Abstract Combat Movement [Archive] - Wizards Community

Abstract Combat Movement [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Keyar81
06-10-07, 09:49 AM Just what the name says, the opposite of tactical combat movement which D&D currently uses. I'd like to discuss the creation of a system of abstract movement for combat in D&D. One that doesn't rely on keeping track of each individual square of movement. In such a system DM judgement, consistency and relative position are more important.

I would like to hear suggestions/discussion from anyone about this system, or any other systems of abstract movement that you have used or come up with. I'm NOT interested in debating why the current rules are better than this, and I should just use those and be happy with them. However comparisons to the current rules to point out areas for improvement in this system are welcome =)

Abstract Range Track:
All Ranges are relative. Using graph paper, or a generic blank battle grid, you can set your characters up as follows: Characters engaged in melee are set next to each other. Characters in Close range but not in melee are 1 square apart, 2 squares apart for the next range category, and so forth.

Close/Thrown weapons(up to 50 ft, median:25ft): Any player in Close range can use a move action to engage in melee, or to move to another target in close range. A Player would still provoke an AoO if he tried to change his range, or maneuver to another target in close range when engaged with a melee. All other AoO's and penalties apply normally. There are no penalties for ranged weapons here.
Medium(up to 80ft, median: 65):Thrown Weapons and slings, and hand crossbows take a -5 penalty here, and an additional -5 for each step further out.
Far(up to 120ft, median: 100):Crossbows, and bows take a -5 penalty here, and an additional -5 for each step further out.
Long(up to 200 ft, median: 160):

All weapons have a maximum distance as normal in the PHB. Use your best judgement, players are probably not standing at the edge of a range category, they are probably somewhere in the middle.

Changing ranges: You may move 1 step along the range track as a move action or 2 steps as a Full-Round action. If something hinders you, make a Range Check(1d20+dex mod+Spd Bonus)

Speed bonus: Your characters speed rating / 5 (taking into account encumbrance).
Enemy Resisting your maneuver:Make a Range Check Vs DC 10 + Enemies Dex Mod+ Enemies Spd Bonus. If you fail, you may not change ranges this round.
Hampered movement: . If the terrain is hampering you make a DC 15 Dex check. If you fail must spend a full round action and can move only 1 step along the range track.

Characters also add their speed bonus to their initiative in this system.
Werral
06-10-07, 06:18 PM I played AD&D for years and other RPGs with abstract movement. It's all about description - where are you? What's there.

AoO were new with 3E and seem initially pretty tied to the battle grid. But actually communication is enough:

DM: "Hrag's Ogre bodyguard stands between him and you him."
Player: "Can my rogue get round him"
DM: "Well you could try, but the ogre's club pretty much covers the corridor."
Player: "Okay, well I'm gonna try tumbling past the ogre anyway and stab Hrag in the head"

It's pretty clear that the ogre would normally get an AoO and that the rogue is using tumble to avoid it.

Ditto for sneak attacks, anything really.

Communication is the key.
Knightblde
06-10-07, 07:44 PM As you mention you don't want to use the grid. So don't As far as I can tell, just use a ruler to measure distance when it is a characters turn to act. 1" = 5'

Your rules take away the advantage of a monk or any other character with movement over 30, and deminishes the penalty for those under 30.

Like I said, just use a ruler and you don't need to worry about the grid. The minis on the board help tremendiously with the visuals. They stop a lot of questions and help speed up the game.

Hope this helps.
Keyar81
06-10-07, 08:24 PM Werral said:
I played AD&D for years and other RPGs with abstract movement. It's all about description - where are you? What's there....Communication is the key

Ya i pretty much agree with that. I remember reading an article by monte cook about playing 3rd ed D&D and he pretty much said the same thing. One other thing that is an important factor, consistency.

Knightblade said:
As you mention you don't want to use the grid. So don't As far as I can tell, just use a ruler to measure distance when it is a characters turn to act. 1" = 5'

Your rules take away the advantage of a monk or any other character with movement over 30, and deminishes the penalty for those under 30.

Like I said, just use a ruler and you don't need to worry about the grid. The minis on the board help tremendiously with the visuals. They stop a lot of questions and help speed up the game.

Hope this helps

I certainly see your point, but I dont want have to measure out distances with a ruler, that would be even more cumbersome IMO. I'm sure you like the rules the way they are, good for you, but this game can be adapted to different playstyles. I know you were trying to help and thank you, but I was more so looking for replies that would help further refine this system, or suggest alternative ones, not a post just telling me to use the current system. However your response about my rules taking away the advantage of faster characters was helpful, and if you or anyone else has a thought about how i could make this system better in that respect i'd love to hear it. I want the speed rating of a character to matter.
Werral
06-11-07, 05:41 AM Give faster characters an initiative bonus maybe?

