Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Keenath 08-30-06, 07:04 PM	How do I run a game without a battlemat? In particular, I'm either going to end up ignoring movement-based AOOs, or vastly reducing their use, while at the same time allowing some hand-waved concepts like blocking -- If an orc is blocking you from reaching a wizard behind him, you can't get past him without using special abilities like Tumble, Overrun, or ganging up. My idea is that a creature can block one creature at a time, unless he has Combat Reflexes. So, what do you think? Any other ideas on how to deal with movement AOOs? What about the Mobility feat, which suddenly doesn't seem to do much? (I did have one idea about making Mobility allow you to ignore one 'level' of speed reduction due to terrain -- treat heavy undergrowth as light undergrowth, that sort of thing.)
gamertall 08-30-06, 07:12 PM	I wish I could advise you on how to run a game with out a battlemat or the like, but I cannot. Try taping some graph paper together or borrowing one for the session. I believe that the DMG has some tiles in the back to use. Also, you can download an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper from the WotC site.
narukagami 08-30-06, 07:21 PM	Warhammer style. All you need is a ruler, 1" = 5ft.
Mind Rogue 08-30-06, 07:31 PM	If you still plan on using tokens or minis or something, you can just guestimate the distances and lay down pencils or pieces of paper or stuff to represent walls and other obstacles. If not, you can simply estimate a starting distance so that ranged characters know how long they have before melee ensues. Then, the distances can be estimated to be at melee, reach, or some increment. As long as the characters don't move or only move into or out of the reach area, you generally don't need to worry about AoO. A character trying to go from melee to ranged provokes one unless they withdraw. In cramped spaces, your marching order might take importance, as well as the enemies. If their formation puts archers or mages or the like in the back, then trying to move towards them means moving past the guys in front, provoking AoO.
Keenath 08-30-06, 07:36 PM	No, you're all going the wrong direction. I'm not going to use minis at all. No game board. Old school, all in your head. Estimated distance isn't an issue; I'm talking specifically about using (or not using) AOOs based on the fact that there's no explicit concept of where you've moved. Because you don't know your exact path, you can't say who gets AOOs or not; therefore there needs to be a different way to measure it. Obviously a character who backs off without using disengage is going to be AOOed, but I'm looking at how to deal with monsters blocking you (preventing you from going somewhere) and feats like Mobility.
Arkan_Shadesfire 08-30-06, 09:28 PM	Well, it's problematic because if there are a lot of players on the field, so to speak, it can be a real pain to mentally keep track of where everyone is. Personally, I just use graph paper to keep notes on everyone's position. I come up with a letter or abbreviated symbol to represent each player and just write their symbol in the appropriate square. (Enemies are usually reduced to being "E1", "E2", ect...) The problem is that 3.5 D&D really isn't designed to work without some kind of chart to cover movement, ranges, flanking, ect. The rules constntly make referances to your character's "square", so if you don't have one it can be hard to adjucate. If you can keep it all in your head, I'd advise just picturing the scene. Does the rogue have to pass within arm's reach of the orc to get to that switch on the far wall? Then that would be "provoking an attack of opportunity for moving through an enemies threatened area". Is the hallway wide enough that the fighter can charge the wizard without having to push past his Bugbear bodygaurd? If not, he's being blocked. It can get really difficult to keep a battle like this all in your head--especially if your party is up against a lot of enemies at once or they're fighting in a crowded tavern with lots of bystanders--but if you can do it, more power to you.
Chrono Nexus 08-30-06, 09:34 PM	If you are having trouble doing it in your head just thinking about doing it in your head, you should take Arkan's advise and have some way to take notes. Also, in future sessions, you should consider usng a dry-erase marker and a whiteboard + tape measure. It works faster than paper and pen, works better than a typical grid, and it comes in three pretty colors.
Keenath 08-30-06, 10:39 PM	This is really not the sort of advice I'd hoped to have. I'm not looking for methods to more easily keep track of people or hand out AOOs randomly. (oh, that's a beautiful thought -- "Okay, the orc takes an AOO on you..." "NO! My rogue knows not to go that close!") I'm trying to get away from the "wargame" format and more towards a sort of abstracted like-storytelling-but-with-more-dice format. In doing this, most of the system translates pretty closely, except the AOOs for moving inside threatened areas. Sometimes it's clear, but a lot of times it is not. I'm considering removing that as a source of AOOs, but then I'm going to need to fill the gaps left by the mechanic. 1) AOOs for movement are a way for a group of enemies to deny an area to the heroes, or vice versa. In order to move into this area, you must pass through a group of enemies that will all take AOOs on you. More generally, AOOs reduce mobility close to enemies. 2) The Mobility feat only works when you're taking the type of AOOs I'm removing. So, I need to fill those two gaps. 1) I'm considering a 'blocking' scheme, where each character can 'block' one or more opponents (as a free action). Essentially, you can just state that you're going to try to keep an enemy from going past you, so as to defend a person or place or maintain a formation. It's not defined exactly, because it's not meant to be -- it's storytelling, not mechanical. In general terms, you can block one opponent unless you have Combat Reflexes, in which case you can deal with multiple opponents at the same time. Getting past a blocking creature requires some sort of technique. You can use Overrun to push past (if you win); you can use Tumble to bypass a blocker, but failure means you fail to get past him, and if you fail by 10 or more, you take an AOO for your trouble. Note that getting through an enemy's position isn't as easy as just taking the hit and going past. It's more like a combat-puzzle. You either stay there and kill the guy, or find a way to get around him -- overrun, tumble, magic, a stunt, or whatever. Solutions can (and are encouraged to) be clever -- cool is better than mechanically correct. The Three Musketeers wouldn't just walk past the Count's men and hope the can survive! They'd kick over a barrel or swing on a rope or get help from a buddy. 2) The mobility feat needs a replacement mechanic that fits both the theme of Mobility and its position in the feat trees. It might make it easier to get past a blocking creature (but how, I don't know), or reduce the effect of difficult terrain (though I'm not sure how Dodge fits into that), or something else entirely -- toss out some ideas. The purpose here isn't to throw out the battlemat and keep playing D&D as written in the book. The idea is to make it more entertaining by freeing the players from trying to calculate paths and count squares.
Kusari_Gamer 08-30-06, 11:39 PM	It doesn't go as well as you think it will. The problem with leaving it to the player's imagination is that you're leaving it to the player's imagination. Consider that each person could read the same paragraph of a story and each one will imagine it in his own way. In my experience it slows down combat even further due to players endlessly asking for further descriptions.
Jerks 08-30-06, 11:44 PM	I feel you pain. Although, I resisted the notion of using a mat at first I have relented, and now my players act as if you CAN'T roleplay without a mat. Hell, I ran RPGs for nearly a decade with nothing more than a scratch sheet of paper in front of me. As Darth Vader told Luke, "It is too late...for me...son." I can't help you. My soul has been lost to plastic mini's and 1" squares. Heck, I can't even abstractly draw anything anymore as the peanut gallery shouts for everything to be too scale. Flee now, before the wet erase permanently stains you. Run while you still can.
risner 08-30-06, 11:46 PM	How do I run a game without a battlemat? So, what do you think? I have used chess (checkers) boards when without a map. You can make one quickly with a pen, paper, and a book to mark them off (they don't have to be the same size, just close.) As for rules to run without the map, you are in the wrong game. You would so alter the game that it wouldn't be the same game. I would advise using another game system that doesn't have a battle map as a core part. In other words, improvise a map instead of ruling away the need for one.
kaizer_soatze 08-30-06, 11:48 PM	you could just scketch out the combat area on a piece of paperand add distances?thats f=how I play because I think the matt is stupid
Keenath 08-30-06, 11:49 PM	As for rules to run without the map, you are in the wrong game. You would so alter the game that it wouldn't be the same game. I would advise using another game system that doesn't have a battle map as a core part. In other words, improvise a map instead of ruling away the need for one. How did we survive for so many years playing 2nd edition without mats and minis?
