I need some suggestions / help / etc on taking the wargame out of 4th edition. So many classes have abilities that are so tied to a wargame its hard. With the way things are now it seems closer to a cross between World of Warcraft and Warhammer then D&D to me...
So any ideas would be appreciated.
other than that, use a backboard with markers to mark movement and position intead of minis, you still need some help to follow all that`s hapenign there but that should allow more freedom wihtout a mesh and distance in squares it shoudl work ...more or less, maybe?
I played 4e when it first came out (not so much now). Still, the games were enjoyable in spite of my struggling with tactical movement. Never used minis beyond the first game though (just not for me ;)).
Instead, I tried to have everyone be really descriptive about where they were and what they were doing in combat. Not nearly as exact or as detailed as using actual minis; also, required some judgment calls on my part as DM (be sure your players trust ya ;)). The games ran smoothly, once I found my style; a lighter touch to tactical movement than espoused in the rules, through the use of minis.
Trouble Was . . .
I felt like I wasn't playing the game "right". Yeah, I know, how can a game like D&D be played "wrong" ;)? Still, that's how it felt; like I was playing chess, and not very well either. That, and a few other things, dampened my enjoyment for the game, just enough. I don't dislike 4e but I do much prefer another system.
Case in point: I've "only" played D&D since the Basic revision back in '89 or '90, when most of the adventures came with little cardboard stand-ups with pictures of the monsters on them. Being that I was the only one out of our gaming group who had any familiarity with fantasy conventions, this was a HUGE time-saver concerning monster descriptions. By the time we "matured" to 2nd Edition, physical representation was mostly unnecessary. Emphasis on MOSTLY.
See, no matter how good your evocative descriptions of a combat scene are, you're bound to have problems with players correctly visualizing their placement in a combat scenario. Your PCs don't see things the same way you do, and you'd be surprised how many people can't visualize things like distance and measurements.
Now, I'm all about the role-play, myself, but violence is ever-present when 90% of the sentient beings you encounter are either packing sharpened steel or arcane knowledge that can incinerate you with a whisper. I, too, decried the necessity of miniatures for play, having NEVER felt like I "needed" them until 4E. Then, a female gamer in my group told me this: "Hey, I think it's great that you can eyeball the difference between a 20' and a 30' hallway, AND keep track of whose standing where, but some of us don't use our imaginations that way!"
I realized this is true. Lots of players love their tactical murder-downs, and some like flexing their Drama majors, with most falling somewhere in the middle. However, fights happen, and when they do, position is EVERYTHING in combat. As far as 4E feeling like chess, ever wonder why "wargames" like chess and Go have been one of the standards of gauging strategic thought for nearly 2000 years? Now, imagine trying to play a game of chess WITH ONLY YOUR MIND. Not so simple, is it? Now, imagine describing your match to five other people, and asking for their input. Hoo boy...
I understand DMs shying away from the battle grid. If free-form descriptions work for you and your PCs (as they did for me for many years), then stick with it. However, if you're actually using markers, grid paper, or whatever else have you (as I've had to do during those aforementioned many years), then you need to realize you're ALREADY miniature gaming in some degree. Find out where your players stand, and go from there. One unexpected side-benefit of discovering my players' joy for minis: they've currently purchased over THREE times what I have, and guess who gets to use 'em ALL on gamedays? Joy.....
Now as far as this thread's topic goes: Multiply all squares by 5', and describe accordingly. Don't worry about PCs shifting through enemies' spaces, except in close-quarters. Occasionally meld encounters with neutral parties, so the PCs have to decide between negotiating, or fighting on at-will powers while wounded. USE MORE SKILL CHALLENGES.
Finally, you know how I broke my party's "beat down or beat feet" mentality? I'd break out the battle grid, have everyone set up their minis, and run non-combat encounters! Talk about ramping up the tension! Of course, sometimes violence would break out anyway, but I think battle mats do little to engender a trait already rampant with the bulk of humanity...
Back in the day, I could run combat without any tactical representation at all, but that was easy, as movement and position were secondary. Most attacks only dealt hp damage, sneak attack (backstab, as it was called) was resolved with a d% check:
thief: "I want to backstab the dragon."
DM: "Ok, make a hide check."
thief rolls a d%: "12%! It works."
DM: "You manage to move behind it without being seen. Make your backstab."
Same with ranged combat:
DM: "The bandits are 60' away."
Everyone: "We fire our bows/spells."
(much rolling ensues, damage is dealt, a few bandits buy the farm, etc.)
DM: "Ok, round 2. The bandits are in melee with you."
archer-guy: "I move back and to the side to keep firing my bow at any bandit who's not engaged."
DM: "Fine."
...and so on.
