Idea to handle positioning without a map

[Yora]

I am strongly considering to continue my campaign without using a map for a number of reason. But one thing that gets missing in this approach, which I really like, is that well protected warriors can shield vulnerable spellcasters by blocking the path of enemy attackers.

Since I am running the game in Roll20, I was thinking about treating combat like in Final Fantasy as a convenient way for me to have a visual aid who is in the fight and how many hit points everyone has still left. I was also thinking about Darkest Dungeon, which has the additional element of characters fighting either in the front ranks or in the back, and that got me the following idea.

In larger rooms, combat can take place in multiple places at once, like some people fighting at the main door to keep out enemy reinforcements while other party members are fighting an evil wizard at the other side of the room. Or maybe some PCs sitting up in a tree while others engage a monster on the ground. So not really Final Fantasy/Darkest Dungeon style.

But within each of these fights, each character can decide to fight either in the front rank and shield other allies from attacks, or to fight in the rear rank and get protected by the allies in the front. If characters and creatures in the front ranks fight each other, nothing special happens. But if they want to attack an enemy in the rear rank with melee attacks, they have to move into the enemy front rank, and when they do they are considered to be flanked.

So basically you have something like a football field divided into four zones: AR, AF, BF, BR. At the start of a fight, the markers for fighters of group A and B are in their F-zones, and their casters and ranged attackers in their R-zones. To make melee attacks against the enemy R-zone, you have to move forward into the enemy F-zone. And while you're in the enemy F-zone, all enemies have you flanked.

http://spriggans-den.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Screenshot_20200504_115259.png

In this example we have the PCs with green polygon edges on the left, and the enemies with brown circle edges on the right. There are currently two fights happening at the same time. One at the top and one at the bottom.

In the bottom fight, nothing special happens. The fighters in the front ranks can make melee attacks against each other and the ranged attackers in the rear ranks can make ranged attacked everywhere.

In the top fight, the enemy melee fighter has moved into the PCs front rank and can now make attacks against both the PC in the front and the rear. But since he is in the enemy side of the combat, the two PCs now flank him and make attacks with advantage.

Now this looks very much like an ordinary fight, but the main idea is that this position board (or rather a prettier version I could make with more care later) will be used for all fights in the whole campaign. It completely ignores the shape and size of the area and exact positions of markers don't matter. It only matters in which of the four zones a marker is. (Probably should do this without a grid in practice.)

I will try this out in practice in our game later today, but do you see any problems with this approach that come to mind immediately?

[TIPOT]

It's not exactly a big problem but this is a nerf to rogues, monks, wood elves and those with enhanced mobility and a buff to small races like dwarves + halflings.

It might make combat a bit static? It depends how you handle things like ambushes but some of the most exciting combats I've had are when people have ended up out of position. As is it seems like it could be very linear fighters in the front mages in the back no changes.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I don't know how this will work out in 5e, but I might adapt this idea to the homebrew I'm currently running. Yesterday I introduced cover, it might be good to have some idea of the consequences of walking up to cover.

By the time this game is done I might either be thinking about publishing this system or wishing I had just started off running Mutants and Masterminds.

[Yora]

http://spriggans-den.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/NewRoll20.jpg
ant to use. This battle board has two front and two rear rank zones, and also two additional far distant zones for enemies or allies that are approaching but still have not joined into the fight.

Here is a first proper version of what I want to use in Roll20. This battle board has two front and two rear rank zones, and also two additional far distant zones for enemies or allies that are approaching but still have not joined into the fight.

In the top corner is a little space for a mini-map. All the black areas are fog of war, and on the "background" layer I have the battle board set to be on top, and a flow-chart type map of the entire dungeon set to bottom. I can then move around the dungeon map and only the part of the mini-map will be visible to player. The other visible main area will block the view of the dungeon map with the battle board that always stays in place.
This does give players the ability to see where they are now and which directions they can go, but they can't look at a complete map of the whole dungeon to easily make their way back to the exit. I think to make this work, each area should have some distinguishing feature that can be shown on the map with a symbol. Otherwise it would get too confusing. Players can try to make a copy of what's shown on the mini-map with pencil for themselves, though. I am curious how that would work out.

The whole idea of this is to give a little bit of visual information to a game that is played without a battle map. It's not meant to be an alternative version to standard map based combat. Nothing is getting lost compared to normal map-less fighting.

[KorvinStarmast]

You could take a look at 13 Age's system for distance (SRD is her (https://www.13thagesrd.com/)e); IMO, there's a lot to like in that if you want to play ToTM.