kaizer_soatze 08-30-06, 11:49 PM	I need to watch what I type
SamiPeikko 08-31-06, 09:10 AM	I found in me some advice to you: How about you assign all characters in all groups participating in combat into front row and rear row. Front row is there to block any and all enemies from reaching the rear row. It also provides cover against ranged attacks. Front row must have minimum of a) 3 characters or 2 using reach weapons or b) number of enemy melee combatants, if lower than 3; othervise all characters in the side are considered to be in front row. All front rows can fight in melee freely. Characters can try to pass front row by several means: 1) Tumble, against d3 opponents in opponent front row 2) Bull rush or overrun against one opponent, usually provokes an AoO from another Front Row enemy. 3) Just run through, provokes d2+1 AoO:s. 4) Use movement mode that enemy front row is incapable of (Flying, Burrowing, Dimension Door, Etherealnes) Mobility gives AC bonus for each of these maneuvers. Characters can more effectively prevent enemies from passing the Front Row by taking Readied actions to grapple or trip any enemy trying to get past. But what are you going to do to area spells? That said, I have played old school for a decade, and I am never going back there. Hours of arguments and bickering over misuderstood room and position descriptions are simply not fun.
babysamurai 08-31-06, 09:25 AM	That said, I have played old school for a decade, and I am never going back there. Hours of arguments and bickering over misuderstood room and position descriptions are simply not fun. Amen.
Razieliffied 08-31-06, 09:26 AM	Welcome to my world. I used mini's for a short time but quickly gave up as it severely crippled the storytelling element and the bold heroics I love in my games. All I can really say is, start small, draw small maps to get a general idea of where everyone is in combat, though if there are only 5-6 creatures total in the encounter, then you should be alright. Help your players visualise the action, this can be a little bit of a strain on your half, but it will pay off. Many players will be used to looking at the grid to get an idea of where everything is, so It's up to you to fill in the blanks in their imaginations. Though without mini's to look at you may find yourself using intricate manuviours on the fly, or trying things that smudge the rules. Dont be afraid to smudge the rules a little. Exact distances are the kind of thing that become impossible to keep perfect track of, so smudge it. Have players describe what they do as oposed to 'a move action, then one attack on the kobold' most of my players are at the 'I charge up the tunnel screaming at the top of my lungs, as soon as i'm close enough, I bring my heavy pick down on one of their skulls'. Same thing, but one's better for the grid, the other better for imagination. Good luck with this all, I never intend to use the grid again in my own games as it's simply too much fun playing the game like a big story.
babysamurai 08-31-06, 09:34 AM	I never intend to use the grid again in my own games as it's simply too much fun playing the game like a big story. Why not have both?
Aubri 08-31-06, 01:04 PM	I found in me some advice to you: Actually, I came up with my own "blocking" rules, which I'll repost at the bottom of this message. But what are you going to do to area spells? Well, you shouldn't try to cast it so it stops at the fighter's feet, that's for sure... That said, I have played old school for a decade, and I am never going back there. Hours of arguments and bickering over misuderstood room and position descriptions are simply not fun. Well, that's really a matter of handling, not the battlemat. When someone starts trying to figure out where exactly everything is, you short circuit it with "What are you trying to accomplish?" Aside from that, removing movement-based AoOs goes a long way toward solving that. Distances become just melee, reach, and ranged.
Aubri 08-31-06, 01:08 PM	Why not have both? Because the battlemat directly interferes with the storytelling qualities of combat. It nails everything down to squares and removes the ability to simulate real combat, where people move at the same time; it locks people into the mindset that only 'these actions' are allowed, and no others; and it encourages the kind of swing-go battles that I'm desperate to avoid.
Chrono Nexus 08-31-06, 01:59 PM	Because the battlemat directly interferes with the storytelling qualities of combat. It nails everything down to squares and removes the ability to simulate real combat, where people move at the same time; it locks people into the mindset that only 'these actions' are allowed, and no others; and it encourages the kind of swing-go battles that I'm desperate to avoid. ? I could say that about using a grid... but once the grid is gone, any similarities with other table-top boardgames dissapears. In fact, the only reason I can fathom that the DnD designers included a grid is to make players feel more secure about the system... but if you feel like taking off the training wheels, that's fine. If you think your players are thinking in a limited way during a battle, you should make it absolutely clear to them that everything around their character is tangible, not static. It really has nothing to do with using placemarkers, it is just how the players approach the table...IMO
Finarin Panjoro 08-31-06, 04:34 PM	I ran a two year campaign without ever using a grid or more than a crude map for the players. I still used movement based AoOs and Mobility. One of the PCs was a spring attacking monk so this was a major part of game play for him. The trick is to turn movement based AoOs into tactical decisions that effect how the characters decide to act. Your blocking idea sounds like a refinement of the existing mechanic. For example, at the start of combat I describe the enemy wizard and his orc soldiers. The wizard is 30 feet away and four orcs are 20 feet away. If a player wants to make a melee attack against the wizard I give him a choice: You can attack him this round, but you will have to take an AoO from two of the orcs OR you can make a double move this round to get next to him without suffering an AoO at all. If the PC has a higher movement rate like a monk or barbarian then I might allow him to take only one AoO and attack this round. Tumble can still be used to avoid AoOs and Mobility would still by useful. My players would often do things such as the monk deliberately provoking the AoOs from two orcs. His mobility feat made him a very hard target for them. Then the barbarian would charge past them to attack the wizard suspecting that the orcs would not have combat reflexes. If PCs want to get into a flanking position you almost always tell them you can do it this round, but you will have to provoke an AoO for movement. Its a trade off for the benefit gained by flanking. Again all the normal methods of avoiding AoOs apply. A higher movement character might have a chance to avoid the AoO. I usually made this a 50/50 proposition. Before he moved I'd roll a d6, 1-3 AoO to flank, 4-6 no AoO to flank. I inform the player of this before he decides to move. Usually you will have some idea when they decide to flank if they could reasonably do this with a single move action (are they already adjacent or 20 feet away, etc), but sometimes that can be a decision as well. Maybe they can get into a flanking position this round (to benefit the rogue) but if they also want to make an attack themselves than they must take an AoO. Essentially you give up the precision of the grid and use movement AoOs to create the illusion of precison. You use them to make each choice more dramatic and as a consequence of achieving certain goals. This worked great in terms of storytelling and made combat move much more quickly because people weren't sitting there counting square to ensure that they avoided a movement based AoO. If the combat warranted them then they were present. I hope that helps.
dopp 08-31-06, 04:50 PM	It's probably not what you're looking for, but we play wihtout a map/grid, but with a miniature for each person/creature. (5 pc's, and usually 2/3-6 creatures in an encounter) We just play on the table, no grid, no marks. The dm sais how much feet (doesn't always have to be on 5 feet exact) creatures are away. The players simply ask 'can i get over there' etc. For AoO, if the creature has to pass next to an enemy, you get an AoO. If he can take another route, then he can take that other route :)
Jhaelen 08-31-06, 06:53 PM	I'd say it isn't worth the hassle. D&D 3.5 clearly isn't meant to be played without a battlegrid. If you don't like that use the rules from an earlier edition or (even better) look at a different rpg system. There are great alternatives to the D20 system especially if you don't like the the extremely tactical (and time-consuming) combat system.
risner 09-01-06, 01:47 AM	There are great alternatives to the D20 system especially if you don't like the the extremely tactical (and time-consuming) combat system. I agree there are alternatives and I suggested he use an alt. Keenath, how did you play in 2E? The same way we all did, with the DM having all the extra work of who is where (in his head or on a map) and making all the 'on the spot" judgement calls. The way I see it, 3.5 with the battlemap features actually SPEEDs the game up and not slow it down. So I don't see the battlemap as "time-consuming".
