Gridless combats - How do you do it?

[Fenes]

I just sketch the battle scene on paper if needed, normally we simply say where we go and what we do. Even with a sketch, we don't place figures and such in most cases, we just use it at the start of the fight to visualise the combat.

 

[seskis281]

I'll just add, as we are at a diner break on my Sunday group running a long session, that we're using my whiteboard with a dry-erase marker as we plow through EGG's "Mound Island" adventure (part two of GaryCon Worldwide since we didn't finish the crawl last week), and it works quick and fine - kind of like a BB coach sketching plays out as the action happens - all we need is a rudimentary sense of the space and distances (approx. 5 feet around that foe, no others within that radius, about 12-14' away from you... etc.)

 

[GeorgeFields]

eyeball and tape measure (one of the small tailor type ones).

ditto that. Even with a grid, I always ignored it and used a tape measure. Having players count squares seemed to much like a kids' board game.

Chutes & Ladders, anyone?

 

[pawsplay]

Mapless combats are just grid combats where the map is on your brain, and may or may not have a coherent geometry. Except in some very particular genres, maps are usually better, if just as a reference point.

Going gridless is not hard. You just have to define facing, if you care. The rest you can do with a tap measure, or by "hopping" minis Monopoly style.

 

[jdrakeh]

Which, IMO, is a sign of lazy game designing. Anybody can come up with tabletop rules.

Note that the original D&D rulebooks contain only tabletop rules. You can add roleplay yourself (which many do) but there aren't any rules strictly supporting it by design.

 

[el-remmen]

I just like the grid because it is easier to draw rooms!

 

[Herobizkit]

Ya, 4e is geared towards wargaming with combat mechanics as central, or so it seems. Nothing at all wrong with that, if your cup of tea is minature wargaming with the heavy influence of MMORG and video "hero" concepts - limit breaks, automatic powers, etc.

What if you love the idea of the video "hero" concepts but don't want to deal with everyone skipping around the combat area like it was a skating rink? What does 4e hold for me?

If this is the way of the future, I'd only consider picking up 4e if each fight actually "meant" something, ala Final Fantasy Tactics. I mean, sure, the game does offer random encounters, but in general, a combat is essentially there as an obstacle to the story and is also somehow related to the story. Dungeon-crawling would be all but dead to me in a 4e campaign.

 

[prospero63]

I guess I am in the minority of gridless players that *never* ran into flanking or cover issues. Again, we just eyeballed it. Flanking was pretty minor. If you are on opposite sides, you flank. If you aren't, you don't. We all adhered to the KISS principle. When in doubt, if the majority of the table thought it was flanking, it probably was. Ultimately though, the DM would rule one way or the other.

As for cover, we eventually invested in a laser level. Shoot it across the whiteboard and it's pretty clear what you can/can't see or who does/doesn't have cover.

 

[the Jester]

As for cover, we eventually invested in a laser level. Shoot it across the whiteboard and it's pretty clear what you can/can't see or who does/doesn't have cover.

Say, that's a great idea. What do those things cost, about? I'm guessing I could find one at, say, Ace Hardware...

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not sure that there is a trick really. I have very good spatial imaganition, so if necessary I could keep the map in my head. But that's rarely what I do. Instead I picture the scene in my head, and try to interpret the proposition in light of the scene.

In a typical encounter, the PC's might be trying to rescue the merchant prince's daughter from the bullywog witchdoctor and his body gaurd. I reason that the body gaurd are acting to protect the priest. Hense, the default situation is, "if you want to get to the priest, you have to take some AoO's." Until the PC's do something tactically to open a path, I assume bullywog body gaurds get in the way. Opening a path might mean killing sufficient body gaurds that there are now more PC's than bodyguards, stating that they plan to force a path through line of bodygaurds, or if there is enough room stating that they plan to spend a round in a flanking manuever and another charging the priest. I'll judge the success or failure of such tactics by thier combat success and the number of remaining bullywogs.

Exactly what square anyone is in isn't really the issue. The real issue is who is adjacent to who. So long as you have an idea of who is adjacent to who, you can determine who can be flanked (character has no other ally adjacent is obviously eligible), who is available to intercept (not adjacent to anyone), who is guarded (two adjacent allies), and so forth. You then just sort of decide who can change thier adjacency or whether tactics have changed adjacencies and advice characters whether thier current tactic will draw an AoO.

Sometimes though, I'll play with a battlegrid. In particular, if I've designed the room to have tactical problems in it, I'll want to highlight that aspect of play. If the tactical problem is simple (one or two monsters, or no terrain, or tight quarters), I'll avoid the battlemat.

I did have a 1st edition DM that used a battlemat but put it behind the DM screen so that we couldn't see it. Basically, he was doing as above but using the map to concretely map out his ideas. That might work too.