It became increasingly difficult to do that with 3.0e, 3.5e and 4e. Especially 4e. The problem is that without a precise tactical representation, many attacks, spells and powers become useless, unless you keep a record of all the distances between combatants, who's where relative to everyone else, who has cover, etc. But at this point, why not use a grid with tokens?
If you want to use 4e without any form of tactical representation, I suggest you ignore all push/pull/slide effects, maybe compensating powers which use those with higher damage if it makes sense. That would be a start.
I don't like miniatures to be used in RPGs I run. I have been running D&D since Dungeons & Dragons came in clear plastic bags. To me having them turns what should be a RPG into a Wargame.
I need some suggestions / help / etc on taking the wargame out of 4th edition. So many classes have abilities that are so tied to a wargame its hard. With the way things are now it seems closer to a cross between World of Warcraft and Warhammer then D&D to me...
So any ideas would be appreciated.
First, D&D has used minis since the begining (although I've heard that 2E deemphasized them). 3E also used minis by default. Please don't act as if 4E just started using minis. Also don't act as if an RPG meant to have visual representations by default is a "lesser RPG". If you do that, you are calling the ORIGINAL D&D "not D&D".
Now, on to your question, I once heard someone on these forums talk about how he used a system of abstracted distances, where you could be either:
Melee Distance
Reach "
Close "
Far "
in relation to opponents, depending on the range of you attacks (Melee is adjacent, reach is if you have reach, close is any other short range, and far was any other long range). That might be a good way to handle it, as it requires only that you memorize what distance you are from opponents. I think it was rather an elegant and neat idea.
Oh, and, PS, just because a game uses visual representations does not mean that you can't roleplay. If you think that minis instantly transform your game into a combat-only wargame, there are problems with how you roleplay, not the system.
I usually do use miniatures (I always have with every version of D&D) - i find it reduces arguments over "i was standing there" and "no you weren't you were here", BUT i have played 4th ed with out miniatures and it works just the same as every other edition, I mean you have always had to be aware of your beasties locations and terrain etc..
Sorry you don't enjoy it so much this way, because after also playing it online, I've seen that it works out incredibly well as more of a tactical interface then as a more free-form style when it comes to combat. The RP side is, as always, almost perfectly free-form, so at least that hasn't gone away.
EDIT: Hehe, should've read it first, but Wyrd's pretty much got it all right. :D
Secondly: D&D was created from wargames, it's no surprise that D&D has a tactical feel. It was designed into the game from the very get-go. I, like one of the other posters, can keep the entire tactical situation in my head and know who needs to do what and who will be caught in the fireball blast w/o resorting to minis or figures. Most people can't.
And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it sounds like you're one of the ones that has trouble with that. TBH, if you could visualize all that in your head you wouldn't need help "taking the minis out of the game," you could do it on your own. D&D has always suggested the use of markers of some sort (at least since I started playing with 2e). It really does make things a lot easier.
I don't like miniatures to be used in RPGs I run.
Use tokens, dice, pennies, a white board with Xs and Os, or anything else to represent where PCs are in relation to the opponents.
D&D now allows tactics in combat. It has done so for the past two editions. 4th edition simply requires tactical play more than 3e did. But the game includes combat mechanics that reward players for positional advantage. If you want to play D&D that does not allow tactics, play pre-3e D&D.
I don't mean that in a snide way. I mean it bluntly and honestly. D&D combat includes tactics. Period. You can try to play without minis (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), but it's going to gimp some of the rules, and prove to be difficult. Others will come up with some "solutions", but in the end, the best solution is to play a game that does not include tactics.
Your efforts to play 4e without minis are similar to trying to play hockey without sticks. It can be done, but in the end, it'll be more like ice soccer than hockey. Fun, but a different game.
Playing 4th ed with out miniatures is just the same as playing any other edition of D&D with out miniatures. 1 square = 5ft, D&D has always worked in feat for movement, spell ranges etc.. if you didn't need miniatures to measure movement and ranges etc before, why do you need it now?
I can see the OP's point, even if I don't understand the reluctance to use minis. It's not that its harder to say that the baddies are x feet away, it's that you have to say it more often, that the positions of individuals matter more that in previous editions, that you now have all these neat effects that move combatants around, etc.
Sure, you can play 4e combats free form, but I think it's more of a hassle and you miss out more on some of your PCs' and monsters' abilities than in previous editions.
Me, I've been using minis for a long time and I've never thought any less of D&D for that. I don't really "get" why some people have a problem with that. As you said, everything is clearer with minis (bottle caps, erasers, what have you).
I can see the OP's point, even if I don't understand the reluctance to use minis. It's not that its harder to say that the baddies are x feet away, it's that you have to say it more often, that the positions of individuals matter more that in previous editions, that you now have all these neat effects that move combatants around, etc.