shadow mage 09-01-06, 02:25 AM	Risner, no offense, but by your logic anything outside what the game was intended warrants a different game. Don't like how the monsters are stated out? Battlemats not working out for your gaming styles? Mechanics got ya down? Sorry, don't bother trying to adjust it. I suggest a different game. Sounds kinda silly when you expand it, doesn't it. Long Version Keenath, what you're seeking to do is something I've been trying to do for a long time; from what it sounds like, you've already gone a great deal further than I have, especially since I personally prefer viewing things in terms maps and grids. In that respect, one can almost liken what you're attempting to accomplish to a first-person shooting game. Sound odd? Consider this; now the players are seeing things from their view. Not from a third person view. It's a lot easier to get into your character's head and into the mindset like that. Excitement abounds. The best I can recommend is that you tell your story as a well-detailed story. Jot notes for yourself (not a map, just notes) as it occurs. Here's an example; assume initiative has alreayd been rolled, and the example hobgoblin goes first. "The first of the hobgoblin warband charges your group; Tias, since you're in front, you notice that the goblin-kin seems to be angling to run past you to the robe-garbed mage..." What was communicated mechanically by this? Well, the Player Character Tias, who was in front, notes (as the rest of the party does too) that the hobgoblin isn't planning to stop at her, but run past her. Now she may respond with "I position myself so he passes to my left..." which effectively arranged the battlefield. Verbal cues like this might help both the storytelling, and combat mechanics, of your game. If you would like more expanded examples, I'd be glad to help out in that department. Short and Sweet Use verbal cues (as specific as "to your left" or as subtle as "passes by your blind side") within the story-telling to help your players visualize their whereabouts relative to their foes and their surroundings. Give plenty of descriptive detail about the surroundings and the combat sequence, too. -Shadow Mage
Arkan_Shadesfire 09-01-06, 03:02 AM	This is really not the sort of advice I'd hoped to have. I'm not looking for methods to more easily keep track of people or hand out AOOs randomly. (oh, that's a beautiful thought -- "Okay, the orc takes an AOO on you..." "NO! My rogue knows not to go that close!") I'm trying to get away from the "wargame" format and more towards a sort of abstracted like-storytelling-but-with-more-dice format. In doing this, most of the system translates pretty closely, except the AOOs for moving inside threatened areas. Sometimes it's clear, but a lot of times it is not. I'm considering removing that as a source of AOOs, but then I'm going to need to fill the gaps left by the mechanic. 1) AOOs for movement are a way for a group of enemies to deny an area to the heroes, or vice versa. In order to move into this area, you must pass through a group of enemies that will all take AOOs on you. More generally, AOOs reduce mobility close to enemies. 2) The Mobility feat only works when you're taking the type of AOOs I'm removing. So, I need to fill those two gaps. 1) I'm considering a 'blocking' scheme, where each character can 'block' one or more opponents (as a free action). Essentially, you can just state that you're going to try to keep an enemy from going past you, so as to defend a person or place or maintain a formation. It's not defined exactly, because it's not meant to be -- it's storytelling, not mechanical. In general terms, you can block one opponent unless you have Combat Reflexes, in which case you can deal with multiple opponents at the same time. Getting past a blocking creature requires some sort of technique. You can use Overrun to push past (if you win); you can use Tumble to bypass a blocker, but failure means you fail to get past him, and if you fail by 10 or more, you take an AOO for your trouble. Note that getting through an enemy's position isn't as easy as just taking the hit and going past. It's more like a combat-puzzle. You either stay there and kill the guy, or find a way to get around him -- overrun, tumble, magic, a stunt, or whatever. Solutions can (and are encouraged to) be clever -- cool is better than mechanically correct. The Three Musketeers wouldn't just walk past the Count's men and hope the can survive! They'd kick over a barrel or swing on a rope or get help from a buddy. 2) The mobility feat needs a replacement mechanic that fits both the theme of Mobility and its position in the feat trees. It might make it easier to get past a blocking creature (but how, I don't know), or reduce the effect of difficult terrain (though I'm not sure how Dodge fits into that), or something else entirely -- toss out some ideas. The purpose here isn't to throw out the battlemat and keep playing D&D as written in the book. The idea is to make it more entertaining by freeing the players from trying to calculate paths and count squares. I'm really not sure you understood my post... ...what I was suggesting is that you consider the scene, and deterine when the situation described in the rules comes up. If one of your players tries to run past an orc in a narrow corridor, and then says "NO! My rogue knows not to go that close!", they are cheating--they did get that close, they told you they were getting that close, and now they want to wiggle out of it. Bluff ranks shouldn't work on the DM. What I suggest is that you "reverse engineer" the rules into a story format. Ask yourself "what kind of situation do these rules describe?", then, when that situation comes up--you implement them. In my opinion, the rule about provoking an attack of opportunity for moving through a creature's threatened area represents that you have passed within striking distance of your opponent without putting your gaurd up. Normally, if two creatures threaten each other, they are assumed to be striking, parrying, feinting, and generally "going at it" the whole time. When you move through a creature's threatened area though, you aren't engaging the enemy or defending yourself, you're just moving by--allowing them an opportunity to attack you. (Hence the term, "Attack of Opportunity") So, if the player says "I fight my way past the orcs to the altar, blocking and parrying their blows with my sword", no attack of oportunity. If they say "I dash past the orcs and try to make it across the room", they provoke attacks of opportunity, and the mobility feat applies--if they have it. Don't call it "attacks of opportunity" or "mobility" of course, say: "As you rush past, the orcs reach out to strike you..." >roll dice to see if they hit< "...but you manage to weave in between their weapons, narrowly avoiding each strike..." >roll for the next orc, he hits< "...untill a one of them catches you in the shoulder with his blade..." >roll damage, the player isn't disabled or dead< "...pain races down your arm, but you keep moving..." ...and so on. It's not random, and it's not unfair. The problem with free-form roleplay like this is that if the DM doesn't show enough backbone, the players may try to take advantage of the situation by telling him he's being unfair. And without a battle grid to back you up, you may have trouble if you feel you have to justify yourself to your players when making a ruling. Hopefully that makes it clearer for you.
nilcat 09-01-06, 04:32 AM	I'm sorry that I can't contribute anything truly helpful to you problem, only compound it. The blocking mechanic sounds good for medium and small combatants, but have you thought about what to do with reach weapons and the larger monsters who always have reach of 2 or more. We fought a few of those last night, and there where a lot of AOO’s flying (it helps if the armoured fighter can move out first to draw most of the AOO’s before the frail spell casters slip by)
Burdell 09-01-06, 10:21 AM	So, if the player says "I fight my way past the orcs to the altar, blocking and parrying their blows with my sword", no attack of oportunity. If they say "I dash past the orcs and try to make it across the room", they provoke attacks of opportunity, and the mobility feat applies--if they have it. Though, as a player, I'm then going to need to ask about a bunch of different options to work out who I can attack without provoking that AoO; are they all still flat footed, so I can dash past with impunity? No, then is there enough room to get past them without coming in their range? No, then what path can I take so I only get swung at by one of them instead of all five? I've actually done more rpgs without battlemats then with, but it could be tricky to balance all the AoO and AoO avoidance feats/spells/skills, concealment vs sneak attacks, flanking, etc. in D&D specifically without a mat. If the players are ok with not getting very involved with any of those, though, it could be fine. An earlier poster's idea about rolling to see if someone will provoke an AoO by going to a certain position sounds viable, providing it doesn't provoke a question/answer session for each possible movement by each player. But if you have the right players for a free-form game, it shouldn't. :)
Killer_DM 09-01-06, 12:02 PM	My suggestion would be to find an old copy of the original AD&D and use that. The original was playable without a map or minis because it did not have pesky AOOs, but it leaves a lot of stuff up to the DM and imagination. Sorry but DnD d20 is a miniatures game when it comes to combat.
risner 09-01-06, 01:37 PM	Risner, no offense, but by your logic anything outside what the game was intended warrants a different game. Don't like how the monsters are stated out? No, changing monsters, items, etc are fine. But changing AoO is like ripping out all spellcasting, all combat, all everything. They are interconnected in so many ways and many of them non obvious.
