there's a good argument that they should), but it would be much more reflective of real life: proper curved movement is possible, groups don't look like they're always marching in formation, and radius effects are much easier.

I used free-form combat for many years - in fact, most of my lifetime hours of DnD were played on the phone with my gf at the time, making grids rather impossible. Whoever was DMing would just describe the scene as best they could and the player would ask "can I do X" if there was some doubt whether a certain tactic was possible.

[Story]

We've played several sessions without a grid. The DM drew the floorplan on a bunch of sheets of paper, and we used a measuring tape to approximate distance.

[Flickerdart]

Alice and Bob are fighting with reach weapons, so Alice and Bob are "just out of reach". But then Cecil runs in, waving a sword. Cecil is "adjacent" to Alice, and "just out of reach" of Bob, unless he's on the other side of Alice, in which case he's slightly more out of reach of Bob. Doug, who is attacking Cecil with a reach weapon too, is just out of reach of Cecil, but can be any of just out of reach, adjacent, or slightly more out of reach of Alice and Bob. By the time Eric enters the picture, every single person now needs to remember their position re: four other people just to know where they themselves are, and that's just the smallest number likely to come up (4-man party and one opponent). And because knowing people's position relative to you doesn't help with their position relative to one another, you need to try and remember every single position of every combatant.

Meanwhile, in an absolute grid system, you can tell where everything is just by looking.

To have an effective gridless system, you need to do away with subtleties of range. The only possible states of being must be "engaged in melee (with group a, b, c ... n)" and "not engaged in melee" with motion only being possible between those two states. "Alice, Bob, and Cecil are wailing on each other with spears, and Doug and Eric are in separate corners of the room casting spells at one another" is fairly easy to remember.

[sabelo2000]

I agree that free-form combat in 3.5 is difficult, since so much of RAW is based on the assumption that one uses a grid. On the other hand, a grid (or at least a map) does help solidify the area in everyone's mind. Lacking a grid, I've often used a marker board and eyeballed distances, but there was still a graphical representation.

That said, outside of combat (or major, multiparty combats) I disregard grid almost altogether. A fight in an alley between 2-4 combatants is easy enough to visualize without graphics or grids.

I think, given RAW, it's basically impossible to get away from SOME graphical representation of the battlefield. Otherwise, much hand-waving and DM judgement becomes necessary. Which is fine, if that's how you play.

[The Dodr Dragon]

I'm not sure why everyone here has problems with the idea of playing Dnd without a grid?

Me and my group have been playing just fine for 2 years without a grid, but if you want to play without a grid you definitely need a ruler.

This is how it works for us: If Anthony is 4.99ft(.99inches) away from Jacob, he counts as being inside a "square" directly adjacent to Jacob. For us adjacent just means being within 5ft of another creature.

[Flickerdart]

I'm not sure why everyone here has problems with the idea of playing Dnd without a grid?

Me and my group have been playing just fine for 2 years without a grid, but if you want to play without a grid you definitely need a ruler.

This is how it works for us: If Anthony is 4.99ft(.99inches) away from Jacob, he counts as being inside a "square" directly adjacent to Jacob. For us adjacent just means being within 5ft of another creature.
That seems like it would make AoOs hellish to figure out.

In any case, OP is proposing a system with no minis whatsoever, not simply replacing grid positioning with arbitrary positioning.

[The Dodr Dragon]

Ok, let me try and answer the op's questions on his system then.
Sorry if any of these things were already said or were implied.

1. Firstly, I think you should still use models and a table as to make a scene not impossible to remember position-wise. My friends use Jenga blocks to shape rooms and let the DM create the imagery for the area. Just saying this in case you were thinking of going story-book style without models because without representation that really will become complicated.

2. "Adjacent", "just out of reach", and "far away" I'd like trying new reach systems and I think this could work well if you are up to the task of keeping track of how far characters and enemies are from another. Also, I don't think you should take reach weapons out of the game. Just have characters leaving the first "adjacent-range" of a character with 10ft reach to provoke an attack of opportunity. And also a second attack for 15ft reaches ect. This would most easily be used when charging, but might get hard to remember numerous rounds into a combat

3. Speed you would just need to remember locations for EVERY creature in combat... -.- unless you play with models and a ruler. Sadly I can't come up with an idea for this other than possibly make characters exist in "20ft-areas" or large chunks and have charging and melee rules work normally. Say an enemy and I are both in the same "square"(20ft-sqaure) and I have 10ft reach. And, if he wants to attack me then i get an attack of opportunity the first round and could use 5ft steps to add or subtract "reach-counters" or something against an enemy. This might be a very bad or maybe an ok idea, but just a suggestion.

All in all the game will be very hard on a DM unless you have a very quick and easy-to-use system to remember creature's relative positions to each other as Flickerdart said a few posts earlier. BUT, I also think that dnd does gridless systems well, or atleast well-enough to still be enjoyable-you just need to get used to a new system. Which you are already doing anyways. I say good-luck and it can work!

[Gildedragon]

Dodr does bring up a good point regarding the remembering of creatures' positions in combat; thing is it doesn't need to be precise positioning. The DM has a notion of how cluttered the floor is, and attacks of opportunity become a bit hazier, but not terribly so.