[kebusmaximus]

Considering I almost only ever use theater of the mind, I support this idea. Another useful link, in addition to the 13th age srd:

https://slyflourish.com/fate_style_zones_in_5e.html

[Tanarii]

This does give players the ability to see where they are now and which directions they can go, but they can't look at a complete map of the whole dungeon to easily make their way back to the exit. I think to make this work, each area should have some distinguishing feature that can be shown on the map with a symbol. Otherwise it would get too confusing. Players can try to make a copy of what's shown on the mini-map with pencil for themselves, though. I am curious how that would work out.

Don't forget that by the book, characters that are mapping lose passive perception. This means they can't notice threats (no trap scouting) and will be automatically surprised if ambushed.

[NaughtyTiger]

Don't forget that by the book, characters that are mapping lose passive perception. This means they can't notice threats (no trap scouting) and will be automatically surprised if ambushed.

where is this rule? i can't find it

[KorvinStarmast]

Don't forget that by the book, characters that are mapping lose passive perception. This means they can't notice threats (no trap scouting) and will be automatically surprised if ambushed. Which edition are you referring to? This vaguely reminds me of an AD&D 1e thing.

[J-H]

Aren't you already halfway to using a map at this point by doing that?

[Segev]

If you want to avoid maps and minis but use tactical positioning, the theater-of-the-mind method I find best for this is just having people say who they're standing near.

If the half-orc barbarian says she's covering her elven wizard lover, assume that unless they get surrounded, enemies have to go through her to get to him. If the dwarf ranger says he's barring the way forward, let him occupy at least two enemies before the others can get to the rest of the party who're cowering behind the ranger.

Keep a mental track of distances at which creatures are engaged, so you know how fast they can close.

But the big thing is just to assume the PCs can do what they say they do wrt positioning and blocking paths and such, as long as it's vaguely reasonable. (The lone warrior isn't going to stop 30 men from passing him on an open field, for example.)

[Desamir]

where is this rule? i can't find it


Which edition are you referring to? This vaguely reminds me of an AD&D 1e thing.

PHB 183, under "Other Activities:"


Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger.

These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats. However, a character not watching for danger can do one of the following activities instead, or some other activity with the DM's permission.

Navigate. The character can try to prevent the group from becoming lost, making a Wisdom (Survival) check when the DM calls for it. (The Dungeon Master's Guide has rules to determine whether the group gets lost.)

Draw a Map. The character can draw a map that records the group's progress and helps the characters get back on course if they get lost. No ability check is required.
Track. A character can follow the tracks of another creature, making a Wisdom (Survival) check when the DM calls for it. (The Dungeon Master's Guide has rules for tracking.)

Forage. The character can keep an eye out for ready sources of food and water, making a Wisdom (Survival) check when the DM calls for it. (The Dungeon Master's Guide has rules for foraging.)

[Vogie]

I mean, you're kinda getting into TCG-style mechanics at this point. Attack zone, support zone, et cetera... and that is all well and good, but you'll quickly find that translating that to your players, to your map, and also to reinterpret the ranges of various attacks and spells... is just as hard as managing the faux tokens on a battlemap of your mind.

There's 2 ways I've found to combat this at my tables.

First is what I call dreamscape-style theatre. This uses ability checks to craft the world around the players, similar to having a skill challenge running alongside a combat encounter. If a Rogue or a PC low on hit points wants to dive behind a object, for example, they'll do a perception check to see if there's a thing to provide them cover - If it's high, they'll find a crate, bush, tree (or, in 2 instances, pew) to jump behind. If it's low, that thing won't exist. I also envision combat in 15 ft zones, rather than 5 ft squares - that allows me to easily determine if a PC can get to a position using full movement, half movement, or if it requires a dash. If something is more than 120 ft away, it usually doesn't matter.

The second is something I've developed teaching new players over Zoom or Discord during the quarantine. I use Scrabble tiles to represent the players on an otherwise blank battlegrid map, although a chess or Go board works as well. If there's cover I want to have, I throw Legos or whatnot on the map. The enemy creatures are typically either numbered tokens or, more frequently, candy.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

My players liked my adaptation of this. They could even appreciate it when I revealed the other half of the board when they were attacked from behind. Before they had to ask basically every turn which enemies were still alive, this made the fight more fluent and they noticed this as and gave that back as feedback as well. An actual map would still be better, but if you don't want to make the time investment of making those (and don't have them from some source like if you're running a module) for several combat encounters per session something like this seems to work pretty well.