shadow mage 09-01-06, 02:12 PM	I can't help but disagree in that respect, risner. All of these things, from monsters, to items, to magic, to combat mechanics, are in fact interconnected. I understand that. The DMG, however, encourages the person running the game to change things to fit his gaming style. Based on that, I don't see how, by changing things as one is encouraged to, it warrants playing a different game. Why can't it be playing the same game as everyone else does; with slight differences? -Shadow Mage
Arkan_Shadesfire 09-02-06, 07:34 AM	Though, as a player, I'm then going to need to ask about a bunch of different options to work out who I can attack without provoking that AoO; are they all still flat footed, so I can dash past with impunity? No, then is there enough room to get past them without coming in their range? No, then what path can I take so I only get swung at by one of them instead of all five? Not really. That's the kind of thing your player's would ask if you were playing with miniatures and they couldn't see the board. :P The point in running a more story based game is to eliminate metagame thinking like that--to put the player more firmly in the role of their character. Terms like AoO shouldn't even be mentioned in a game like that. If you were in a room with the orcs, you wouldn't ask "are they flat footed?" That's a game term, the story equivalent would be the character thinking to themselves: "Okay, they just saw me, so maybe I can get by before they can react..." ...and then trying it and finding out. As for coming within range, you'd just do it the way it was done in 1st edition--the player asks the DM: "does is look like there's enough room for me to get past them?" Or even better, have the DM include information like that when he first describes the scene: "Five burly orcs line the hallway, blocking your escape." or, if there's room "Five burly orcs line the hallway, spread out along it's length--each standing about ten feet apart." It's easier if you've played 1st edition before, because it was handled much the same way. The DM was the eyes and senses of the player, so you learned how to give enough information to give a clear picture of the scene to your players, and they learned how to clearly describe their actions. You can apply the same skills to a 3.5 game--you're basically just "painting over the rules" with your descriptions.
Iramus_the_Odd 09-03-06, 01:43 PM	I guess I don't understand the point in trying to "shoehorn" a story based, non tactical game style into a game(3.5) so clearly defined by its tactical elements. It seems like so much work for you. I mean i guess if your players are not interested in utilizing the myriade class and PrC tactical options in the game then I don't see why it wouldn't work. But I have to ask in that case why do you need a rule system at all? If its just deep immersion storytelling you want..... Maybe I am a mat junkie but the mat doesn't interfer with our roleplay. In the games I run I think the key way I try to keep the PCs in their "roles" and not metagaming the mat during combat is to constantly be adding descriptive verbal "flair." It keeps the PCs looking at the DM and not just munckining out the various tactical options available to their mini. I also think a turn time limit very important. Also I typically don't put the mat out every time there is a potential for combat. Often I just let the situation develop verbally and in our collective imaginations until the first blow is thrown. Not really an answer just my 2 cents. I often wonder if I just don't know anyone who was in drama club and plays D&D now and hence don't really get the whole "deep immersion" stuff.
ATynam 09-03-06, 02:49 PM	Arkan Shadesfire and Finarin Panjaro are giving out good advice with regards to handling combat away from a battlemat. That is keep it descriptive and cater for AOO's by giving the players tactical choices that either allow them to avoid the AOO or incur the AOO. I really don't see the point of removing the battlemat to allow for greater freedom in describing actions and then introducing a whole new layer of crunchieness to deal with it. In my experience playing without a battlemat depends greatly on the trust that exists between the DM and the players. If this trust exists it can be great, without it the game bogs down into a dreary process of counter claims. As a DM the battlemat is little more than an aid to help me remember who's on the playing field, who can see who, what natural danger exists, where is cover, etc... As an external memory aid it is invaluble and frees up my brain to get on with more important stuff like trying to ad lib memorable taunts. But if you have already decided not to use a battlemat then all the best, you'll need it.
PhaedrusXY 09-03-06, 03:41 PM	I've played 3.0 and 3.5 since they came out, and 2nd edition long before that, and have never played in a single game with a "battle mat". I'm not some old codger who doesn't know the rules, and ad-hocs everything, either. If anything, the exact opposite... I'm more of a Rules-lawyer/Powergamer, whether DMing or playing. We draw simple maps when necessary, and handle everything else very much like Finarin Panjoro says. It works fairly well, and I think having a bunch of silly toys on a map would detract from the game. Instead of thinking of your character in the abstract, you'd start thinking of your character as the little metal guy sitting on the grid in front of you. I also detest thinking of things in "squares", and hate imagining the whole world divided up into little 5 foot blocks...
Lord Welkerfan 09-03-06, 11:57 PM	If you use your blocking rules (which I really like, by the way), you could try allowing someone to go past a blocker by provoking an AoO. Mobility works as written, then. Otherwise, you could allow Mobility to allow you to go past a blocker (either without error or by giving a +4 to any relevant checks). Further otherwise, your best bet is to just use the rules as written while taking away the specific words that require miniatures and making reasonable assumptions about actions. If a character moves closely past another, an AoO is made, players simply declare that they get into position to flank, etc. Good idea and good luck.
SamiPeikko 09-04-06, 04:43 AM	In my experience playing without a battlemat depends greatly on the trust that exists between the DM and the players. If this trust exists it can be great, without it the game bogs down into a dreary process of counter claims. Exactly. It may well be that some of our troubles when not using map and markers came from the DM:s will to get the story though, in many times trying to railroad "combat" scenes so that the predetermined event would occur. This is something you should avoid at all costs. For example our ally under attack was just so far that we could not save him no matter what, even tho we had guessed beforehand the nature of the threat and said that we took precautions. Also in all the encounters where there was some sort of natural hazard like slippery cliff, the enemies were always prepared in a way that made them immune. When we made similar preparation we usually got 20% bonus to the necessary skill roll. I know the motivation was simply to follow the adventure to the letter, and those were poorly writen at the time. In that game D&D 3.5 rules with battlemat would have helped immensely in maintaining the feeling that combat is being handled impartially. If your players trust you to be fair and impartial you will likely succeed.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 09-04-06, 02:09 PM	I ran a two year campaign without ever using a grid or more than a crude map for the players. I still used movement based AoOs and Mobility. One of the PCs was a spring attacking monk so this was a major part of game play for him. The trick is to turn movement based AoOs into tactical decisions that effect how the characters decide to act. Solid advice. FWIW, I was in a lengthy game that worked similarly (Spring Attack, lots of Reach monsters, etc.), and we never used a battlemap. Crude maps sketched out quickly were the most we ever used, and that was only so everyone had a sense of what the battlefield looked like. In general, you (the OP) probably won't miss much, especially if the battlefields tend to be relatively open. AoO for moving into/out of threatened areas are still easy enough to adjudicate, as is flanking and the like. The only big change will be that the game will have a less tactical feel to it. If you and your players are keen to play a tactical game, to squeeze the last ounce of AoOs out of movement, and to argue over whether or not that Orc should get an AoO on that Fighter as he charges the Shaman, then dispensing with the battlemat is probably not for you. But, then again, if you wanted that you wouldn't be asking in the first place. In my experience, you have nothing to worry about.
Keenath 09-04-06, 04:17 PM	No, changing monsters, items, etc are fine. But changing AoO is like ripping out all spellcasting, all combat, all everything. They are interconnected in so many ways and many of them non obvious. Well, then give me some! That's the purpose of this discussion: Point out any problems you can see. If you can't, then I have to conclude that you're just naysaying and have no legitimate complaint.
Keenath 09-04-06, 04:21 PM	I guess I don't understand the point in trying to "shoehorn" a story based, non tactical game style into a game(3.5) so clearly defined by its tactical elements.It's not "non-tactical", it's just "less tactical". You can still position yourself for cleaves, you can still drop 20-foot fireballs on enemy units, and so on. It's just a question of removing one element that causes a major issue. Note that I'm not even entirely removing AOOs. I'm just removing the ones for "leaving a threatened square"! And it really isn't deep immersion; Aubri and I are just trying to figure out a way to run the game without pulling out the stupid battlemap all the time, and hopefully encourage the players to be more creative than "I attack the orc again." Instead of thinking of your character in the abstract, you'd start thinking of your character as the little metal guy sitting on the grid in front of you. I also detest thinking of things in "squares", and hate imagining the whole world divided up into little 5 foot blocks...EXACTLY.
savant_warlord13 09-04-06, 04:32 PM	You can use graph paper. Graph paper is usually 4 or 5 squares per inch, so just use a marker. You can also find 1" graph paper, that's what I used until I got D&D minis.
