i hate grids 1in is 5ft

[nealpb]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Psyx]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Sir Swindle89]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

IDK about you guys but every "step" i take is at least 5ft (cuz all PC's are apparently 12 ft tall)

[true_shinken]

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]

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]

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.