My DM doesn't want to use miniatures...

...in the new campaign we are starting Thursday night.

After playing 1E and 2E without miniatures, when 3E came out, we starting playing with miniatures. Although we all agreed that the tactical aspects were nice, we also agreed
that there was a "disconnect" from roleplaying (as mentioned in another recent thread
regarding miniatures), and that it fealt like we had moved from an RPG to a game of
Warhammer when a combat broke out.

After playtesting C&C, and playing in a current C&C campaign, our DM has decided that
we will not be using miniatures, or any sort of graphical representation for this new 3.5
game.

I know that there is a vocal group out there who says that miniatures are not required
to play 3.5, and I have read Monte Cook's old article regarding D&D without miniatures,
but I was wondering - how will this negatively impact our game ?

It seems that a lot of trust has to be put in the DM's ability (moreso than normal) to resolve combats without letting things slip through the cracks (NOT trust in his character, trust in his ability to keep up with a ton of minutia). When the cues are all verbal, things like attacks of opportunity, and 5 foot steps become all about how you describe what your character is doing, and how the DM describes NPC/opponent action....

.....I'm really just thinking of all the things that might slip through the cracks based on only using a verbal description instead of some kind of physical represenation. With C&C, it was easy, but with 3.5, it seems like a LOT is dependant on exact position: Monster attacks (tail slap), spells, AoO, Reach, etc.

What do you folks think ?

Good for him!!!

I never used minis and we had zero problems what so ever. Sure, you have to trust the DM, but if trusting the DM is an issue, then minis really are not your problem. I've found that tcombat goes so much quicker without minis or grids or anything like that. No set up or take down time, no perfect tactics from all the PCs, it flows nice and simple and was a lot more enjoyible for me.

I grew up on using mini's and got really used to it. That being said, I had a couple GMs that, while they could use mini's, chose not to, and everything ran very smoothly. I enjoy both styles, now.

I think it just depends on the GM. Both ways are cool.

Go for it! I've never used minis and never will. And yes, we do use AoO's, 5ft steps and whatnot. There hasn't been any difficulties - of course more trust is placed on the DM, but thats ok IMO. And I don't feel we've sacrificed any of the tactical aspects.

I've never understood people who say "It requires more trust of the DM" and mean that as a bad thing. As far as I'm concerned, requiring more trust of the DM is a great thing. If you don't trust your DM, why are you playing with him?

I say go for it. I myself only use minis for really complex fights, where there's just no other way to keep track of dozens of different opponents and/or really odd environmental features. For anything less, it's narrative all the way.

I dont consider it a trust thing. I have done both and while I agree using Minis can "disconnect" you to roleplaying, instead focusing on the tactical aspect when you dont use minis, many feats *seem* to start losing thier effectiveness. Esp Combat Reflexes. Thats just my experience anyway.

hero4hire said:

I dont consider it a trust thing. I have done both and while I agree using Minis can "disconnect" you to roleplaying, instead focusing on the tactical aspect when you dont use minis, many feats *seem* to start losing thier effectiveness. Esp Combat Reflexes. Thats just my experience anyway.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's true, IME, and it brings up a good point.

If a DM isn't going to use minis (or isn't going to use them most of the time), he should do what Melkor's DM did and tell people ahead of time. There are feats--such as Cobmat Reflexes, as you mentioned--that work better with minis and a battlemap. They aren't useless without 'em, but some players may feel cheated if they take those feats and don't get to use them. So long as they know in advance, however, they can plan accordingly.

Mouseferatu said:

Actually, that's true, IME, and it brings up a good point.

If a DM isn't going to use minis (or isn't going to use them most of the time), he should do what Melkor's DM did and tell people ahead of time. There are feats--such as Cobmat Reflexes, as you mentioned--that work better with minis and a battlemap. They aren't useless without 'em, but some players may feel cheated if they take those feats and don't get to use them. So long as they know in advance, however, they can plan accordingly.

Click to expand...

I agree that it should be mentioned ahead of time. But I also tell my players to mention the feats they have especilaly ones like these so I can make sure they are worth while. Also, occasionally I'll include battle that would make them useful even if the Players don't have he feats. I try to do that with skills as well.

I commend those of you who manage to model 3E combat without miniatures. I can't imagine how I would do attacks of opportunity and flanking without them. Still, I don't enjoy using miniatures so if there are ways to run the system without them, I would love to hear about how they work.

My gaming style is not one that is oriented towards miniature combat so if there is a scaled-back yet balanced version of the combat system or a way of keeping all that geometry in one's head, I'm all ears.

I use miniatures in my combats sometimes, and not in others. Sometimes it depends on how lazy I am feeling, but it's a matter of complexity - simple fights (with few battlefield obstacles) are handled very easily sans minis; more complex stuff, particularly if I want to pointedly present battlefield tactics of precise formations, etc..., I like to use minis; very complex battles, with large amounts of shifting and moving terrain and combatants, I tend to go back to verbal deascriptions, because there's too much for the battlemap to model.

So, yeah, not a problem at without minis.