Keenath 09-04-06, 06:05 PM	You can use graph paper. Graph paper is usually 4 or 5 squares per inch, so just use a marker. You can also find 1" graph paper, that's what I used until I got D&D minis. Good job reading the thread before responding.
xanadu 09-04-06, 06:14 PM	How did we survive for so many years playing 2nd edition without mats and minis? Because it did not have rules such as flanking, AOOs, and precise measurements (i.e. 10 foot radius, 30 feet for sneak attack, etc.). Play 2nd edition D & D, that's my advice. Otherwise you'll get into arguments about whether or not the orc blocks the mage and if the rogue can sneak attack. Just be creative with a battlemap. It can enhance and augment rather than detract and stagnant.
Dark Brandon 09-04-06, 06:31 PM	It's not "non-tactical", it's just "less tactical". You can still position yourself for cleaves, you can still drop 20-foot fireballs on enemy units, and so on. It's just a question of removing one element that causes a major issue. Note that I'm not even entirely removing AOOs. I'm just removing the ones for "leaving a threatened square"! And it really isn't deep immersion; Aubri and I are just trying to figure out a way to run the game without pulling out the stupid battlemap all the time, and hopefully encourage the players to be more creative than "I attack the orc again." EXACTLY. You can leave in the "leaving a threatened square". It's simply dropping out of combat. For example, if the character is in melee combat with a goblin, unless they specifically say they are gonna withdraw or a 5ft step they take an AoO. A 5ft step means your character is just out of "Melee" range for medium sized creatures but still very close. A large creature would require 2, huge 3. You could just give the flanking bonus whenever there is 2 on 1. The only problem I see is with positioning tactics, but then I would just "simple", much like the flanking bonus.
Iramus_the_Odd 09-05-06, 01:07 AM	It's not "non-tactical", it's just "less tactical". You can still position yourself for cleaves, you can still drop 20-foot fireballs on enemy units, and so on. It's just a question of removing one element that causes a major issue. Note that I'm not even entirely removing AOOs. I'm just removing the ones for "leaving a threatened square"! I just don't see how you will be able to convincingly suspend your players disbelief when wizard 1 says "I AoE the orc over there". Which players, monsters etc are in the area of effect? The Cleric casts mass cure light wounds which players are seperated by less than so many feet, the permutations are endless. It just seems like it will come down to who does the DM want to favor based upon his/her current leanings, inclinations, etc. Not that I mean playing favorites but c/mon thats alot of in the head calculations to make. I'm no Data so I can't do that. And all the "use a piece of graph paper." Isn't that the same thing as a mat and minis just without the cool realistic representations of the PCs, NPCs, and monsters? I would rather play a core 3.5 game with a bunch of minis that match the monsters and players than play with a piece of graph paper (or nothing) and 42 supplements, tomes, etc that add nothing but munchkin confusion to the game.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 09-05-06, 03:09 AM	I just don't see how you will be able to convincingly suspend your players disbelief when wizard 1 says "I AoE the orc over there". It worked for 25 years before D&D 3.0 came along. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the publishing of a new set of rules failed to invalidate the gaming style, much like the previous 50 sets of rules failed to invalidate it. Miniatures-based gaming was in many ways a niche in the RPG world until D&D 3.0, and in many ways it still is. That it's your preferred style doesn't mean other styles don't exist and aren't perfectly reasonable ways to game.
Killer_DM 09-05-06, 08:20 AM	I have been playing DnD since the late 70s and I can tell you that since the 3.0 rules came out combat in DnD has become a miniatures game. Trying to remove the miniatures from a 3.x game will be difficult to say the least. It is like playing chess without Knights, yea it is playable but not exactly what everyone expects from the game. I think that your best bet is to get an older copy of the rules (pre-3.0). The older rules did not have attacks of opportunity, flanking and you can avoid many of the other problems that will arrise if you take the "positional" rules out of the game.
Aubri 09-05-06, 08:28 AM	Also in all the encounters where there was some sort of natural hazard like slippery cliff, the enemies were always prepared in a way that made them immune. Well, to be fair, if you're an orc who lives on the Slippery Slopes of Despair, you'd strap metal spikes to your feet too.
Keenath 09-05-06, 10:00 AM	Well, to be fair, if you're an orc who lives on the Slippery Slopes of Despair, you'd strap metal spikes to your feet too. Yes, but the main issue is the players failing to get the same advantage when they strap spikes to THEIR feet. If crampons negate the penalty for the enemy, it should do the same for PCs, not provide a bonus on the save.
RobbyPants 09-05-06, 12:22 PM	Sorry but DnD d20 is a miniatures game when it comes to combat. I have to agree. I used to play 2E. I've run 3E & 3.5 without a map in a pinch, but there are so many hassels that it doesn't seem worth the effort it saves. Just last weekend I ran a combat this way. Throw in over a dozen bad guys and a web spell and you get chaos. "Okay, how many guys are still in the web? Are those two flanking me?" You have to re-tool so much of the game to get around these problems. Much more than a simple "blocking system."
Finarin Panjoro 09-05-06, 12:45 PM	Ignore the nay-sayers. I garauntee you that playing D&D 3.5 without a battlemat is more fun than playing with it is AS LONG AS you and your players are not concerned with issues of extreme precision and trust each other. It would not work for the nay-sayers because the precision is too important to them or they don't trust their DM. If you trust your DM (or your players trust you) to randomly determine it then there's no problem at all. In many cases there's no question. In a 40x40 room everyone can be caught in a fireball. When in doubt, roll a die. If you've got six orcs targeted by a fireball in a field estimate a minimum (lets say 3) and then add 1d3 additional orcs caught in the radius. It's completely fair, no railroading, no DM favoritism. It is completely a matter of trust between player and DM. If it exists, then this method of playing is IMO preferable to playing with the battlemat (and yes, I've done both). I suspect that it doesn't work for others because they tend to see combat as a DM vs. players event and they expect to be railroaded or abused because they don't trust the DM to be a fair arbiter. As long as the DM rules similarly for the players as he does for the NPCs there is no problem playing this way. And to the nay-sayers, in many cases playing a different game is not an option, because we want to play D&D!
Killer_DM 09-05-06, 01:01 PM	In a 40x40 room everyone can be caught in a fireball. See this is part of the problem, in a 40x40 room not everyone will be caught in your fireball. Try this, draw a 4 inch by 4 inch box draw a line connecting the opposite corners (where it crosses is the center of the room) take a compass and set it to 2 inches and place the point in the center of the room and draw a circle. Notice that the circle will touch the walls at their centers but will leave the corners untouched. No matter how you place the fireball in the room there are voids where it will not cover thus characters standing in those areas will be safe from the blast. So if I as a character said i stand in the corner, and the fireball goes off centered in the room the character could argue that it will not effect them.