Sure, you can play 4e combats free form, but I think it's more of a hassle and you miss out more on some of your PCs' and monsters' abilities than in previous editions.
Me, I've been using minis for a long time and I've never thought any less of D&D for that. I don't really "get" why some people have a problem with that. As you said, everything is clearer with minis (bottle caps, erasers, what have you).
Oh, I agree totally that it is much easier to play with mini's (I always have used minis).. my point is the rules don't have to be changed to play free form, the DM just has to be able to keep track of everybody in his head, just like you would do with any edition of D&D in the past.
I'm gonna throw some suggestions out here, but there's been a very valid point I've been wanting to make about 4E for some time: just because YOU loathe the element miniatures tend to bring to a gaming table, doesn't mean your players do!
This poster speaks wisdom. His post is of an admirable gamer's attitude.
Now, on to your question, I once heard someone on these forums talk about how he used a system of abstracted distances, where you could be either:
Melee Distance
Reach "
Close "
Far "
in relation to opponents, depending on the range of you attacks (Melee is adjacent, reach is if you have reach, close is any other short range, and far was any other long range). That might be a good way to handle it, as it requires only that you memorize what distance you are from opponents. I think it was rather an elegant and neat idea.
Thanks. That was my idea. Think I shall add that post to my signature.
Sorry, but D&D uses standard wargame conventions to resolve combat. You can either hold it all in your head (difficult) ignore it (unbalancing) or cave in and use minis. (presumably not the solution you were looking for.)
I don't like miniatures to be used in RPGs I run. I have been running D&D since Dungeons & Dragons came in clear plastic bags. To me having them turns what should be a RPG into a Wargame.
I need some suggestions / help / etc on taking the wargame out of 4th edition. So many classes have abilities that are so tied to a wargame its hard. With the way things are now it seems closer to a cross between World of Warcraft and Warhammer then D&D to me...
So any ideas would be appreciated.
Is that so? Then I would suggest you play D&D and convert it as you did when it first came out...you know...when it was a minis wargame that was changed into a D&D game.
Now, if that's too much for you, then I would suggest you do as you did in 1e, where everything was also based on squares vs. distance. Just convert it.
Or, if that's too early for you...though I don't know when 3.5 was in plastic bags, maybe do the same thing you did for 3.5 in converting it from a wargame to a non square spacing wargame.
Yeah, I'm feeling Ornery tonight.
Yeah, I'm feeling Ornery tonight.
Ornery . . . but that's so helpful :P.
Now if your PCs like to solve everything with combat, then I could see your point, but in that case just how much roleplaying is going on? So many players forget that "defeating" an encounter doesn't necessarily mean bloodshed. Roleplaying is no more or less prevalent in this edition compared to the others. The level of RP that goes on in any given game has been and always will be determined by the player's attitudes towards the game. Because changing how combat is run does nothing to prevent me from playing Drago, Warrior of the Ny Ked order who completely disrobes before any and all physical challenges and who loves to grapple things!
Thanks. That was my idea. Think I shall add that post to my signature.
Ah, yes, I was wondering who was the one who brought that forward. Nice ideas.
thief: "I want to backstab the dragon."
DM: "Ok, make a hide check."
thief rolls a d%: "12%! It works."
DM: "You manage to move behind it without being seen. Make your backstab."
Same with ranged combat:
DM: "The bandits are 60' away."
Everyone: "We fire our bows/spells."
(much rolling ensues, damage is dealt, a few bandits buy the farm, etc.)
DM: "Ok, round 2. The bandits are in melee with you."
archer-guy: "I move back and to the side to keep firing my bow at any bandit who's not engaged."
DM: "Fine."
...and so on.
I've had a great many of those battles. You did whatever type of attack you wanted without worrying whether you have some special ability or not. No need to have a power that pushes when you can just tell the DM you pick up the orc and hurl it over the cliff. Good times.
Replace them entirely with social encounters.
Done.
I know I am echoing many other posters here, but D&D has always been about a wargame method of combat. It was specifically designed that way in the start.
Now, whether you use minis, or counters, or a map that only the DM can see, or keep the position of every single combatant memorized in your head, is up to you. But D&D has always had:
The orc is x feet away.
Your range with the bow is y feet.
You can move z feet.
What do you do?
I used to (first edition) DM by using the maps in the adventures, marking them with pencil for everyone's position, and describing everything to everyone.
Aside from the fact that I was 13, this was dumb and difficult. People couldn't remember where they were, where the enemy was, where the other PCs were. A map lets them see this quickly, and reduces "redescribing" the room over and over.