I've dealt with parties from 4-12 PCs with varying degrees of battlefield crowding, and removing the board and minis has made the players think of coordinating their assaults in more fluid terms. There is more communication going around the table regarding the viability of certain movements, sure, but it doesn't consume that much time and it really encourages descriptive attacks. Personally it's been the best thing I've done to my game; there was more jumping, swinging, tumbling and taking advantage of high terrain as the visual aids left the game.

[panaikhan]

We use LEGO, with one 'pip' being 2.5ft (technically the smallest 'facing').

In one pathfinder game, the DM didn't like mapping out combats, so he was always having to say who could hit what, or how many creatures got caught in a fireball. very messy.

[Togo]

I've been playing 3rd ed without a grid since it came out. Never had any problems. Sure, if people get confused about where everyone is in the room you might have to draw it out, but then that's true of gridless systems too. Playing a tripper (one of my favourite builds) is easy.

All you do is work out where the monsters are, and how much space* they take up, and where you are and how much space you take up. If the monsters are filling the available space, you can't go around them without AOO, and vice versa. All you really need to do then is remember how far you are away from the enemy. Most of the time, it's trouble free. By all means get out some paper and map it out if you really have a complicated tactical situation, but I don't find you need minatures, and generally play without them.

* space being your physical space plus your AOO zone. So normal human is 15' wide, or 25' wide with a reach weapon.

[Yora]

In case you need to know roughly where everyone is, I made good experiences with just putting a few colored dice in the center of the table to show their relative positions, but without actually measuring distances accurately. If you know that three goblin spearmen are standing in a semi-circle before their shaman, that is good enough.

I agree that free-form combat in 3.5 is difficult, since so much of RAW is based on the assumption that one uses a grid.
That's the reason for this thread. Writing up new rules that work more smothly without measuring distances and ranges. If that means completely stipping some aspects from the game, then so be it. Reach weapons being one of the main candidates, I don't see them as really "neccessary" and accomodating them would seemingly add more clutter without adding much to the game.

I think "cinematic narrative action" isn't something DnD does well at all. It's a tactical miniature game. You're probably better off playing a different game that is made for what you want.
Could people please stop ****ing saying this every time I make a suggestion on how to improve a game! :smallfurious:

EVERY time! If I wanted to play a different game, I would do so. And I've read the rules of dozens of RPGs and all are worse fits for the type of game I want to play. d20 games may not be a perfect fit, but PF is the least worst game I dislike the least.
If there are better games, I would be playing those.

[Madeiner]

I am using maptool (client+server for players and master) at the table. It is very easy to use, allowing to measure distances (actually, it does this for you each time you move a token) so we are not constrained to squares.

Using no grid/battlemap at all makes for a very different game. Can't really say if its better or worse. However, a lot of feats or class abilities no longer come into play when you are "either in melee or not". (let's face it, the whole adjacent-just out of range thing is just insane and would never work in a real scenario)


You can't rely on soft cover, or even cover from clever positioning.
Your movement speed is uninmportant, or DM-adjudicated (yes, all of you can reach the fighter there, but bob you are a dwarf and you can't)
Flanking is abstract. In a grid game with 5-foot step you need to continuosly move to keep flanking, because the enemy also will move away.
Area of effect abilities are only usable before closing to melee range because you can't really aim them.
AoO aren't effective anymore, or not at the normal rate.
Range penalties for weapons like thrown or pistols are completely DM-adjudicated. You literally can't form tactics around range


Im sure there are more i didn't think of.

[herrhauptmann]

Could people please stop ****ing saying this every time I make a suggestion on how to improve a game! :smallfurious:

EVERY time! If I wanted to play a different game, I would do so. And I've read the rules of dozens of RPGs and all are worse fits for the type of game I want to play. d20 games may not be a perfect fit, but PF is the least worst game I dislike the least.
If there are better games, I would be playing those.

Take this out of the 3.5 forum, and go to general RP. What you're suggesting was used more in 2nd edition or first.
The DM decided if the rogue was able to get sneak attack, the DM decided how many people were in range of the fireball.
If the DM was getting pissy, your rogue NEVER got sneak attack, and your fireballs hit allies more than enemies.

[killem2]

While you might be able to play with no grid and have a surplus of imagination, not all players do. Miniatures and grids serve more than just a tool for battle, they also help many people invision what they are seeing, to better understand what the DM is saying.

I love miniatures and grids, I do try to add more 3d things ontop of the grid to make it look more battle like and more model like.

I've heard no complaints.

[Blarmb]

EVERY time! If I wanted to play a different game, I would do so. And I've read the rules of dozens of RPGs and all are worse fits for the type of game I want to play. d20 games may not be a perfect fit, but PF is the least worst game I dislike the least.
If there are better games, I would be playing those.

Just because you can't find (or don't like), the square-holes for your square-peg, doesn't turn the round hole you currently have into square hole or make it particularly feasible to turn that into a square hole. Even if you really like that round hole and really ,really wish it fit your square peg.

Utlimately any miniatures-free version of 3.X d20 is doing to be either need to be:

A) Pretty arbitrary "GM Says so", kind of game play.
B) Require total re-write of any rules that interact with positioning from the ground up.