Finarin Panjoro 09-05-06, 02:16 PM	True. Or the player could set the fireball off against one wall only covering a semi-circle that just reaches the middle of the room. And if that exact scenario was described I would say, "you're right. You're not in the blast radius." However what you're describing rarely happens. Most of the time that a fireball is used the players are on one side of the room and the bad guys are at the other and the DM easily rules that you catch all of the bad guys in your fireball or vice versa. This is because area effects like this are usually used before the melee characters engage the enemy and would be caught in the blast. If one player is deliberately trying to distance himself from the rest of the party to avoid such area effects then you have a unique scenario to keep in mind when adjudicating the effect. In general however if a player declares his intention to distance himself for safety and then spends actions to accomplish this goal (as determined by the DM) he will be successful under my system because I'll give it to him. He might not be successful on an actual map. The point is that if you're playing this way already nobody cares about the exact measurments of the room. They just accept what the DM reports and move on. As long as the DM is trustworthy and isn't playing against the players or trying to railroad a particular outcome then playing this way is perfectly valid and enjoyable using the existing 3.5 rules. I'm not just hypothesizing here. The most fun d20 campiagn I've ever run was played in this manner using the 3.5 rules and it lasted for almost 2 years. My players never once argued with a ruling I made on distance. Sometimes we had to have a small discussion to clarify positioning or some such, but it just wasn't that hard. So say what you will it can be done, easily, and be very enjoyable. But it all depends on no one giving a crap what happens in the corners of the room unless there is a specific reason to care (someone specifically mentions going there, there's a trap there, something valuable and fragile there, etc). It also creates opportunities for the players to use differing abilities. Maybe the guy in the corner gets a tumble, jump, or dex check against the fireball save DC to be out of the blast radius. Maybe the spellcaster gets a Spellcraft check to place the fireball precisely enough to hit his foes, but not his allies engaging them in melee. The DM makes the outcome dependent on player choice and player ability rather than on grid placement. Just because some of the people on this thread are lawful grid doesn't mean that chaotic grid is an invalid play style.
Keenath 09-05-06, 03:10 PM	I'm not just hypothesizing here. The most fun d20 campiagn I've ever run was played in this manner using the 3.5 rules and it lasted for almost 2 years. My players never once argued with a ruling I made on distance. Sometimes we had to have a small discussion to clarify positioning or some such, but it just wasn't that hard.I'm glad to hear this plan has worked out for other people! And honestly, any "discussions to clarify positions" can't be worse than the "Argh! You knocked over all the minis!" and "Stop rolling your dice on the battlemat!" moments. And as has been mentioned, I think it takes some of the fun out when you're thinking of "your character" as the little lead mini instead of something in your head.
Killer_DM 09-05-06, 03:46 PM	Playing without a grid is perfectly acceptable, and if you and your players have fun doing it then more power to you. I just do not see how having a mat with minatures makes any difference to how you view your character. The player who says "my Paladin thinks that flanking is underhanded" will not flank, the spell caster will cast his fireball and use a template. You can also play using miniatures and tape measure, it is totally up to you and your group. Most of the mechanics of 3.5 combat actually take the load off the DM because things are more well defined and thus less "judgment" calls and confusion about placement. Does the game loose some flavour sure, but I think more is lost to people who just sit there and play their character as a piece of paper with numbers on it. Give your character some personality and even with a grid you will have more fun.
Aubri 09-05-06, 03:54 PM	Just because some of the people on this thread are lawful grid doesn't mean that chaotic grid is an invalid play style. You, sir, get a laugh point. :) Thanks for the positive input! One of the absurdities I hope to avoid here is the situation where the wizard drops a fireball such that it stops at the tips of the fighter's toes. To accomplish such a feat, which do you think would be more appropriate? -Int check -Random die roll -Fighter makes an easier reflex save with automatic Evasion -Just let him do it, assuming the fighter can jump back appropriately
Killer_DM 09-05-06, 04:03 PM	You, sir, get a laugh point. :) Thanks for the positive input! One of the absurdities I hope to avoid here is the situation where the wizard drops a fireball such that it stops at the tips of the fighter's toes. To accomplish such a feat, which do you think would be more appropriate? -Int check -Random die roll -Fighter makes an easier reflex save with automatic Evasion -Just let him do it, assuming the fighter can jump back appropriately I would say Spellcraft skill check, you set the difficulty. It would depend on how close the enemy is to the fighter and so on.
Dark Brandon 09-05-06, 04:19 PM	I'm glad to hear this plan has worked out for other people! And honestly, any "discussions to clarify positions" can't be worse than the "Argh! You knocked over all the minis!" and "Stop rolling your dice on the battlemat!" moments. And as has been mentioned, I think it takes some of the fun out when you're thinking of "your character" as the little lead mini instead of something in your head. We don't use a grid sometimes, especially if it's a random battle or a minor one, and it's fine. We only really use it for important combat, but that's because there's already so much to be thinking about it's easy to forget where you were without some sort of reminder (in this case, a grid with minis)
Finarin Panjoro 09-06-06, 02:32 PM	Aubri, Usually I'd just let the wizard do it if it was reasonable to assume that he could. The main reason for this is that its quicker. One of the advantages of playing without a grid is that combat moves faster and you can get more playing done in a session. The only time that I'd need to determine something like that is if it's reasonable to assume that it could go either way (that is that its reasonable to assume both that the wizard could place the fireball without hitting the fire and that he could not place the fireball without hitting the fighter) or if the DM and the player disagree on what's possible. Then you use the dice to avoid favoritism and railroading. In that case I would tend to go with a spellcraft check since I think a more skilled character should be better able to accomplish this.
Anguish2 09-06-06, 07:06 PM	What do your players want? I know when I started playing 3rd edition D&D I as a player actually gravitated towards and pushed for battlemat play. I was the one who bought the mat. I was the one who started buying minis (we started with coins). Simply stated I got tired of asking "am I close enough to charge?" "Am I close enough to get there during a move, then attack?" "Does my spell with 30ft range reach?" "Is the wall you described actually in the way of my shot and providing cover?" Let me try again. I got really tired of asking those kinds of questions. In combat it behoves the DM to convey clearly and unambiguously to the players what their PCs can or cannot do. It's then up to the player to roleplay what their PCs would or would not do within those boundries. While yes, it's a bit metagamey to think the PC "just knows" there are exactly enough squares between him and the bad guy to put him out of range, there's no real difference between a battlemat telling the player that and the DM telling the player that verbally. All I'm saying is that some people (myself obviously included) want to play combat as a bit of a chess game. Tactical. Minis and battlemats make things very visceral and real to some players. I still roleplay, in that I often discard out-of-character actions that are tactically valid. "Well, so-and-so really wouldn't charge there... because, well, he's giving the 'bad' guy a chance to surrender." Finally, on the AoO rules... you may not like them, but again, you need to know what your players want/like. I've had massively dramatic scenes where desperate PCs took damned risky actions provoking AoO to try to save the day or whatever. Always, always find out what's fun for your group. I think there's a rule somewhere in the very, very low numbers for that. <Grin>
Keenath 09-06-06, 10:24 PM	What do your players want? Aubri and I have played with a battlemat for several years, so we're completely familiar with that playstyle. We've also become irritated with it for the way it encourages people to play a boardgame instead of an RPG. He's the DM, and I'm a player, so at least one player is all for this plan. Hey, if it turns out to be an issue, we can easily go back to using a (virtual) mat at a later date; some of you guys are acting like this is an irreversable step or something. It's an experiment. Moreover, this game is going to be over the internet, so while a board could be possible, it's just easier to have the DM keep track of locations as needed and keep combat more fluid. Simply stated I got tired of asking "am I close enough to charge?" "Am I close enough to get there during a move, then attack?" "Does my spell with 30ft range reach?" "Is the wall you described actually in the way of my shot and providing cover?" Let me try again. I got really tired of asking those kinds of questions. In combat it behoves the DM to convey clearly and unambiguously to the players what their PCs can or cannot do. It's then up to the player to roleplay what their PCs would or would not do within those boundries.That's ONE way to look at it... How about, "I charge him"? How about "I move closer and hit him with my spell"? How about "Can I get a clear shot at him? Good, I take it." If distance is important, the DM will say so, but he has no reason to stop you from doing something unless there's a real issue (as in, you're just WAY outside range, or something like that). For that matter, if the Orc wants to take cover, how about letting him take cover? Enemies making good tactical decisions should be rewarded for them just like PCs. It's dramatic. I think it's damaging to the game when the wizard starts looking at all the different paths he could move and what enemies are within range of his spell with each option. "If I go HERE I can hit this guy, and THAT guy is five feet out of range, but if I move over HERE I can hit the other guy..." That's the opposite of cool, dramatic gaming. You can easily ready an action and so forth if it's really so important. But anyway, like I say -- most of the time, distance isn't that important, dramatically speaking. Does it matter that the Orc is sixty-five feet away instead of sixty? No, not really. Is it important that the trickster BBEG is staying back out of charging-range while he launches magical attacks? Yes, it is. One is a dramatic situation where distance is important. The other is just quibbling over math.