If you don't want to use tactical positioning, measurement, and counters in D&D, then I really think you don't want to run D&D combats. It's totally fine to run the game entirely as social interaction. I have a friend who has been running 2nd edition for over 15 years. He has no characters over 5th level. If there is a fight, you describe what you do. It either works and you win, or it doesn't, and you lose. Either the enemies are enemies you can beat with your abilities (so you beat them), or you can't beat them with your abilities (so you come up with a clever plan and it works or it doesn't). Most of the time, people travel around, talk to others, and scheme. There's very, very, very little combat. I can't stand playing in his game (I tried one session), but he and his group have been playing (not every week or anything) for 15 years in the same campaign. He doesn't need any rules for his game, other than "I'm the DM". I don't think he's bought a D&D rulebook since the first Unearthed Arcana.
I think you are in the same boat. You're gonna have to wing everything.
I wish there was an easy answer for you. Unfortunately a great deal of the things contributing to that feeling are part and parcel of how combat and movement work now. I agree with your concerns but I don';t see an easy out for you....not and stay with 4E without drastic change.
I totally sympathize with the feeling though....I started a ranger to playtest 4E and am really frustrated that my ranger is only defined in the players handbook in realtion to his role in combat. That burns me up...
I don't like miniatures to be used in RPGs I run. I have been running D&D since Dungeons & Dragons came in clear plastic bags. To me having them turns what should be a RPG into a Wargame.
I need some suggestions / help / etc on taking the wargame out of 4th edition. So many classes have abilities that are so tied to a wargame its hard. With the way things are now it seems closer to a cross between World of Warcraft and Warhammer then D&D to me...
So any ideas would be appreciated.
Well, you could try the [thread=1092854]Five Techniques[/thread], that could help add a more of a roleplay feel to the powers.
I started a ranger to playtest 4E and am really frustrated that my ranger is only defined in the players handbook in realtion to his role in combat. That burns me up...
Wait, you don't like the fact that the game allows you to redefine every out-of-combat aspect of your character? You want the game to limit what you can do in social situations, group planning, and mundane living based on the class you chose?
Wait, you don't like the fact that the game allows you to redefine every out-of-combat aspect of your character? You want the game to limit what you can do in social situations, group planning, and mundane living based on the class you chose?
That's needlessly inflammatory.
No need to try and bait me into an argument by trying to be sarcastic or ironic.
A couple sessions ago, in a 3.5e campaign, the party chased some lobstermen down a corridor, interfered in a lobstermen vs. giant crabs battle, then fought a pitched battle of their own in a cavern that boasted a stream of lava. One character was dagged into the lava (luckily, a druid who was strongly protected from fire at the time), a few bad guys were held at bay by the rogue's fancy footwork, a groupd of reinforcements were blasted by the wizards's lightning bolt as they arrived, and the barbarian leapt over the lava to assault the archers on the far side.
All that, and no maps were made, no minis were used. Description, creativity, and dice rolls -- and a healthy does of poetic license from the DM in deciding some results and picturing the cavern.
Oh, and all three combats were finished in about 2 hours.
Playing a 4e combat -- just the lava room -- would likely have taken 2-3 hours by itself, and involved meticulous accuracy on where everyone was in relation to the lava. After all, that's a hallmark of the 4e system -- important encounters in tactically interesting terrain. a 1-square Push against a target 2 squares from the lava wouldn't do the trick, but maybe an ally could help, or some power cuold provide +1 to the distance pushed; or the dwarf's -1 push defense could prove the critical thing to avoiding a lava bath...
However, in the 4e version, the characters would have been in trouble -- there was no 5-minute pause between battles, and this wasn't the end either. There was the boss battle afterward -- although that had 20-minute pause built into it -- where the party would really need their dailies (or in 3e, their powerful spells).
Both versions are fun. Version 3e was just faster in pretty much every circumstance.
I'd like to apologize for CrazySamaritan, Hobbit (if he doesn't mind, that is), mostly because I was thinking what he posted anyway. I think mostly we're just tired of people complaining that the lack of defined RP rules makes so many people immediately assume that 4E is nothing but combat.
I don't mind.
I wasn't being sarcastic or ironic. I cannot comprehend what it is that limits people's ability to create their character when there's no rules to begin with. MaRo is always saying how restriction breeds creativity, and that the inverse (lack of restrictions create a lack of creativity) is true as well. I can understand that. But my reaction is the same as his; "Okay, what restrictions can I put on this?"
I'll pick something random about the character, such as, he has only an above average strength. In his town, were there many people stronger than him? Maybe he thinks he's stronger than he really is because he's always been the strongest in town, he thinks he'll be stronger than everyone he meets.
Or he has a low charisma (because I used wisdom for defenses instead). Does he like being unimportant? Does he find a sense of security in being 'part of the crowd', or does he resent it? Does he act out more often, and try to get people's attention because he desperately needs people to recognize him as a person?
