Boardless combat rules

[Revinor]

I'm one of the guys who are bit turned off by 'requirement' of using board with squares for 4th ed combat. While it was also suggested in 3rd ed, with very moderate amount of house rules it was possible to run boardless combat with very small loss of rule balance, with the benefit of no dependency on miniatures/board and bit bigger immersion in presented world.

I was quite pessimistic as far as boardless combat is concerned in 4th edition – a lot more abilities of the players and monsters depend on exact positioning, especially the push/pull effects. Fortunately, Mike Mearls gave very good suggestions how to solve this issue – you can see his post at http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4112306&postcount=25

I want to try to develop this idea a bit further and try to get some kind of balance between board based square exact combat and narrative only, handwaving descriptions.

--------------------------------------


Assumptions:

• I want to have tactical combat without a board
• Abilities of players and monsters should be representable in this system, preferably in the way not changing relative balance between them
• By removing board combat may become simpler. On the other hand, there might be some extra complexities added by this system – but overall, I don't want to complicate it too much just for sake of it.
• If there is easy way to increase level of immersion/believability at small cost to balance/original system, let's do it.

Quote from Mike Mearls

4e promotes the use of more set pieces and terrain than older editions, so I'd suggest creating a list of notable features in a room, and grouping combatants accordingly. For instance, the chapel to Tharizdun has three notable features: an altar where the high priest stands, a giant stone idol, and several rows of pews. You might slot each combatant into one of those areas.

There is one area where going without minis is helpful: it's much easier to track effects. Let's say there are three orcs in a room. The fighter attacks and marks one. When the ranger shoots an orc with her bow, you can ask the player if she wants to shoot the marked orc or one of the other ones. If you attach a little descriptor to each orc, that makes it even easier, like this:

Orc Warriors
------------
One-eyed Orc
Orc in bronze helm
Orc with long fangs

Orc Archers
-----------
Orc with scars
Orc with wolf-skin cloak

That way, you promote immersion by giving little descriptions for each guy, and you also have references for conditions and attacks. For example, a player could say, "I hit the one-eyed orc with a flame spell, and now he's taking continuing damage." You mark that on your sheet, and you can use that as a reference.

Best of all, you can use the conditions descriptions to promote immersion - "OK Pallania, the one-eyed orc shrieks in pain as Mardallus' spell continues to burn him. The orc in the bronze helm cowers before Thorbard, while the one with long fangs raises his scimitar. He looks like he's ready to charge you. What do you do?"

Now some rules trying to wrap it up.

Each of the notable areas should be around 4-7x4-7 squares areas in normal case. This should be enough to contain any number of non-huge combatants and plays well with default movement/spell sizes.

Each of the areas should be connected to another ones in form of graph. It can be drawn in pencil over a map, or just described. They can be well connected (temple room) or constrained (south side of bridge, bridge, north side of bridge, where you have to move through bridge to reach other side).

Move action allows you to move from one area to next. With two move actions you can move 2 areas. Any move effects of 2 squares or less are not moving you to different area (so you cannot just 1-square shift for few rounds to get to different area).

By default, you are in melee range with everybody else inside same area. This is most important change – areas are not representing static miniatures standing on specific squares and waiting for their turns, areas are parts where furious dynamic combat is happening, with people moving left and right, switching places, jumping on tables etc. This also means that if you leave the area in non-safe way, you might get hit with AoO from everybody in it. It might be too much in case of too many monsters, so DM is free to rule that only some of them get AoO. In case of players hitting escaping monsters, it is up to player to decide – he is free to attack.

Effects with burst/blast sizes of 3x3 up to 5x5 (so burst 1, burst 2, blast 3-5) are affecting everybody in the area. No more exact aiming with fireballs to get exactly the opponents. This again represents dynamic nature of combat – your friend my step half a meter ahead and suddenly get in range of your super-measured explosion. Explosion edges will not be 5'-exact anymore (so you describe fireball marks on the floor as heavy in the middle and lessing to the edges and circular, instead of square mark of exactly same intensity).