SamiPeikko 09-07-06, 04:52 AM	Not using battlemat can help DM to get rid of the nonessentials, like for example that last orc that really poses no threat to PC:s just happened to be in the area of fireball (supposing PC:s did't try to get anyone alive). This keeps the game moving and spirits high. This kind of play works well on less threatening encounters, that tend to go "wizard pass, cleric and fighter hit the orcs again". We don't usually play those encounters, as our gaming group is large, so that battles take a lot of time, and DM has decided to concentrate on the important ones. Characters do develop routines in fighting, but this is only natural. They try to learn from their experience, and thus repeat tactics that have prowen succesfull on the past. If this lead to "I hit it again" it may not be battlemat's fault. It might be better just to narrate through such battles anyway pointing out how much healing was needed afterwards, and concentrate on interesting battless where either spells are necessary because the opposition is strong enough or environment prevents simple approach. Here it will be absolutely essential, that players feel DM as a referee is fair, because environment (that DM has created as adventure designer) is already against them. Then something completely different: battlemat provides absolute measurements, and those have been allready pointed out. Can the wizard place fireball so that fighter is not in the area, but the orc in melee with him is? On battlemat answer is yes, and fighter is only in trouble if wizard's player counted the squares wrong. It is up to you to decide if this is possible in your game, but it is absolutely essential that players understand how these things work in your game. Their characters know their limits, and so should the players.
Keenath 09-07-06, 11:26 AM	We don't usually play those encounters, as our gaming group is large, so that battles take a lot of time, and DM has decided to concentrate on the important ones. Yeah, that's a good point. On the other hand, there's a certain burnout that occurs when you fight only tough opponents, and if you don't even make reference to the easy battles, it feels like the monsters are purposely lining up to provide the right level of challenge. It's nice to toss in a goblin horde or similar every so often against the strong characters -- a mook battle is a good tension relief and gives people a chance to play with less-optimal tactics, like the wizard killing things with his staff and the fighter using his fists. It's also nice to give great-cleave and whirlwinders a chance to really cut loose with their favorite tactics! Here it will be absolutely essential, that players feel DM as a referee is fair because environment (that DM has created as adventure designer) is already against them. If the players don't think the DM is fair, I don't know that a battlemat really helps. An glance at the player-help board will easily turn up a multitude of "bad DM" stories; an unfair DM will cause problems either way. Perhaps a battlemat helps mitigate that and reduces the frequency of issues, but abstract combat is just going to accentuate a problem that already exists -- not create a new one. Then something completely different: battlemat provides absolute measurements, and those have been allready pointed out. Can the wizard place fireball so that fighter is not in the area, but the orc in melee with him is? On battlemat answer is yes, and fighter is only in trouble if wizard's player counted the squares wrong.That seems like a crappy reason to fireball the fighter. Sorta seems wrong that we'd be down on using metagame knowledge to determine actions, but metagame mistakes like counting errors get people killed. Anyway, people always forget the vertical. If you 'air burst' a fireball, you can cover a circle of any radius at ground-level, assuming you have a decent amount of roof space.
Seeking_Knight_of_Graves 09-07-06, 04:40 PM	Hello all. From my own gaming experience is that D&D 3.5 can be played without a battlemat. All it takes is imagination. I am quite sure the OP and the players are capable enough to be able to visualize a fourty foot hall way that is about nine feet wide. Combat should not be just moving miniatures around a mat. While yes you can use them I have always found that the easiest and most flow friendly is without the mat. Counting squares and such just seems out of place in a role playing game. Heck why else did Battletech have Mech Warrior as the role playing version without the use of a map. Because a player's mind can do a lot and really should not be confined to using a map and minis. Thanks.
SamiPeikko 09-08-06, 09:28 AM	First, thank you Keenath, for high quality discussion. I snipped the quotes to keep this post short. Yeah, that's a good point. On the other hand, there's a certain burnout that occurs when you fight only tough opponents, and if you don't even make reference to the easy battles, it feels like the monsters are purposely lining up to provide the right level of challenge. I agree, and I've thoght about this a lot in past years. It has been a problem in one of our campaign, but mainly because logic of adequate challenge can be in conflict with logical perception of the game world (i.e. PC:s go raid mercenary company outpost, and because it was adequate challenge they do not dare to strike mercenary headquarters, even tho it also would be adequate challenge). I think we got over it. Perhaps a battlemat helps mitigate that and reduces the frequency of issues, but abstract combat is just going to accentuate a problem that already exists -- not create a new one. It would simply erase some doubts in some situations. Yes, I agree. That seems like a crappy reason to fireball the fighter. Sorta seems wrong that we'd be down on using metagame knowledge to determine actions, but metagame mistakes like counting errors get people killed. Well, it is. One could argue, that metagame mistake simulates wizard making error in estimating distances, but this would be unfair to players who tend to do this kind of mistakes. However this is not connected to the problem of metagame knowledge, but to the question on game mechanics knowledge on the characters part. Anyway, people always forget the vertical. If you 'air burst' a fireball, you can cover a circle of any radius at ground-level, assuming you have a decent amount of roof space. On the other group we have decided to ignore vertical exept when someone is flying or fighting from different floor. Reason is that rules say nothing about things like shooting lightning bolts over the head of shorter characters. Battlemat is 2D and most adventures also.
Keenath 09-08-06, 12:32 PM	I agree, and I've thoght about this a lot in past years. It has been a problem in one of our campaign, but mainly because logic of adequate challenge can be in conflict with logical perception of the game world. I think we got over it.It's really easy enough to deal with if the DM is on the ball. You just have to include some overpowered monsters that you have to simply flee or avoid, and include some groups of weak monsters that higher-level groups can have fun slaughtering. Or just have the weaklings flee from encounters. "It's the Destroyers! RUN!" On the other group we have decided to ignore vertical exept when someone is flying or fighting from different floor. Reason is that rules say nothing about things like shooting lightning bolts over the head of shorter characters. Battlemat is 2D and most adventures also.You can shoot bolts over peoples' heads, but you'll have to get the blast five feet away or the line still affects them, as per the definition of a line. If you detonate a fireball ten feet off the ground instead of at ground level, the circle it produces is naturally smaller. You can figure it out by just looking at the spell template and seeing how wide it is at a given offset from the center -- if you aim 5 or 10 feet above their heads, you get a 15' radius on the ground. If you aim 15 feet up, you can get a five foot radius (that is, four squares). You can't really get much smaller than that, but you can usually fit a five foot radius into even a hectic battle.