Still I don't think it necessarily takes away from the monk. If you say the orc is 20 ft away the monk can still use the extra move to go round and flank him.

But yeah I guess it's easy to forget the +10ft when it's abstract. Basically the DM has to remember and describe more stuff and the players ask questions and think from their characters' POVs.

Players only get information their characters have so sense rolls (listen, spot etc...) become more important.

Also don't forget flying combat, combat on a sheer cliff and other situations where you can't really use mini's accurately anyway.

Essentially an abstract game is more subjective - great for horror (how scary can a mini be anyway?), gritty realism and RP heavy campaigns.
Ra-Tiel
06-11-07, 02:05 PM IIRC the first edition of the d20 Star Wars RPG had a similar system for space combats. It was - back then - a very good idea. Basically you had a sheet with an icon representing your own ship in the center, with 4 vectors and 4 distance scales going outwards from it.

However, it had several flaws. While it worked well for one PC ship and a handfull of NPC ships, anything more numerous or complex completely broke it. Keeping track of several ships all moving at different directions and speed was a nightmare. With a grid you just "move figher A X squares in direction U, and fighter B Y squares in direction V" and are done. With the other system, you went like "ok, because our own ship moves forward at speed X, all other ships change from vector X and range U to vector Y and range V, now they start their own movements and change to vector Z and range W ...". :shifty:

I don't know if such an abstract movement system would work out well with DnD, especially if you take into consideration the various instant-movement effects magic and psionics offer. While you just move from one square to another on the grid, with such an abstract system you'd have to re-evaluate the position of all other combatants relative to your new position. :confused:
Keyar81
06-11-07, 05:05 PM I was thinking, using graph paper, or a battlegrid(yes i know i said i didn't like it) you could use a system of say having each square represent a range increment. 1 square between characters would be say close range, characters next to each other are engaged in melee. each successive square between 2 characters represents higher range categories.
Although I originally stated that I didn't want a battlegrid, its really the super detailed combat simulation that disinterests me. Even using the battlegrid in this manner, you would just be using it to represent very basic relative distances between characters instead of keeping track of every little square of movement.
I like the idea of having your speed rating also effect your initiative in this system, never thought of that, thx for the idea.
Werral
06-11-07, 06:34 PM That's what I used to do back in the day. I'd refer to a piece of graph paper behind the DM screen then describe what was going on subjectively.