If you don't want to do B) just accept A) and you have your solution there. I mean ultimately they're right, the D&D engine is pretty much for miniatures combat and almost nothing else ,with all the granular positining rules and discrete distances. It's pretty ingrained and can't really just be casually removed and remain a coherent rule set. Heck even the skill system is basically tacked-on.

Not that having a coherent rule set is a particulary required to play a game, you can get along just fine with a bucket of GM fiat any nothing else. I've played plenty of games like that.

[killem2]

OP: You might want to check out the youtube videos DM Craft. He goes into great detail about making terrain, gridless terrain and how he despises it, but like the use of terrain for miniatures.

It might not be exactly what you want, but if I was going at least gridless, its how I would do it. :)

And D&D crafty stuff is always cool. :smalltongue:

[Yora]

B) Require total re-write of any rules that interact with positioning from the ground up.
Exactly . Which is why I started this thread so people who are interested in playing D&D without miniatures can share their input to what things would need to be rewritten and how they would do that.

I certainly can see the appeal of abstract tacical maneuvers, but for that there already is a fully developed system. The 3.5e and PF Rules as Written. So let's have this thread under the assumption that we all want the game to be played without a grid. :smallwink:
*sniff* I knew this was too much too hope. :smallsigh:

[Blarmb]

Exactly . Which is why I started this thread so people who are interested in playing D&D without miniatures can share their input to what things would need to be rewritten and how they would do that.


This is sort of fine intent I guess, but it's just not feasible for that to come of this thread, right now.

This sort of project is well beyond the scope of a single "Give your input" kind of thread. You're either going to have to come to the table with a sort of fleshed out beta-ready ruleset or expect a rather lot of unhelpful shrugging, there just isn't a basis for anything else in the base rules.

You might find better luck amongst in the homebrew section, but you really do need a vastly more developmed framework than you already have for this to bear any sort of fruit in a discussion. These aren't simple tweaks you're looking for and those are really the only thing you'd get out of a casual "Shoot off ideas" type thread.

At this point you're pretty much saying

"I want to play a certain kind of game, which is totally different than what 3.X D&D was designed for, but 3.X D&D is the only system I'm willing to consider for it. Isn't that cool? How'd you go and do it, fans of 3.X D&D?"

Can you see why you're always getting kind of same-ish responses? There is no meat on this subject until you do the initial groundwork yourself. A few paragraphs that amount to maybe a page and 1/2 or so of text is not sufficient groundwork.

Come back with specific mechanics that actually cover all these cases and ask "Well, how does this work & how can I Improve it?" and you'll get resposnes you'll probably find more constructive.

[killem2]

The only help I can offer, is from 2nd edition, and we have zero miniatures.

I remember when the DM would tell us what is happening, a lot of us would take scratch paper and doodle out what we though we were looking at, we would ask questions, like ok, how many orcs are to my right?
..
..

Jot down..

..

How about now? What do I see? I know they had miniatures then as well, but we didn't know about them.

And it could work, but honestly, you are going to be doing so much work as the DM to remember AoO from your group, that you may lose sight of what your original intentions were.

The complexity of the rule set with 3.x, makes miniatures almost needed.

[Zubrowka74]

I've been playing gridless since 1e without any problems, though I always used figurines for positions. When I dont want to bother with details they only represent general position, otherwise I use a ruler.

[prufock]

We rarely use a grid, and I honestly don't find any lack of fun or tactical thinking because of that. Encounters are set up with description rather than placement of pieces on a board. DM and players keep track mentally of who is where, and if there is a disagreement or a special tactical move that requires detail, we'll arrange some dice. We often map out areas on plain white paper.

We have used a grid, at times, like when I ran Tomb of Horrors last year (I have a laminated one and washable whiteboard markers). It definitely has an impact on the game, in that more time is spent moving pieces around. I'm not sure it really helps, at least for my group. In general, I would say their best use is in dungeon crawls.

[Gerrtt]

In my very early days if playing 3rd ed. we played with miniatures, and a map, but no grid. It allowed us the freedom of asking the dm a question like "can I move that far" or "can I figure out a way to hit the enemies but not my allies with burning hands?" It turned combat in a discussion rather than a rules-fest, and it was kinda nice. DM-call determined a lot of results, but more often than not the DM let us get away with stuff based on how cool an idea it was rather than sticking to strict mechanics. We were all basically mature about it though and didn't abuse the system.

In my later days I've always ended in groups with people who don't meet that description. If there was a rule they could bend in their favor they would. They wouldn't have fit into the above scenario because you can be sure they'd argue with the DM anytime they couldn't have the lack of rules rule in their favor. So for those games I've used a battle mat and drawn the encounter boundaries on it. It makes for a lot of erasing and re-drawing, but the adherence to the rules and lack of arguing made up for it.

So, my advice, if you want to play without a grid comes with a question: are you using miniatures/markers for reference points or not?

If you are, I recommend you have some sort of map but not a grid so that you can adequately come up with and describe the cinematic action the way that it makes sense.

If you aren't, simply be prepared for a lot of "did that/does this work" type questions.