rironin 09-08-06, 08:46 PM	I, like other previous posters, appreciate the topic of this post and the (decidedly high-brow and intellectual, for these boards at least) discussion so far. Part of it makes me pine for the pre-battlemat days, even though I'm hardcore for the miniatures combat at the moment. I second most of Arkan_Shadesfire's contributions, and many of the other posters who made encouraging comments - it's definitely possible. I don't have much in the way of specific scenarios - in fact, I think if you're going to do this, why even implement a "blocking" rule, or change Mobility and other movement-based abilities? You're going to be taking the responsibility of adjudicating so many tactical situations anyway, you might as well keep track of whether creatures can get past other creatures in the scenario as well. I'm not saying you should throw the rule out - rather, keep it in your head instead of telling players they can exercise the rule X. If players want to block, apply your rule in your head if you wish, and tell them the effects. Otherwise, you'll wind up with a set of criteria for the players to follow, but it will probably get holes poked in it as time goes by, or become a source of contention or a detriment to the story/role playing based style you desire (just like counting grid squares and finding optimal paths irks you now). In response to those who say it will be time consuming and make adjudicating combat overly difficult, I doubt it. I think preparing the scenarios in your head will take as much time as carefully preparing a map, however. The tactical preparation will have to be very precise - you'll have your dungeon map written down, most likely, and for each room or encounter, you'll have to carefully consider as many tactical situations as you can. Will the enemies be bunched up in one end of the room, or will they rush to attack? Will they act defensive and stick close together once combat has begun? There are a lot of permutations, and you're aware of them already - but the point I want to make is that I don't think it will be harder than if you used a battlemat. I spend just as much time considering how big to make a room in prep, and exactly where to position creatures in game, and all I'm really trying to do is to execute a theme, maneuver, or style that I've thought up in my head, just as you will. As long as you have a flow-chart like conceptual map (in your head or on paper the players don't see) then you can provide just as many combat options as a battlemat can, so long as you're johnny-on-the-spot with answers. If you get it right, you can definitely provide the same immersive and tactical experience that minis provide. All most players want is a sense of control over their own destinies, and the feeling that their combat choices have an impact on the outcome of the battle. A battlemat or projected map made in photoshop, with pretty minis to match, provides PCs with a concrete environment they can exercise control in, and can provide an immersive feeling to the game. But your description can rival any projected map or hand-painted mini, and I think funneling the time normally taken for map making and drawing into flow-charting and note taking will enable you to provide the same combat experience (if not a better one) without a) going crazy or b) needing to quit your day job. Good luck!
Keenath 09-09-06, 02:53 AM	I don't have much in the way of specific scenarios - in fact, I think if you're going to do this, why even implement a "blocking" rule, or change Mobility and other movement-based abilities?Well, the rule is meant to help with a perceived weakness in the system -- that AOOs don't do what they're meant to do. In D&D, it's incredibly hard to put together a decent defense. A wizard surrounded by thugs is only slightly better protected than if he were alone. It's too easy for PCs to take the two or three hits and go on through to the soft target. The system doesn't really support blocking, short of a readied action to "get in his way" or some such thing. An overrun is supposed to be the manuver you need to use, but you almost never need it, because you can just take a step to the right.
PhaedrusXY 09-09-06, 03:43 AM	Well, the rule is meant to help with a perceived weakness in the system -- that AOOs don't do what they're meant to do. In D&D, it's incredibly hard to put together a decent defense. A wizard surrounded by thugs is only slightly better protected than if he were alone. It's too easy for PCs to take the two or three hits and go on through to the soft target. The system doesn't really support blocking, short of a readied action to "get in his way" or some such thing. An overrun is supposed to be the manuver you need to use, but you almost never need it, because you can just take a step to the right.That's what the guisarme and spiked chain are for (and to a lesser extent, the Heavy Flail, if you're Enlarged).
Blaster276 09-10-06, 02:10 PM	It is insanely easy to run D&D 3.5 without a battlemat. The first is using drawn out characters on a map, by describing the range of the group to monsters and encounters on the field. Two, use minatures and 1" inch of movement/range equals 5 ft squares on a table. Three, use markers on grid paper for movement to not invest in expensive battlemats and minatures. Four, use description (shock, what a concept! Actually use your own imagination for what a spell or monster appears like rather then WOTC's stock descriptopns) from older games, and remove AOOs, and all feats that deal with AOOs. However, realize that option 4 makes initiative far more important, since you can no longer rely on reach for larger monsters to prevent players from charging in on them and prevent being grappled. I played with option 4 for several years in 3.0 and 3.5 and several other iterations of the d20 system completely eliminate minatures and the gameboard, plus AOOs from the system, very well.
shadow mage 09-11-06, 01:42 AM	Perhaps... you should consider reading some of the thread before responding, Blaster. Just perhaps. :) -Shadow Mage
Aubri 09-11-06, 08:49 AM	Perhaps... you should consider reading some of the thread before responding, Blaster. Just perhaps. :) QFT (Quoted For Truth).
Question2 09-11-06, 08:58 AM	No battlemat is a bad idea. Every single time ive entered combat without a map ive ended up having this problem : I dont even know how many enemies are left standing, or where everyoen is. Everytime the wizard wants to cast some AOE spell he has to ask the DM for positions. Every round the archer has to ask how close the melee bad guys are to him. Clever use of terrain, cover, etc is completely out of the window. Battle instructions de-evolve into "My PC slashes at any random orcs near him", since you dont know just how many orcs are near you, and you have to keep asking the DM.
Finarin Panjoro 09-11-06, 11:49 AM	Question2, No offense, but it just seems like you prefer the grid style of play because you prefer that level of precision. Or maybe you have a DM who has been unable to adjudicate those factors without a map. Terrain, cover, etc are all still factors they're just not determined by the map they're determined by the players (both the DM and the PCs). If PC wants to take cover, rather than looking at the map, he asks the DM "is there anything for me to take cover behind". The DM should have a map or a detailed enough description of the room to be able to answer this question, yes or no. If not he can roll a die and determine it randomly (such as in the case of a random wilderness encounter). For terrain the DM just describes it as befits the scene. Rather than having every square capable of being a different terrain type the DM just describe it as necessary. Example: There are 5 ocrs, 100 feet away from you. They are on the farside side of a 20 foot wide stream taking cover behind a row of boulders. You now know that you have roughly 80 feet of clear area, followed by 20 feet of difficult terrain (water) to reach the orcs. The orcs have cover from the boulders and you probably will have to jump over the boulders to reach them. Expanded Example: 60 feet to the north are four more orcs at the top of a rocky slope which begins 30 feet from you. They're prone along the ridgeline and pointing crossbows at you. You now know that there is 30 feet of clear terrain followed by 30 feet of rough uphill terrain to reach those particular orcs. And so on. I've found that usually, terrain type is going to be all or nothing with a few areas of difference. If you're in the woods you just decide that everything is light undergrowth for this fight. Or maybe there's a path that's clear and the rest is light undergrowth. If you're in the mountains, just decide that its all rough terrain and so on. In dungeons make half of the room one type of terrain and half the other. It's not as precise as a map, but that's to be expected. This still leaves terrain as a significant factor in combat and skills like balance, jump, and climb, still have their place as do abilities like woodland stride and freedom of movement. While I'm suggesting not playing the game on a grid, I still recommend that the DM have a map to help him adjudicate such things. Seriously, this is just not that hard to do successfully as long as everyone agrees to abide by the DMs rulings on such things.
SamiPeikko 09-12-06, 07:30 AM	I dont even know how many enemies are left standing, or where everyoen is. Heh, this reminds me of a classic episode from our Call of Cthulhu game: DM: You enter a huge cavern. The ceiling is blackened by the flying creatures. We: Retreat, retreat! We shoot them with our shotguns as we try to escape. (Resolve some shotgun fire.) DM: Why are you running? You allready dropped half of them. We thought there were hundreds or thousands of them, when in reality there were only a dozen to begin with. Like in another game. DM: There is a spider behind you. Player: I step on it. DM: That is not going to work. The spider is about the size of a house... The morale of the story: in no-battlemat game, description is everything. Literally.
Big_Mac 09-12-06, 07:53 AM	How did we survive for so many years playing 2nd edition without mats and minis? I not sure how you ever did it in truth. I have been playing since 1ed and we always used some sort of system for tracking where player and baddies are. This applied to every system we played in Marvel, Chapions, ShadowRun, Call of Cathulu,Star fleet Battles and others. The only game game I recall that was pure rpg was Star Trek or something like that. If you ever delt with LOS or cover you really needed something to help. So I never under stood how so many here say that they in the old day they never used a map of some sort.:confused:
Fabius Maximus 09-12-06, 10:21 AM	There are a lot RPG systems out there that don't use battlemaps. Use your imagination... ;)
Big_Mac 09-12-06, 11:07 AM	There are a lot RPG systems out there that don't use battlemaps. Use your imagination... ;) Very True. They also usually have very simple combat systems. Any complexity and you will need a visual to keep track of what is where.
Fabius Maximus 09-12-06, 12:13 PM	Well, I cannot remember that Shadowrun has rules like this. Also, the very complicated DSA system (a german RPG) had them. I usually play D&D without battlemat. It works.