We played lots of miniature battle games so when we played RPGs we put the minis away.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Keyar81 06-10-07, 09:49 AM	Just what the name says, the opposite of tactical combat movement which D&D currently uses. I'd like to discuss the creation of a system of abstract movement for combat in D&D. One that doesn't rely on keeping track of each individual square of movement. In such a system DM judgement, consistency and relative position are more important. I would like to hear suggestions/discussion from anyone about this system, or any other systems of abstract movement that you have used or come up with. I'm NOT interested in debating why the current rules are better than this, and I should just use those and be happy with them. However comparisons to the current rules to point out areas for improvement in this system are welcome =) Abstract Range Track: All Ranges are relative. Using graph paper, or a generic blank battle grid, you can set your characters up as follows: Characters engaged in melee are set next to each other. Characters in Close range but not in melee are 1 square apart, 2 squares apart for the next range category, and so forth. Close/Thrown weapons(up to 50 ft, median:25ft): Any player in Close range can use a move action to engage in melee, or to move to another target in close range. A Player would still provoke an AoO if he tried to change his range, or maneuver to another target in close range when engaged with a melee. All other AoO's and penalties apply normally. There are no penalties for ranged weapons here. Medium(up to 80ft, median: 65):Thrown Weapons and slings, and hand crossbows take a -5 penalty here, and an additional -5 for each step further out. Far(up to 120ft, median: 100):Crossbows, and bows take a -5 penalty here, and an additional -5 for each step further out. Long(up to 200 ft, median: 160): All weapons have a maximum distance as normal in the PHB. Use your best judgement, players are probably not standing at the edge of a range category, they are probably somewhere in the middle. Changing ranges: You may move 1 step along the range track as a move action or 2 steps as a Full-Round action. If something hinders you, make a Range Check(1d20+dex mod+Spd Bonus) Speed bonus: Your characters speed rating / 5 (taking into account encumbrance). Enemy Resisting your maneuver:Make a Range Check Vs DC 10 + Enemies Dex Mod+ Enemies Spd Bonus. If you fail, you may not change ranges this round. Hampered movement: . If the terrain is hampering you make a DC 15 Dex check. If you fail must spend a full round action and can move only 1 step along the range track. Characters also add their speed bonus to their initiative in this system.
Werral 06-10-07, 06:18 PM	I played AD&D for years and other RPGs with abstract movement. It's all about description - where are you? What's there. AoO were new with 3E and seem initially pretty tied to the battle grid. But actually communication is enough: DM: "Hrag's Ogre bodyguard stands between him and you him." Player: "Can my rogue get round him" DM: "Well you could try, but the ogre's club pretty much covers the corridor." Player: "Okay, well I'm gonna try tumbling past the ogre anyway and stab Hrag in the head" It's pretty clear that the ogre would normally get an AoO and that the rogue is using tumble to avoid it. Ditto for sneak attacks, anything really. Communication is the key.
Knightblde 06-10-07, 07:44 PM	As you mention you don't want to use the grid. So don't As far as I can tell, just use a ruler to measure distance when it is a characters turn to act. 1" = 5' Your rules take away the advantage of a monk or any other character with movement over 30, and deminishes the penalty for those under 30. Like I said, just use a ruler and you don't need to worry about the grid. The minis on the board help tremendiously with the visuals. They stop a lot of questions and help speed up the game. Hope this helps.
Keyar81 06-10-07, 08:24 PM	Werral said: I played AD&D for years and other RPGs with abstract movement. It's all about description - where are you? What's there....Communication is the key Ya i pretty much agree with that. I remember reading an article by monte cook about playing 3rd ed D&D and he pretty much said the same thing. One other thing that is an important factor, consistency. Knightblade said: As you mention you don't want to use the grid. So don't As far as I can tell, just use a ruler to measure distance when it is a characters turn to act. 1" = 5' Your rules take away the advantage of a monk or any other character with movement over 30, and deminishes the penalty for those under 30. Like I said, just use a ruler and you don't need to worry about the grid. The minis on the board help tremendiously with the visuals. They stop a lot of questions and help speed up the game. Hope this helps I certainly see your point, but I dont want have to measure out distances with a ruler, that would be even more cumbersome IMO. I'm sure you like the rules the way they are, good for you, but this game can be adapted to different playstyles. I know you were trying to help and thank you, but I was more so looking for replies that would help further refine this system, or suggest alternative ones, not a post just telling me to use the current system. However your response about my rules taking away the advantage of faster characters was helpful, and if you or anyone else has a thought about how i could make this system better in that respect i'd love to hear it. I want the speed rating of a character to matter.
Werral 06-11-07, 05:41 AM	Give faster characters an initiative bonus maybe? Still I don't think it necessarily takes away from the monk. If you say the orc is 20 ft away the monk can still use the extra move to go round and flank him. But yeah I guess it's easy to forget the +10ft when it's abstract. Basically the DM has to remember and describe more stuff and the players ask questions and think from their characters' POVs. Players only get information their characters have so sense rolls (listen, spot etc...) become more important. Also don't forget flying combat, combat on a sheer cliff and other situations where you can't really use mini's accurately anyway. Essentially an abstract game is more subjective - great for horror (how scary can a mini be anyway?), gritty realism and RP heavy campaigns.
Ra-Tiel 06-11-07, 02:05 PM	IIRC the first edition of the d20 Star Wars RPG had a similar system for space combats. It was - back then - a very good idea. Basically you had a sheet with an icon representing your own ship in the center, with 4 vectors and 4 distance scales going outwards from it. However, it had several flaws. While it worked well for one PC ship and a handfull of NPC ships, anything more numerous or complex completely broke it. Keeping track of several ships all moving at different directions and speed was a nightmare. With a grid you just "move figher A X squares in direction U, and fighter B Y squares in direction V" and are done. With the other system, you went like "ok, because our own ship moves forward at speed X, all other ships change from vector X and range U to vector Y and range V, now they start their own movements and change to vector Z and range W ...". :shifty: I don't know if such an abstract movement system would work out well with DnD, especially if you take into consideration the various instant-movement effects magic and psionics offer. While you just move from one square to another on the grid, with such an abstract system you'd have to re-evaluate the position of all other combatants relative to your new position. :confused:
Keyar81 06-11-07, 05:05 PM	I was thinking, using graph paper, or a battlegrid(yes i know i said i didn't like it) you could use a system of say having each square represent a range increment. 1 square between characters would be say close range, characters next to each other are engaged in melee. each successive square between 2 characters represents higher range categories. Although I originally stated that I didn't want a battlegrid, its really the super detailed combat simulation that disinterests me. Even using the battlegrid in this manner, you would just be using it to represent very basic relative distances between characters instead of keeping track of every little square of movement. I like the idea of having your speed rating also effect your initiative in this system, never thought of that, thx for the idea.
Werral 06-11-07, 06:34 PM	That's what I used to do back in the day. I'd refer to a piece of graph paper behind the DM screen then describe what was going on subjectively. We played lots of miniature battle games so when we played RPGs we put the minis away.