Either way, you'll need to have a group that is willing to be flexible and appreciative of what not having strict space boundaries means to a game.

[HalfQuart]

I played in a 3.0 campaign for awhile (well after 3.5 came out) that didn't use any minis or battle grid. In general it worked ok. I get what you're saying about how it opens your imagination and allows you to think outside of the box, if you really have to listen to the DM's descriptions to understand what's in a room. I actually found the experience rather frustrating, though, as I found it was actually difficult to be tactically creative with my Rogue.

You certainly can do it, though it does require some handwaving around the details of the mechanics. After all, back in 2nd edition days we always played without minis because we didn't know better! ;-)

What I'd recommend doing is just not pulling out the grid right away. Describe the scene in all its detail, letting the players ask questions as you go. Then once the players have a good picture of what's there, then roll out the grid and minis. You can also use paper cutouts for furniture, discarded clothing, rubble, chandeliers, and other props.

[Person_Man]

Playing in the "theater of the mind" was the default way of playing D&D prior to third edition, and is still used by most other roleplaying games. If you're primarily interested in group storytelling, roleplaying and/or problem solving (traps, puzzles, mysteries, etc), then it's superior in many ways - it's faster, simpler, and lends itself to greater narrative.

When it comes to abilities with a specific range or area of effect or attack of opportunity trigger, the DM can simply make a call based on how he envisions the current scene, and players just need to accept that the DM is making a good faith effort to be fair and run a fun game.

"I want to shoot blow up as many orcs as possible with my Fireball."
"Ok, you can get 2 at once, or 4 if you're willing to include your ally Hemdale the Bold in the blast radius."
"I fire it off in a way that his all four orcs, including Hemdale, whom I know to be a brave and resilient dwarf."
"You succeed in killing two orcs, but with quick reflexes the other two manage to shield themselves from most of the blast by using their allies and Hemdale as barriers. Hemdale, you also need to roll a Reflex Save, to see how much harm comes to you from your party member's gamble."

And so on.

Don't bother arguing over the specific measurements for anything. In the theater of the mind, it just slows down the game without adding any real fun.

Or if you really are more interested in playing a tactical board game where space and positioning are important tactical considerations (as I am in most cases), then you generally need a physical board or map for it to work well. Trying to fake it without one just doesn't work well.

[thethird]

In my table we played without grid until this last year when one of the players decided to print one. Still we don't use it most of the time. We just draw whatever we need at any moment that we need it. Whenever a combat starts we might take some minis or beads (it makes our time easier) and a rule and just move them around the table to mark positions.

[Yora]

Other things that need to be adressed:

Tumble: Tumble would be a really bad skill when playing without a grid since you really only need it when you want to slip by an enemy who is actively blocking a doorway, bridge, or corridor. And that happens very rarely. In Pathfinder, tumbling is mere a function of the Acrobatics skill which you already use for balancing and jumping. If playing 3.5e, making Tumble a function of the Balance skill (which also does not tend to see heavy use) would seem a very wise descision.
Difficult Terrain: The penalty for movement speed would be mostly meaningless, but it still makes you unable to run or charge through it.
Charge: You can not charge an enemy you are already adjacent to.
Withdraw: If you take the withdraw action, you can disengage from all enemies adjacent to you without provoking an attack of opportunity. If you are flanked, you still get an AoO from one of the flanking enemies, chosen by you.
Blocking: A completely new concept not normally found in the combat rules, as already described at the start of the thread. A medium or small size character can completely block a doorway, corridor, or bridge up to 5 feet wide and enemies need to make an Overrun or Tumble to pass beside him. A medium or small character can also threaten the whole width of a doorway, corridor, or bridge 15 feet wide and anyone trying to pass by him provokes an attack of opportunity. If the passage is more than 15 feet wide, characters can move around him while staying out of reach. A large creature can occupy a passage 10 feet wide and threaten a passge 30 feet wide.
Readying an Interception: Characters can take their 5-foot step during a readied action in addition to the readied action. With this, a small or medium character can effectively threaten a passage 25 feet wide, and a large character threaten a pasage 40 feet wide.
Multiple Attackers: On a grid, up to eight enemies can attack a small or medium size character at the same time. However, this is not the case in actual combat as ganging up with 4 people is already very crowded. So it's 4 attackers for a small or medium enemy, 6 for a large creature, 8 for a huge creature, 12 for a gargantuan creature, and 16 for a collosal creature. And 3 for a tiny or smaller creature. If you are aatacked by the maximum number of attackers, you are surrounded and have to move through the space of one of them to get out. (No diagonally squeezing through.)
Concealment: If I am correct, concealment is not affected.
Cover: Cover for ranged combat is usually very clear. For melee combat, players have to actively announce that they are attempting to use elements of the environment as cover. GMs have the final say, but are highly encouraged to approve any such attempts to spice combat up.
Soft Cover: Similar, you have to actively announce that you step protectively in front of another character to provide him with soft cover, or that you try to stay in a relative position to your enemy to give an ally a clear shot with ranged attacks, or to use your enemy as a shield against an enemy archer. Again, it is ultimately left to the GM to decide which enemies actually get the penalty for soft cover to attacks against the character you are protecting, if a group of enemies spreads out to sorround the two of you.
Flanking: If two characters want to flank an enemy, they have to announce that they are cooperating in that way. Since only four characters can attack a small or medium character at the same time, only two pairs of flankers can exist. (Or 3 pairs in the case of large creature, and so on).
Charge: Charging is not affected by playing without a grid.
Bull Rush: Bull Rush is not affected by playing without a grid.
Overrun: Overrun is not affected by playing without a grid.