For larges bursts (not enough data at the moment to give exact examples), there are more options. For slightly larger, you should have a choice of affecting one area or two areas. For lot larger, 2 areas should be always affected. After that, 2-3 areas, 3 areas etc.

Wall effects should be placed between areas. Depending on size, you should be able to block one or more 'graph edges' between the areas with wall effect.

So far, things were simple. Now, for the tricky part...

Small shifts (1-2 squares) can be used to modify your tactical situation within area. Using such shift, you are able to get a flanking position against some foe with your friend in the same area. After getting flanking, I would assume it stays this way till something serious change in combat – if enemy moves, you are assumed to follow him with shifts. Another option of using shift is to get to 'safe' zone in area. If you are in safe zone, you can use move action to move to different area without provoking AoO. Anybody else can use shift targeting you and 'pulling' you back into non-safe zone (in reality just extending combat zone to your position). This means that with just single move action you are not able to escape if somebody follows you. With shift + move action you can do it on your action. Obviously, if you are in 'safe' mode, you cannot attack nor be attacked in melee with non-reach weapons (including not being able to AoO against somebody moving away from area). If somebody has threatening reach withing area, it is not possible to move to 'safe' zone in this area at all (if he is your enemy of course).

Short pushes/pulls/slides (1-2 squares) can be used to force your enemy into some of the above options. You can force enemy into 'safe' zone, so he won't be able to use AoO till his round. If you have done a pull/slide with reach weapon, you can pull enemy from safe zone to normal combat. You can stop him from flanking till his round – when he can spend move action to get back into flanking position (pushing to safe zone would also do it, but with extra benefit of allowing him/you to escape without AoO).

Long push/slides (3+ squares) can do the same as above, or force opponent into next area. Long pulls, can grab the enemy from next area and bring him to you. By default he is pushed/pulled to normal combat zone (not safe zone).

If area has cover, ranged attacks against it will be penalized by cover, attacks from it will not be (as long as move action is spent to “jump out, shoot and get back”).

All these rules are of course just guidelines – for rest use common sense. If bridge is surrounded by water and somebody want to cross the river, allow him to spend 3 move actions to do it and get to other side even if graph indicates it is possible only through bridge. If somebody can fly, he can spend most of his time in safe zone and it won't be possible for any non-flyer to drag him back to combat. Idea behind this system is to encourage narrating combat, not to fit it into very strict rules.

Some notes:

If line of defenders is blocking the area, it obviously should not be possible to exit on the opposite side from safe zone – you can use safe zone to retreat to your side, but not to advance (unless you have some kind of tumble/acrobatic skills).

It might be too powerful for burst 1 spells to affect entire area if it is packed full with people. Probably some limit (5-6) should be imposed on the number of targets. Additionally, by defaults small bursts won't affect people in safe zones, while bigger ones (burst 3 for sure, probably also burst 2) should hit also people in safe zone.

 

[AllisterH]

There's another handy way but it does change things a bit.

Use less minions and more elites/solo.

For example, say you want to have a levelled battle for your PCs (5 of them). You can potentially use 25 minions for that level and end up with having to track all of them (impossible without a board) or simply have 2 elites and a normal monster which are much easier to keep track without a board.

 

[psionotic]

I'm personally fine with the assumption of a grid because we generally use one, but I do wish that WotC, in the DMG, would have included a few pages on suggestions on running combats without one, that includes language about the most 'grid-dependent' abilities and conditions (sneak attacks, flanking, etc).

Probably won't happen, but anyway..

 

[BASHMAN]

With the area of effect attacks, a way that I do it in BASH! w/o minis:

A 2x2 area of effect will hit 2 targets, 1 if targets are spread out (or person is being super careful on aim), and 4 if targets are packed together tightly.

A 4x4 area of effect will hit 5 targets, 2 if targets are spread out (or shooter is being super careful), and 10 if targets are packed together tightly

A 6x6 area of effect hits 8 targets, 4 if targets are spread out, 16 if they are packed together.

An 8x8 hits 12 targets, 6 if they are spread out, 24 if they are packed tight.

A 10x10 hits 18 targets, 9 if spead out, 36 if packed in.

