Has anyone done variant combat rules that remove the 5 ft. grid?

Ever since 3e came out, I have been less than thrilled with the combat system. We have a small table and small children, so we are *not* going to be using miniatures. Nor do I even enjoy using them -- if I wanted to play a miniatures game, I'd start buying Warhammer. I will admit that miniatures do aid the visualization of scenes somewhat. However, I find that they detract much more than they add -- they slow down combat and they detract from the roleplaying aspects of the game.

The specific reason I'm posting this question is another thread in this forum. Drunkmoogle wants to create a prestige class that gains the ability to use a 10 ft. step. Several people have posted saying that such an ability would be way too powerful under the 3e rules. Now, if making *that* small a change breaks the rules system, I say that there is not something wrong with the idea. There is something wrong with the rules.

The obvious thought (to me) is then to change the rules. However, removing the taint of miniatures from 3e is *not* a small task. Indeed, the rules are so permeated with the hack 'n' slash miniatures rules that I'm not even sure where one would start on a redesign. Miniatures rules are hardly necessary -- most systems on the market *other* than d20 get along without them just fine.

However, I'm not going to launch into such a huge project lightly. So I ask y'all, who are experts in the field of variant rules, if such a thing has already been done. Is there a variant d20 combat system out there, which gets rid of some of the silly aspects of 3e, like space, reach, and the movement rules?

Hey,

I've basically removed all the movement rules from the D&D game I run. We have to game at the local gaming store & only get to game for a couple of hours. It's way too hard to attempt to set up an accurate grid, put out all the minatures in the exact correct location, then clean it all up before the store closes. We still use some minatures, one for each character & several generic figs for various creatures, but more so to give everyone an overview of what is going in the area around them, than any completly accurate measurements.

The secret is approximation (many rules-lawyers might faitn at this). My system isn't accurate down to the last 5' square, but it works for my game.

Simply divide movement into a few categories:

1.Adjusting (5'step): this works like the rules say and since the only movement you can take is this 5' step, you really don't need minatures to keep track of how far the rogue is from the ogre. This gets a bit tricky at times, but after a while I can keep track of everything in my head.

2. Single Move (30 feet)
3. Double Move (60 feet)
4. Run (120 Feet):
Whenever I refer to distances in my game in terms of how far away something is from their current location, I use the term single move to refer to anything more than 5' away but less than 30. Double Move for between 30-60' and multiples of Run for those above 60' away. I my players have speed less or more than 30 they know to compensate from my terminology.

Actually, trying to put this simple system down on paper is showing me just how complicated it is to explain.

In a nut shell I don't talk in terms of Move, Double Move, Run, 2 Range Increments, etc. I never use the actual distance (xx number of feet). Since my players don't fight this it works out quite well. I simple base everything on base speed of 30' and a lt crossbow's range increment. Those party members that have a greater or lesser speed/range I adjust on the fly, but don't actually do the math.

Essentially my movement system is called "Guestimate 4.0" My players like my game, trust me as a DM and know I'm not going to use the rules just to try to shortchange them. Thus we have fun every Wed & no one takes an half-hour to argue whether the orge was at the limit of the 1st range category or the beginning of the second.

Best advice? Don't try to take minis out of the system. Take the wargamer out of your innner game. There's nothing wrong with wargaming, but as in your situation comprimises have to be made. Is it better to know if the hill giant is 500' away or 505' away? Gamings about having a good time, not practicing land survey techniques.

This thing got a spell check?
Vraille Darkfang

Cyberzombie said:

However, I'm not going to launch into such a huge project lightly. So I ask y'all, who are experts in the field of variant rules, if such a thing has already been done. Is there a variant d20 combat system out there, which gets rid of some of the silly aspects of 3e, like space, reach, and the movement rules?

Click to expand...

I always wanted to devise a set of movement rules that made movement a random factor. Mostly, this is for my WW2 game. For example, a character is behind a house and want to rush across a street to jump behind a wall. Under the normal rules (with or without miniatures) you can measure the distance and know, with 100% certainty, that you can or can't make it across in one round.

What I'd like is to replace a creature's movement ability with a Movement Bonus and set the DC by how far things are apart. Double move would give you a bonus. If you fail to make the DC you are caught in the open. The same would be for charging, if you miss your roll, your turn ends with you on your way and you opponent can flee or countercharge, whatever. You could use the same Movement Bonus rules for chases and races.

Its just an idea and I'm not sure how to handle 5ft stepping.


Aaron (thinking out loud)

Yes

My own variant combat system doesn't use a grid at all, real or imaginary. However, "space", reach, and movement all still apply--they just work differnetly given the different model.

Hey CZ. You never returned my emails about EOM.

And that's actually topical. I think that if I were to come up with a combat system designed to work without a grid, I'd need to have sort of ambiguous ranges. The range you are at from the center of combat changes your options.