Any suggestions for improvement on these?

[HalfQuart]

Other things that need to be adressed:

Tumble: Tumble would be a really bad skill when playing without a grid since you really only need it when you want to slip by an enemy who is actively blocking a doorway, bridge, or corridor.

Actually, the most common use is to avoid AoO in tactical movement. Without a grid the conversation goes something like this:
Player: I'm going to move around the orc to flank him with Tordek.
DM: Ok, but there's not really enough space to stay far enough away, so you'll have to provoke an AoO if you want to move to flank.
Player: I'll use my tumble skill, then, to move without provoking.
<dice roll>
DM: You safely cartwheel and tumble around him and are now flanking. What do you do now?

I think the other ones are mostly like that too... you don't really need complicated mechanics for figuring out what you can and can't do. You just ask the DM. The advantage to this sort of play is it can create an experience rich with more imagery, and is a lot looser and less mechanical. The downside is that it is difficult for players to understand what their characters can and can't do in a given situation, and can actually slow down play since it's hard to plan ahead because you've got to ask a series of questions about what's positioned where when it is your turn.

[Yora]

I think that is making things a bit more difficult that it really needs to be, and sticking closer to the original grid-rules than neccessary.

I would use the guideline: Unless specifically mentioned, everyone is standing in a way that everyone else can move freely arround.

If you want to block a doorway so that nobody can get through, you have to say so, or the GM has to mention that a creature is standing in such a spot.
If you want to hold a bridge and make attacks of opportunity against everyone who tries to pass, you have to say so.
If a character wants to flank with another one, he has to say so, and if a PC or monsters wants to stand with the back to a wall to prevent being flanked, it has to be specifically announced as well.

Passing through treatened space is one of the most fiddly things to keep track of if you don't use a grid, so I strongly suggest dropping this entirely. You only provoke this type of Attack of Opportunity if you move away from an enemy you are in melee with, or if you want to pass an enemy who has specifically positioned himself so he will get attacks of opportunity against people passing him. For simplicity and practicability, I think it's best to assume that there is enough empty space on the battlefield to get to the ally or enemy you want while staying out of reach of any enemy. Same goes for any other types of attack of opportunity.
In a similar way you have to announce "I move behind a piece of furniture to get cover against the wizard". If you don't announce it, it's assumed that you are standing in an open space.

[Gerrtt]

Tumble: you could also take a use for it from Neverwinter Nights and give a dodge bonus to AC equal to +1/5 ranks in tumble. It makes it a useful skill to boost for any melee character, not just the ones who have it as a class skill. I mean, really, what else are you doing with your skill points Mr. Barbarian? Literacy? psh.

But seriously, that way it could be used to get yourself out of sticky situations as well as provide a static boost that represents your ability to move around on the battlefield.

[Yora]

That would pretty much duplicate the Dodge and Mobility feats, wouldn't it?

[Gerrtt]

Not really, dodge is only vs. 1 opponent that you have to select each round and mobility is only for AoO. Since dodge bonuses stack you'd get 1 + 4 + (1/5 ranks in tumble) vs an opponent if you moved past the opponent you chose for your dodge bonus. I know investing in defense is generally looked at as less effective than investing in offense, but in an environment where your tactical movement options are handwaved a little by descriptive text you can still have a use for the skill outside of moving through threatened squares.

[Menzath]

I like the intentent of this thread, mostly because I have been a whitewolf game player for years before my group took up DnD as our main staple.

very rarely did we ever have maps or grids in game, even in the crazy heat of combat with 20+ people. the DM(GM) would just make quick one or two word notes of "where" people were and that was more than enough to keep everything going smoothly.
Because scenes were described to us rooms were never really empty, even seemly empty rooms, Like a moderen hotel room still had the basics a bed and side table(s) with lamps.
players often get oddly creative with seemly common items in enviroments that seem fuller.

It is a little more work comming up with a description of a room rather than having a quick drawn one, and the drawing can be helpful to give the players a more exact sense of size. But the imagination is a very powerful thing and NOT having the drawn rooms gives players a chance to see things very differently.

So it is a very different playstlye, still viable and you do loose some good aspects of a grid/map, but you gain a world visualized far more by players.

And for the DnD combat rules.... you just have to toss abit of them out the door.

[Phelix-Mu]

I've never played 3e or 3.5e with grid or miniatures. The only thing we've used are dice diagrams (and these have served me well since 2e), with representational distances, and that's only when we are lucky enough to meet in person. Over skype, so far we haven't used anything. If a player wants to know a precise distance, and I'm DMing, I decide on how far it is on the spot. Ranges for spells and such are given as needed, as well as size of room, space between the enemy and the wall, and so forth. There are obviously better tools, but in a game driven by role play and with a more cinematic feel (less tactical), visual detail is not necessary.