Or I take a power, such as Fox's Cunning. Why did he 'choose' that power? Is that what he calls it? Where did he learn it? How does he apply the lessons from that master (martial sensei, family of foxes, book of Aesops, or months of wilderness living) to his everyday life?
The plot device (a person) I made to get my players started on our adventure is named Aaron. A gnome. He goes through the entire alphabet with variations on Aaron (baron, charron, darren, erin, etc) until he ends with Zahgotah. Every time I create a new plot point using this character, I'm also adding a little more background to the guy. (I had players roll an insight last night, and one person got a high result. I told that player "No one could be this crazy, but he seems to be." and everyone else "He's crazy.")
I don't understand why class has to play a part in who the [b]character[/c] is, other than his role in combat.
However, if 4e offers lots of stuff you like, you can wing it - just like you presumably did in 3.5.
All this 'positioning is everything in 4e'? Eh. Not so much. You can flank and charge. Terrain can matter. It matters for burst effects, but it did in 3.5 as well and it sounds like you did just fine with it there.
My recommendation is that when peope describe movement in combat, if they want to move around or past something, or move into an advantageous position, they are going to take attacks of opportunity unless they use an ability that lets them shift.
Ex 1: "I step in and attack the closest bugbear". Ok, fine, you move up and attack.
Ex 2: "I circle around the bugbears in front and rush at the shaman!" You take an attack of opportunity going past them.
Ex 3: "I use my Eladrin teleport to get past the frontline bugbears and attack the shaman". You bamf past them and strike the shaman - no AoO.
Ex 4: "I use Tide of Iron to bash one of the bugbears forward and get to the shaman" The shaman is too far back to get to that quickly, but if you push the bugbear out of the way with it, you'll be in position to get there next turn without taking an AoO.
Don't stress too much about it - its all for fun, and as long as everyone's having fun, the lack of precise position shouldn't be an issue.
Oh, and don't do the whole 'convert squares to feet' thing. What bother with a more precise measurement when you aren't going to measure? If the term 'squares' bothers you, call them paces and be done with it.
I think I can help you there.
It's not that there aren't restrictions so much as there aren't suggestions (or at least not like in 3.5). Sure, we don't have alignment restrictions or an infernal Code of Conduct anymore (stupid Pathfinder...) and that's good.
But we also don't have "Duskblades in the Game", "Knights in the World", or "NPC reactions to the Binder". You know, the sections after the main rules of a class towards the end of 3.5 (ToM, ToB, PHBII, MoI, etc.). These sections didn't have anything crunchwise that restricted the character, but they did give the player a starting point. It was all fluff so you could use it or ignore it as you like, but you had a starting point. 4E, less so. The fluff of motivations, roles within the world (not party, world), npc reactions are still there, but less.
You know, the sections after the main rules of a class towards the end of 3.5 (ToM, ToB, PHBII, MoI, etc.).
Never bought any of those. I was satisfied with the rules I had by that point (5/7 of the Complete series, Races of Eberron, and MMIII); I didn't need any more digging. Besides, Hobbit specified rangers. A core class, not an optional rule.
4E, less so. The fluff of motivations, roles within the world (not party, world), npc reactions are still there, but less.
Less? There's three pages, front and back, that don't contribute to the rules at all in 4th. Their only purpose is to give players advice on how to create a character, instead of a build. That's not even counting the little bits of flavour text sprinkled in places like the powers or the text on the first page of any class (right below the box of mechanics). If a player doesn't want to read the block of text, there's a quote from a character (who probably is that class) right below the class name.
First, D&D has used minis since the begining (although I've heard that 2E deemphasized them). 3E also used minis by default. Please don't act as if 4E just started using minis.
I played D&D since before 1st Ed AD&D.
1st & 2nd Ed were extremely playable without mini's. 3.X quite a bit harder. 4.0, pretty much impossible if you want to actually play by RAW.
I played D&D since before 1st Ed AD&D.
1st & 2nd Ed were extremely playable without mini's. 3.X quite a bit harder. 4.0, pretty much impossible if you want to actually play by RAW.
Original D&D required minis by RAW.
3.X required minis by RAW.
4E requires minis by RAW.
Stop kidding yourself. They all assumed minis. Any attempt to not use them is a houserule. That is the point of this thread (or at least it should be).
NOTE: I can not speak for 1E and 2E. I do not own them. The three I listed I do own.
Original D&D required minis by RAW.
3.X required minis by RAW.
4E requires minis by RAW.
Stop kidding yourself. They all assumed minis. Any attempt to not use them is a houserule. That is the point of this thread (or at least it should be).
NOTE: I can not speak for 1E and 2E. I do not own them. The three I listed I do own.
Interesting, however, I never talked about OD&D. I did mention 1st & 2nd being easy without mini's (which you ignored) and I said 3rd was harder. 4th is impossible if you want to use the combat rules.