If the player is willing to include all his allies in the area of effect, give them the "packed in" rating, if they are willing to include 1-2 in the area of effect, give them the regular rating, and if they want to make sure they don't hit any friends, give them the spread out ratingl.

So the party is fighting a horde of 30 zombies, with a Fighter, Paladin, & Cleric holding up the front rank, and the Wizard and Ranger in the back rank. The Wizard wants to do Fireball, an 8x8 effect. DM asks, "How careful are you being? Do you want to hit the most zombies you can, or avoid hitting your friends at all cost?"

The Player decides to avoid friends at all cost, and gets 6 zombies, because those were the ones farthest from his friends.

Next round, the cleric casts a spell granting Resist Fire 10 to the fighter, who is being swarmed, and yells for the Wizard to let 'er rip!

Wizard declares a regular fireball (cannot risk hitting the Paladin or Cleric), and declares the Fighter is in the blast radius. The Fighter and 12 zombies are all blasted (and the fighter fortunately only took half damage, so the Resist fire 10 soaked the rest).

 

[rob626]

This discussion has taken place in a number of other threads. I advocate strongly against board/map/grid combat since it removes the immersion.

I think the OP is taking this a little further than it needs to go. If you emphasize the story aspect of the scene you can do pretty well without the specifics.

DM: Where do you want to throw your fireball?
Player: a) where i can catch the most orcs! OR
Player: b) so it flames the orcs fighting Bob but leaves Bob unscorched OR
Player: c) so that i catch the big orc in the middle and whoever else is around him

DM: "The fireball lands in the center of the room by the column. Looks like the four orc archers and the five orcs moving to reinforce the front lines all got caught! Roll some attacks and damage!"

The difference here is that the DM is asking the player to announce his intent and then adjudicating the result, turning the player's description into game mechanics. The intent of the spell was the players, the actual crunch of the effect was the DM's.

When running this, if you have an extra orc get hit with the fireball it's no biggie. Keep track of the total number of foes but be flexible with which one is where. So long as the players are enjoying the tension does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?

 

[neceros]

Interesting write up.


However, I'm a big advocate of a board. I can't see playing D&D without some sort of representation of movement and space. I find it's extremely easier to immerse one self when you can physically see where you are in relation to everything else.

Also, it helps the DM to present his or her vision of the surroundings.



To each their own.

 

[smathis]

The difference here is that the DM is asking the player to announce his intent and then adjudicating the result, turning the player's description into game mechanics. The intent of the spell was the players, the actual crunch of the effect was the DM's.

Well said. This is the biggest difference, IMO, in the approach to running with/without a mapgrid.

With a mapgrid, a DM can be more adversarial. If the DM wants to hit the players with a tactical "gotcha", that's fine because it was all laid out on the grid to begin with.

Without a mapgrid, it's imperative that the DM understand the PC's intent and reflect that back on the situation as closely as possible. Everyone has a different understanding of what's going on, so any sort of "aha!" is just going to cause an argument.

For example, if the fireball is going to hit other PCs, the player should know this and be allowed to adjust his decision.

With a mapgrid, it's his own fault for not counting the squares.

To each, their own. But I feel more immersed without a mapgrid. I like Mearls' suggestions a whole lot. And there are a number of other great suggestions on this thread and the other.

Thanks.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Rob's post is it for doing area of effect stuff.

Keep track of back row (missile range) and front row (melee range).

Mearl's advice to add descriptors to the enemies is amazing.

Add some "features" to the room that the PC's can affect (when we get 4e's stunt-like rules, we can probably figure out more succinctly how to do this).

All these things basically give you FFZ's combat system.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

I'm going to try using graph paper and descriptions to track combat. If that doesn't work, I'll go to the grid and counters (I'm too much of a skinflint -- and too poor -- to buy minis).

 

[Revinor]

I agree that what I have posted is bit heavy on the rules size and I have played 3e more or less in the way rob626 suggested - describing the options and letting the players choose. Unfortunately when seeing the 4th edition rule previews, especially push/pull rules, I felt like bit more structuring is required. I will still not keep up to all these rules to every single point - it is more a reference for general feel/possibilities in combat.