On the other hand, while personally I do fine and enjoy a storytelling/descriptive style of playing, a visual medium can help make the very complicated matter of combat easier for some people to grasp. Some people learn better with pictures, maps, and spatial diagrams, and there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, catering to a broader range of learning styles (need I refer to Gardner's multiple intelligences?) is something that most DMs should aspire to, since a game that can be just as engaging and enjoyable for each unique member of the gaming group is a basic goal of the game.

How to make the game less grid-based? Removing any reference to distance is problematic and unrealistic, since tactically minded characters will still probably think in approximate distances (though perhaps using in-game units...paces, strides, arm's length, etc). However, you could strip down distances and just refer to things in relative terms: What is the radius of the fireball? As far as a man can walk in a move action. Or something like this.

As an intelligent player, I would still tend to farm information off of the DM even without a grid or spatial representation, and I regularly do just this while skyping. So the DM should probably have as much detail as possible to answer the player's questions. If this can be done without diagrams, fine, but anything the character should be able to know, the DM should be capable of communicating to the players. If anything, a descriptive style puts more on the DM's figurative plate, since the players have only the DM to rely on for info, and no map to refer to.

The biggest tactical issue that I can figure is that AoO and moving inside threatened spaces can become quite hard to keep track of. Make sure to always mention at the start of the encounter the size category of the monster, any reach weapons, the size of the room, and so forth, since the players will likely be irked if this information doesn't emerge until they've started taking actions. Again, anything the character can observe should be described so that the player can have the character act properly.

Good luck.

[Yora]

Here is a summary of all the rules change, I've been thinking of so far. Direct feedback on them would be really appreciated.

Converting 3.5e/PF to grid-less combat
The Basics: By default, all characters and creatures are assumed to be in a position where no special rules or modifiers apply. If a character or creature wants to use its position to an advantage, the players or GM have to say so.
Relative distances: In combat, characters can be in three categories of distance to each other: Adjacent, close, and far. By default, the distance for all characters is far. If a character or creature wants to make melee attacks against another, it has to move adjacent to the target. If the target is close or far, it can not be attacked in melee.
Movement Speed: Characters are assumed to be able to get to any spot in the battlefield while staying out of adjacent range of any enemies (unless they actively block a specific passage, see below). If a character wants to cover a greater distance, it is up to the GM to decide if a move action or a double move is required (or possibly even additional rounds of movement). Usually when in doubt, the descision should be in the players favor, to keep combat interesting and encourage creative tactics. [Possible problem, see below]
5-foot step: With a 5-foot step, a character can move from adjacent to close, or from close to adjacent. The difference between close and far is, that a 5-foot step is enough to become adjacent to a character that is close, but a move action (or several) is required to become adjacent to a character that is far. A 5-foot step can be used to step out of range to avoid an attack of opportunity for a certain action, but an enemy that is now at close range can also use a 5-foot step to become adjacent again and then make a full-attack. [Possible problem, see below]
Withdraw: If you are adjacent to an enemy and want to move farther away than to close range (with a 5-foot step), you provoke an Attack of Opportunity for turning your back at him. If you take the withdraw action, you do not provoke an Attack of Opportunity.
Reach Weapons: Weapons no longer have the "reach" trait. Characters and creatures are either adjacent or they are not.
Multiple Attackers: A single medium or small size creature can be attacked by up to 4 attackers at the same time. For large creatures the number is 6, for huge creatures it is 8, for gargantuan creatures it is 12, and for collosal creatures it is 16. For tiny or smaller creatures, the number is 3.
Flanking: Two characters who are both adjacent to the same enemy can flank it. They must say doing so, or they are assumed to be in non-flanking positions by default. If you are flanked, you can only avoid an attack of opportunity from one enemy when taking a 5-foot step or using the withdraw action.
Blocking: If a character or creature wants to block a small passage, like a doorway, corridor, or bridge, they have to say so. If they do, a medium or small size creature can block a passage about 5-feet wide. (See the creatures space in the stat block.) To pass through the occupied space, an enemy has to use either Tumble or Overrun.
Threatening: A character can also try to threaten the full width of a larger passage. In addition to the space it occupies in the center, it also threatens an area to each size out to a range equal to its reach, as given in its stat block. Any creature passing through the threatened space provokes an Attack of Opportunity (unless it uses Tumble).
Charge: You can only charge an enemy who is at far distance, not enemies that are already adjacent or close.
Difficult Terrain: Covering difficult terrain simply counts as twice the distance it actually is.
Cover: Cover for ranged combat is usually very clear. For melee combat, players have to actively announce that they are attempting to use elements of the environment as cover. GMs have the final say, but are highly encouraged to approve any such attempts to spice combat up.
Soft Cover: Similar, you have to actively announce that you step protectively in front of another character to provide him with soft cover, or that you try to stay in a relative position to your enemy to give an ally a clear shot with ranged attacks, or to use your enemy as a shield against an enemy archer. Again, it is ultimately left to the GM to decide which enemies actually get the penalty for soft cover to attacks against the character you are protecting, if a group of enemies spreads out to sorround the two of you.

Possible Problems:
Does the double move action even have a point anymore? Is there any reason to not just Run?