What is your point again?
BTW - I forgot where in the PHB or DMG 3.x is says that mini's are REQUIRED in order to play. Do you remember?
hard to do positioning without some sort of marker (which a mini is just a fancy version of).
Interesting, however, I never talked about OD&D. I did mention 1st & 2nd being easy without mini's (which you ignored) and I said 3rd was harder. 4th is impossible if you want to use the combat rules.
What is your point again?
BTW - I forgot where in the PHB or DMG 3.x is says that mini's are REQUIRED in order to play. Do you remember?
First, I never "ignored" 1 and 2E. Maybe you didn't catch it, but I said I CAN'T COMMENT ON THEM. I have no knowledge of those systems.
Second, are you denying that the DEFAULT COMBAT RULES of 3.X were set up for minis use? Where there not pictures of minis in the combat system? Was combat not presented as being on a grid?
If you houseruled minis out of 3.X, you can do the same to 4E. Heck, examples have been given IN THIS THREAD!
My point? You are ignoreing that minis are no more default in 4E than they were in 3.X or OD&D (which did, by the way, said that each player REQUIRED a mini). I don't know if it's because you have honestly fallen for that silly notion that 4E "requires" minis more than 3.X, or if you are just ignoreing the facts for the sake of argument.
First, I never "ignored" 1 and 2E. Maybe you didn't catch it, but I said I CAN'T COMMENT ON THEM. I have no knowledge of those systems.
Second, are you denying that the DEFAULT COMBAT RULES of 3.X...
BTW - I forgot where in the PHB or DMG 3.x is says that mini's are REQUIRED in order to play. Do you remember?
For combat, I hate minis too. So ditch the tactical movement-related aspects just like you did in 3e and 2e. The only difference is 4e has more of them to ditch. I would even go so far as to make a spreadsheet of removed powers to establish it with your players.
BTW - I forgot where in the PHB or DMG 3.x is says that mini's are REQUIRED in order to play. Do you remember?
Mentioned first on page 4 of the v.3.5 PHB, and also on page 5, under the heading "What You Need To Play: A battle grid. The DMG contains one." and "Miniatures to represent each character and the monsters that challenge them." I take this to mean that a grid and minis are strongly recommended but I wouldn't say required (i.e. it's not RAW).
The 3.0 PHB also has a bullet-point (on page 6) but it's even more brief, mentioning you may need "A miniature figure, or at least something to represent your character in the game (even if it's just a mark on paper)."
With 4e, the use of minis felt like more than just a "strong recommendation"; it felt like RAW. Page 266 of the 4e PHB says this: "The combat rules assume you use D&D Dungeon Tiles, a poster map, a gridded white board, or an eraseable, gridded mat to show the area where the battle takes place. The rules also assume you use D&D Miniatures to represent the adventurers and the enemies they face."
It's all clearly spelled out, in a half-page sidebar entitled "Visualizing the action. In 3.5, all we had was a briefl bullet-point list, and no wordy explanation why we needed minis to play ;).
Some things in the book are actual rules, others are referrences and guidelines; I personally put minis in the latter catagory (at least in earlier editions). We used minis on occassion (both in 2nd edtion and in 3rd) but mostly as props for our imagination, not so much for any tactical purpose.
Mentioned first on page 4 of the v.3.5 PHB, and also on page 5, under the heading "What You Need To Play: A battle grid. The DMG contains one." and "Miniatures to represent each character and the monsters that challenge them."
Thanks Artifact!
Don't have my books with me.
I don't like miniatures to be used in RPGs I run. I have been running D&D since Dungeons & Dragons came in clear plastic bags. To me having them turns what should be a RPG into a Wargame.
I need some suggestions / help / etc on taking the wargame out of 4th edition. So many classes have abilities that are so tied to a wargame its hard. With the way things are now it seems closer to a cross between World of Warcraft and Warhammer then D&D to me...
So any ideas would be appreciated.
First, I don't think that you will find it's possible to play a satisfying combat encounter in 4E without minis. Many special abilities that certain classes rely on (esp rogues and warlords) demand clear visual representation of what is happening.
You could dramatically re-write several of the powers so that position is less vital. Or you could play 3 or 3.5. Also, odd as it sounds, I find Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay to play very handily without minis or wargame feel.
I don't know why you want to do away with minis. But I suspect it is from the assumption that it will make role-playing easier.
I used to be wary of minis, from the fear that the "wargame feel" would disrupt roleplay. However, I would advise you to give minis a second look! I have found, in practice, that minis dramatically *increase* the sense of roleplay. Here is how and why:
1: You can see and take in at a glance exactly what your character can see and take in at a glance. No more suspension of disbelief when you find (again) that your picture of the battle scene from the wordy descriptions is countermanded by an extra factoid from the GM.