Ranges:
Melee - Within 10 ft. of a foe.
Close - About 30 ft. from the field of combat.
Medium - About 150 ft. from the field of combat.
Long - About 800 ft. from the field of combat.

Now, there can be multiple 'fields' in any single battle. Usually there'll just be one, and we'll worry about the complications of multiple fields later. I know this is going to start to sound kinda like that old Star Wars d20 dogfight rules.

If you are in melee, normally you can attack anyone else in melee. You might have to make some kind of 'Engage' check to see if you can keep in close combat with that foe. Not sure what would affect this check, but we could think of something. It'd be some sort of opposed check.

If you're in melee, you can try to attack someone at Close range, but the engage check is more difficult.

You can move to different ranges with a Move check. Moving from melee to long is practically impossible without magic. If you move to Medium or Long range and then try to engage a foe, if you succeed, you create a new field of combat, and you only have to worry about that area if other people come and join the fight.

Terrain and other specifics that make locations cool would be a little harder to work in, but I'm sure we could find a way.

Then again, when I game, I just sketch out a rough map, use letters to delineate who is where, and erase whenever someone moves. There's practically no scale involved. Very little metagamery.

RangerWickett said:

Hey CZ. You never returned my emails about EOM.

Click to expand...

Well, after a certain point, I stopped receiving emails from either you or Hellhound. I've still gotten paid for the first EoM, so I can't complain too much...

RangerWickett said:

And that's actually topical. I think that if I were to come up with a combat system designed to work without a grid, I'd need to have sort of ambiguous ranges. The range you are at from the center of combat changes your options.

Ranges:
Melee - Within 10 ft. of a foe.
Close - About 30 ft. from the field of combat.
Medium - About 150 ft. from the field of combat.
Long - About 800 ft. from the field of combat.

Click to expand...

Hmm. I like that up to a point; I'd put melee up to 15 ft., though. I've had one friend show how anyone within 15 ft. of him while he holds a rapier is in melee with him. Then I had a martial artist (don't remember the type) show the same thing bare handed.

However, that's details. I like the concept in general. I think Palladium had something like that, if I remember correctly.

RangerWickett said:

Now, there can be multiple 'fields' in any single battle. Usually there'll just be one, and we'll worry about the complications of multiple fields later. I know this is going to start to sound kinda like that old Star Wars d20 dogfight rules.

Click to expand...

Totally unfamiliar with those, but I'll take your word on it.

RangerWickett said:

If you are in melee, normally you can attack anyone else in melee. You might have to make some kind of 'Engage' check to see if you can keep in close combat with that foe. Not sure what would affect this check, but we could think of something. It'd be some sort of opposed check.

Click to expand...

That's a good idea even without simplified combat. Leaving combat is not as simple as *saying* you are leaving combat... That in mind, I'd change it to "Disengage" -- sort of like what they already have for Grapple, maybe.

RangerWickett said:

If you're in melee, you can try to attack someone at Close range, but the engage check is more difficult.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Okay, that might remove my desire to have melee out to 15 ft. If you can possibly engage a target within 30 ft., then it would fit my idea of realism pretty well.

RangerWickett said:

You can move to different ranges with a Move check. Moving from melee to long is practically impossible without magic. If you move to Medium or Long range and then try to engage a foe, if you succeed, you create a new field of combat, and you only have to worry about that area if other people come and join the fight.

Click to expand...

Makes sense. You could have penalties for short legs and heavy loads, and bonuses for long legs and no loads. It might be useful to break Long range into two categories, just for more utility.

RangerWickett said:

Terrain and other specifics that make locations cool would be a little harder to work in, but I'm sure we could find a way.

Click to expand...

That could modify the roll, like short legs and heavy loads do. A mountain could have a *big* penalty -- unless you're a stone giant, of course...

For a while when 3e first came out, I thought of using clear vinyl circles under the minis. Each would have little polar-coordinate "squares" around the mini indicating 5' away, 10' away, etc. When a mini moved around, the whole piece of vinyl would move.

In other words, instead of a single grid, on which everyone moved, each individual would be the center of a grid and so there would be multiple relative grids instead of one absolute grid. But, this doesn't work so well for things with long ranges, or for spells with large areas of effect (such as entangle).

Still, I think about trying it once in a while to see how it might work.

But, we always use a battle mat. We have a lot of room though.

Dave

Hi Cyberzombie,

You might want to have a look at SNAP (Simplified Narrative Action Plugin) which is a neat attempt at writing a whole lot of stuff out of D&D combat. I've got the early version and read the most recent version. IMO the early version is much better. I'll upload a copy here for you to look at. It comes from March 2002 and I rather fancy trying a game using it.

(can't attach stuff for some reason at the moment, I'll attach it later)

Plane Sailing said:

(can't attach stuff for some reason at the moment, I'll attach it later)

Click to expand...

Sounds cool. Please try again. Or you can email it to me at cyberzombie AT yahoo DOT com.

Here it is.

Cheers