With the 5-foot step, it becomes really easy to avoid attacks of opportunity when casting a spell, unless the spellcaster is being flanked or the adjacent enemy readies an action to make a 5-foot step and attack to disrupt a spell. (The rules specifically state you can take your 5-foot step together with a readied action.) There is never a risk of bumping into another enmy when backing up from the first.
Is that too easy, or do you think this is okay.
Now this clearly is a conversion from grid to non-grid and most other RPGs I've seen don't even bother with this degree of detail when it comes to movement and position.
Do you think the changes should be more radical and for example completely drop attacks of opportunity, 5-foot steps, and cove in melee?

[Jack Zander]

If you're dead set on doing this, I'd just remove AoO altogether, and give casters a big NO when they try to cast a spell while in melee with an enemy. Ultimately it won't hurt melee types too much while cracking down on spell casters a bit more. The only downside I can see is that without AoOs, it will be harder to block enemies from engaging the casters in melee. Maybe have a shielded casting feat that allows you to cast in melee when wielding a shield.

This would make many feats/skills/abilities rather useless. Give them the chop. This may be clunky, and will require a few other specific changes, but I think it's an easier starting point than the base rules.

[Shaynythyryas]

I've been playing without grid for years, and i'd summarize our way to deal with it :

The DM fixes it all.

We use pen and paper to represent an approximation of where we are, and when we want to try an action that requires a special movement, we just ask our DM "can i do this ?" and it all falls down to him to stay coherent.

As to anything to much dependent on precise movement numbers, we usually close our eyes and assume that either we don't bother with it, either it automatically is ok (for example, when our rogue just say "i position myself to flank / sneak attack", we usually don't check and just try to stay clear on who is know in front of who.)

It's not perfect and it requires a good DM, but it works. I can't say of it's better or not than to use a grid, 'cause I've never used one.

[scarmiglionne4]

Converting 3.5e/PF to grid-less combat
The Basics: By default, all characters and creatures are assumed to be in a position where no special rules or modifiers apply. If a character or creature wants to use its position to an advantage, the players or GM have to say so.

Relative distances: In combat, characters can be in three categories of distance to each other: Adjacent, close, and far. By default, the distance for all characters is far. If a character or creature wants to make melee attacks against another, it has to move adjacent to the target. If the target is close or far, it can not be attacked in melee.

I appreciate that you are going for simplicity, but I think you could use one or two more distance categories. If I were to make use of these rules I would even rename some of what you have already.

I would change Far to Short. I would make another category and call it Long.

Long would be anything where a double-move or charge would be required. Short is within a single round or standard movement and allows precision ranged attacks such as Point-Blank shot and sneak attack. Close is with a 5' step and allows the use of reach.


Movement Speed: Characters are assumed to be able to get to any spot in the battlefield while staying out of adjacent range of any enemies (unless they actively block a specific passage, see below). If a character wants to cover a greater distance, it is up to the GM to decide if a move action or a double move is required (or possibly even additional rounds of movement). Usually when in doubt, the decision should be in the players favor, to keep combat interesting and encourage creative tactics. [Possible problem, see below]

Looks good.


5-foot step: With a 5-foot step, a character can move from adjacent to close, or from close to adjacent. The difference between close and far is, that a 5-foot step is enough to become adjacent to a character that is close, but a move action (or several) is required to become adjacent to a character that is far. A 5-foot step can be used to step out of range to avoid an attack of opportunity for a certain action, but an enemy that is now at close range can also use a 5-foot step to become adjacent again and then make a full-attack. [Possible problem, see below]

Withdraw: If you are adjacent to an enemy and want to move farther away than to close range (with a 5-foot step), you provoke an Attack of Opportunity for turning your back at him. If you take the withdraw action, you do not provoke an Attack of Opportunity.

I would word this differently. It should read: If you are adjacent to an enemy and want to move to be adjacent to another enemy, you provoke an attack of opportunity. Moving anywhere else does not provoke, but should not be a withdrawal either. If you want cinematic battle, the last thing you need is a specific maneuver concerning something as simple as moving away from melee combat.


Reach Weapons: Weapons no longer have the "reach" trait. Characters and creatures are either adjacent or they are not.

I think this is a terrible idea. Your other ideas are going to lend themselves so well to reach weapons. I don't see any reason why if it only takes a 5' step to go from close to adjacent that reach weapons couldn't be used from close range.


Multiple Attackers: A single medium or small size creature can be attacked by up to 4 attackers at the same time. For large creatures the number is 6, for huge creatures it is 8, for gargantuan creatures it is 12, and for colossal creatures it is 16. For tiny or smaller creatures, the number is 3.
Flanking: Two characters who are both adjacent to the same enemy can flank it. They must say doing so, or they are assumed to be in non-flanking positions by default. If you are flanked, you can only avoid an attack of opportunity from one enemy when taking a 5-foot step or using the withdraw action.

Flanking is another rule I think you would do better without for the sake of cinematics. I would just make multiple attackers amount to a +2 bonus to the attack roll for each pair or something. (two on one grants +2, four on one grants +4) I can think of no reason where grid is not present that a creature would not be flanking. Multiple attackers by their very nature is going to be distracting enough to warrant the bonus.