2: relative size! Had I just described the "Rat Ogres" to my PCs at the last encounter, I think they woulda just started swinging away (as if it were a battle game). With the minis, the players' jaws dropped, and they realized that their characters would be crapping their pants, so role-played accordingly!
I *do* suggest, to make the game feel more like a roleplaying game and less like a battle board game, that you do something which *few* roleplayers do and which *many* battle gamers do! Drop the battle mat with the lines! (Ideally replacing it with awesome looking terrain!)
By making it clear that a PCs guess about how far s/he can run is only as accurate as *your* guess about whether X is 5 inches away, you create some more real-world tension. By making it easy for people to stop wherever they wish (rather than looking for the nearest square) it helps.
It also feels more like the real world when you don't move faster just because the battle map *happens* to be oriented North and you *happen* to be traveling NW!
In short, the advantage of minis (and no battle map) is that it makes the situation more real, and removes from people's minds the "gameplay" element. Basic assumptions to the contrary, making people play *without* minis makes them think "game" much more because they are forced to calculate in their heads and stare at character sheets full of numbers instead of at a "scene."
Never bought any of those. I was satisfied with the rules I had by that point (5/7 of the Complete series, Races of Eberron, and MMIII); I didn't need any more digging. Besides, Hobbit specified rangers. A core class, not an optional rule.
Well, let's get specific. You never bought any of those, but did you ever read them? Or look at them (at least the class sections)? Because every character class (and the prestige classes) have at least two pages, front and back, that do nothing more than identify a possible role, position, background, history, of the class, not to mention an example character (that is then likely as not built up by someone who didn't proofread the rules or not
).Less? There's three pages, front and back, that don't contribute to the rules at all in 4th. Their only purpose is to give players advice on how to create a character, instead of a build. That's not even counting the little bits of flavour text sprinkled in places like the powers or the text on the first page of any class (right below the box of mechanics). If a player doesn't want to read the block of text, there's a quote from a character (who probably is that class) right below the class name.
Let me put it this way. Rule 0 was both in 3E and 4E. But 4E also went the extra step and put in page 42, which gives the how. That's what those later 3.5 books had in regards to character classes, a HOW.
Ah, yes, I was wondering who was the one who brought that forward. Nice ideas.
Thanks. I try.
Well, let's get specific. You never bought any of those, but did you ever read them? Or look at them (at least the class sections)? Because every character class (and the prestige classes) have at least two pages, front and back, that do nothing more than identify a possible role, position, background, history, of the class, not to mention an example character (that is then likely as not built up by someone who didn't proofread the rules or not
While the amount of text is apparently different, the complete books were set up in exactly the same way. I mostly checked the future releases and Character Op forums, to see if there was anything new in the way of interesting mechanics. Tome of Battle was on the list to check out, but without wanting to play a 'fighter', there wasn't a need.
Let me put it this way. Rule 0 was both in 3E and 4E. But 4E also went the extra step and put in page 42, which gives the how. That's what those later 3.5 books had in regards to character classes, a HOW.
So the complaint is about a perceived lack in the core books (of both editions) which was addressed in the previous edition through supplements, whereas the new edition fails to incorporate the practice in the new core?
Is it relevant that the PHB is the largest book out of the three already?I think that in the 4e assumed setting the way classes interact with each other is less important than the way RACES interact with each other, which is why you have sample adventurers in the race section rather than class section.
Maybe. Races of Eberron did a similar thing for each of the races, especially the Eberron-originals.
So the complaint is about a perceived lack in the core books (of both editions) which was addressed in the previous edition through supplements, whereas the new edition fails to incorporate the practice in the new core?
Well, if you'll recall, I wasn't comparing 3.5 to 4E, I was comparing the end of 3.5 to 4E. I'll go ahead and agree that the amount of suggested material for players who want to play something but for whatever reason haven't come up with a fleshed out idea on their own is the same for both the beginning of 3.5 and 4E (the beginning of the 4E PHB vs. Ch. 6 of the 3.5 PHB, class blurbs at the beginning of each class in both PHBs). But that wasn't my original comparison.
Well, if you'll recall, I wasn't comparing 3.5 to 4E, I was comparing the end of 3.5 to 4E. I'll go ahead and agree that the amount of suggested material for players who want to play something but for whatever reason haven't come up with a fleshed out idea on their own is the same for both the beginning of 3.5 and 4E (the beginning of the 4E PHB vs. Ch. 6 of the 3.5 PHB, class blurbs at the beginning of each class in both PHBs). But that wasn't my original comparison.
The line that got this sub-thread started was another poster complaining about rangers having a defined place in combat, but not in the world. I was then accused of baiting.