Blocking: If a character or creature wants to block a small passage, like a doorway, corridor, or bridge, they have to say so. If they do, a medium or small size creature can block a passage about 5-feet wide. (See the creatures space in the stat block.) To pass through the occupied space, an enemy has to use either Tumble or Overrun.

Threatening: A character can also try to threaten the full width of a larger passage. In addition to the space it occupies in the center, it also threatens an area to each size out to a range equal to its reach, as given in its stat block. Any creature passing through the threatened space provokes an Attack of Opportunity (unless it uses Tumble).

I don't see the purpose for specific rules on these things. We keep coming back to the idea that characters are standing in squares and threaten squares around them. I think this should be situational and open to DM adjudication. I don't think a Wizard could block or threaten a five foot hallway. A big burly half-orc barbarian? Maybe. A halfling fighter? Maybe if he was a whirling dervish or something.


Charge: You can only charge an enemy who is at far distance, not enemies that are already adjacent or close.
Difficult Terrain: Covering difficult terrain simply counts as twice the distance it actually is.
Cover: Cover for ranged combat is usually very clear. For melee combat, players have to actively announce that they are attempting to use elements of the environment as cover. GMs have the final say, but are highly encouraged to approve any such attempts to spice combat up.
Soft Cover: Similar, you have to actively announce that you step protectively in front of another character to provide him with soft cover, or that you try to stay in a relative position to your enemy to give an ally a clear shot with ranged attacks, or to use your enemy as a shield against an enemy archer. Again, it is ultimately left to the GM to decide which enemies actually get the penalty for soft cover to attacks against the character you are protecting, if a group of enemies spreads out to sorround the two of you.

Possible Problems:
Does the double move action even have a point anymore? Is there any reason to not just Run?

With the 5-foot step, it becomes really easy to avoid attacks of opportunity when casting a spell, unless the spellcaster is being flanked or the adjacent enemy readies an action to make a 5-foot step and attack to disrupt a spell. (The rules specifically state you can take your 5-foot step together with a readied action.) There is never a risk of bumping into another enmy when backing up from the first.
Is that too easy, or do you think this is okay.
Now this clearly is a conversion from grid to non-grid and most other RPGs I've seen don't even bother with this degree of detail when it comes to movement and position.
Do you think the changes should be more radical and for example completely drop attacks of opportunity, 5-foot steps, and cove in melee?

I think the 5-foot step (we really need to be calling this something else, like just a Step. Miniatures take five foot steps, living creatures just take steps) allowing easy AoO avoidance is fine. Tactics should not be discouraged here just because we are losing a grid. The absence of a grid makes simply getting out of the way seem too easy. I think you may find players being less mindful of the danger without miniatures. It will require more thought to remember to move away from the ogre before you cast fireball. Hell, if I was a Wizard standing next to an ogre, I doubt I would think to move away first. I just throw the fireball and try to make as hasty escape as I could while wearing a urine soaked robe.

I don't think you should drop stepping or cover in melee. You are going to want PCs to throw tables and stuff in front of would-be attackers right? That's a round of cover.

Maybe you should just drop attacks of opportunity. They are exactly the type of thing you are trying top get away from. AoO was invented for grid-based miniature combat. See the old AD&D combat & tactics book, a book about miniature combat. I believe that is where they originally come from.

Maybe double-moving is running? I think you may need to come up with a new way to handle speed.

[Flickerdart]

I don't see the purpose for specific rules on these things. We keep coming back to the idea that characters are standing in squares and threaten squares around them. I think this should be situational and open to DM adjudication. I don't think a Wizard could block or threaten a five foot hallway. A big burly half-orc barbarian? Maybe. A halfling fighter? Maybe if he was a whirling dervish or something.
Making class-based distinctions like that is utterly pointless in D&D, where even without multiclassing you have loads and loads of classes and races.

[scarmiglionne4]

Making class-based distinctions like that is utterly pointless in D&D, where even without multiclassing you have loads and loads of classes and races.

It wasn't in AD&D, which I do believe is what the OP is really leaning towards. There truly are too many classes and races in what people are calling D&D these days. I don't think everything Wizards has ever published is all meant to be used together, but I have never played an MMORPG, so what do I know.

And besides, I was merely going for a simple example to explain why a specific rule is not needed to explain what to do with a five foot square in a game without a grid.

[Yora]

I like the idea of dropping attacks of opportunity alltogether, which also removes most reason for 5-foot steps. I'll see what I can come up with based on that assumption.

[Gazebo's Bane]

I have played various versions of d&d for decades both as a GM and as a player in groups run by about ten other different GMs. None of us have ever used a grid. It has never been a problem.

[Preaplanes]

My Sunday game is doing this, actually. I'm actually enjoying it, it makes the action a little faster paced, and questions of range and situations are accurately announced by the DM.

Aerial combat (airships, Air Walk, Fly, Wind Walk, Floating Disk, etc) is kinda gridless anyway, just saying how high you go, how high the enemy is, where obstacles are, etc.

Gridless combat pretty much just adds that horizontally as well as vertically. If you've got a good mind for spacial awareness, you can do this no problem.