Is it combat you want to make less "wargame like"?
Or do you wish to reduce the emphasis on combat for players who tend to minimax?
Or do you want to reduce minimaxing?
If you want to make combat less wargame like, changing both the combat system and how combat is presented is critical. This is hard, but could be done. On the other hand, D&D ultimately derives from a set of ancients combat rules, Chaimail, so it has always had that tendency. Also, let's face it, selling figures is a good way to make the grame profitable, and WotC is merely moving the system in the direction of Warhammer. So it might be worthwhile to just see if after a few more sessions you can live with it. I've end up liking some things I started out hating, and vice versa.
If you want to reduce emphasis on combat for minimaxers, offer them an alternative route to power. The politics rules in my system, Fire and Sword, available under an open source license as a free download at the link included under Fire and Sword, will give you some idea of how I did that. I believe the approaches in my economics and politics chapters could be adapted to the problem.
If you want less focus on combat, you have to change your scenarios so there is more social interaction, etc. The problem with this is that your players may {as described in the DMG} enjoy parts of the game you don't enjoy. So before you do anything to reduce the "wargame-like" tndency of the 4ed. rules, think about your players and what they are getting out of the game.
Good luck,
Ray,
Crazysamaraitan, one reason I thought you were baiting me was becuase in your response post you restated what I said in an extreme manner. I thought you were saying I said something I didn't. I was trying to say I thought that the book should address more (say with fluff and not ruiles) the RP component of classes like the ranger. That isn't saying I want lots of ruling dictating how one role-plays....that\s not what I was saying and what apparently what some people thought I did say. I should have clarified this posts back but I lost track of this thread.
My initial post on this thread was to show solidarity and sympathy with the initial poster's point.
The main reason I think RP suggestions are important is that new players and players transitioning from WOW (4E's target audiance according to developers) probably need help with the roleplaying aspects since they probably don't have paper and dice RP experience. Unless some RP stuff is talked about, newbies wouldn't know to go the extra mile to work RP in.
Does my point make any more sense now?
Hope that helped and sorry to the OP for the unintentional highjack of the thread. Not my intention.
I was trying to say I thought that the book should address more (say with fluff and not rules) the RP component of classes like the ranger.
And this goes back to the 'less wargame' aspect of the thread.
If you dictate (suggestions tend to become dictations. If you don't believe me, say silk five times fast. What do cows drink?) what classes do, you first have to point out that NPCs aren't classes (anymore, at least). Then you're suggesting what one specific sub-group of adventuring types do, using some meta-game information to know which class is which.
Identifying characters by their name/class is an MMO practice. There's no in-game reason you should be able to tell which highly armored guy/girl with weapons and holy symbols is a paladin and which is a cleric. Or even that they aren't a fighter who is strongly faithful.
By making character class take a back seat to character, you focus better on the role-playing, than the mechanics.
Player: My ability pushes the monster 10 feet back.
GM: Ten feet...crap there is another goblin back there...oh well.
*Rolling noises*
GM: Sunuva...The goblin you pushed back stumbles over his own feet and runs his buddy through with his sword. The first goblin is very much shocked by this turn of events, and his buddy goes limp on his sword and slumps onto the firsts shoulder.
Player: Aww...they look like lovers...lets keep them together, Im gonna attempt to run my sword through them both.
The great part about all things DnD is that it all is up to your imagination, and while it is true that not everyone is like this, ultimately you are in charge of the game, while part of GMing is Player/GM diplomacy, if you state up front that you dont use mini's and tell your group how you work around them, you should hopefully get not much bellyaching about it, but if a player has a mini that they believe totally looks like their badass Fighter, let them bring it...but as long as battles run smoothly no one should complain about how you run battles, if you stumble too much during battle with such questions as "Where am I." "Can I do this...?" then you may want to use a grid system. It takes a very seasoned...or crazy GM to roll with those kinds of mental punches, the best way to deal with them is realism.
Player: "Where am I in relation to the tragic goblin couple?"
GM: "Well you pushed him 10 feet back as he was approaching melee range so about 10-15 feet."
Player: "Can I charge him and run him through with my fullblade?"
GM: "Do you have any abilities that allow you to close that kind of distance in one round?"
Player: "I can charge 10 feet...but arent fullblades over 5 feet long usually?" (I remember fullblades in 3.5 being over 6' in some cases)
GM: "Well...give it a shot."
*rolling noises*
*In an awesome show of force and maybe...even compassion...the player charges the now very noticibly upset goblins back and with a daring one armed thrust ends his life while at the same time pinning the two lovers against the wall behind them.*
And all that without mini's or a grid...DnD exists in your head as much as on paper, the trickiest thing to do is to pull everyone into the world you are currently forming around them. But it can be done...and very successfully.
And I'm done.