Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[D'karr]

Ignoring stuff is easy... unless it's important. A Warlord built around numerous movement based powers is not as easy to adjudicate in a grid-less game as a 3e fighter would be...

So I think the question is how integrated is positioning in the system and what parts of the system does it effect when ignored on both the DM and Players side.

If the DM and players have already decided that the precision of the grid is not necessary then the warlord using that power is handled the same way. So it requires the same amount of "work" as any other movement. If players can go from not engaged in melee to engaged in melee, a power that shifts can change that or allow a flank. I don't see what the issue is. It requires work, like in any other version of D&D. Is it impossible? No. Is it difficult? Not really if the DM is willing to work it out. For the inexperienced it takes some time to get used to but how did people do it in previous editions? The exact same way.

 

[Imaro]

I've been keeping out of this thread for the most part as I was having a hard time if we were still talking 4Ed or not - since it seems we are simply talking going mini-less, I can weigh in on that.

It's not hard going mini-less. We very, very rarely use minis in our regular 3.5 game - in fact, I don't think we've used minis yet in this current campaign. The scene flows without having to break and move a little plastic figure around and it's easy to know where you are in relation to enemy combatants using a mental image.

Characters in this campaign use trip attacks, sunder attempts, grappling and attack of ops happen just as if we had a full battle map setup. It all flows pretty naturally, as mentioned, probably faster than if we were moving pieces of plastic all around. I don't believe anyone in our group would consider it more difficult.

Now this style of play may not be for everyone - but it works for us and I feel we do it without losing out on any number of "special attacks" or combat options that are available to us through the 3.5 rule set.

We are actually diuscussing whether there are higher or lower difficulty levels when using different editions to go grid-less/mini-less. Personally I believe so... I think 4e is harder than 3.5 and I believe 3.5 & 4e are both magnitudes harder than BECMI... but others are arguing there is no change in the diffculty of going miniless in different editions.

Note: In the actions you mentioned, the only one that really relies on detailed positioning is an AoO (and in most situations it's a binary yes or no answer dependent upon relationship between attacker and defender, not a maneuver that allows for an exact number of squares that should be shifted, pushed, slid, etc.). Just thought that was an interesting point.

 

[Imaro]

If the DM and players have already decided that the precision of the grid is not necessary then the warlord using that power is handled the same way. So it requires the same amount of "work" as any other movement. If players can go from not engaged in melee to engaged in melee, a power that shifts can change that or allow a flank. I don't see what the issue is. It requires work, like in any other version of D&D. Is it impossible? No. Is it difficult? Not really if the DM is willing to work it out. For the inexperienced it takes some time to get used to but how did people do it in previous editions? The exact same way.

Yet there is way less emphasis and actions that depend on positioning in certain editions than there is in others thus in those with less (or less emphasis on it) it is less work and thus easier... in those where there are more actions like this (or more emphasis on it) it is more work (whether in complexity or in number of times it comes up) and thus more difficult.

 

[Scribble]

Wrong, one is the basis of player's character, which if ignored... can neuter the character (It is not an incentive, but something that intrinsically ties positioning into the game rules.)... the other is something the GM may or may not place in an encounter and thus if ignored does not directly affect the viability of a character... The are two different things.

I don't agree.

In both cases ignoring the precise positioning means ignoring the level of tactical advantages/disadvantages that comes with knowing it.

The 4e Warlord has a lot of powers that do cool stuff if you know the details of the movement. I'm not arguing it doesn't. These types of things are reasons I WANT to track position with minis.

But if the in game effects that happen based on that precise knowledge doesn't interest you? Why would you be upset about ignoring them?

In 2e if I fire off a fireball- if I'm cool with the DM just saying "You hit 4 of them" I won't care if a mini could have told me I actually would have hit 5.

 

[D'karr]

I don't agree.

In both cases ignoring the precise positioning means ignoring the level of tactical advantages/disadvantages that comes with knowing it.

The 4e Warlord has a lot of powers that do cool stuff if you know the details of the movement. I'm not arguing it doesn't. These types of things are reasons I WANT to track position with minis.

But if the in game effects that happen based on that precise knowledge doesn't interest you? Why would you be upset about ignoring them?

In 2e if I fire off a fireball- if I'm cool with the DM just saying "You hit 4 of them" I won't care if a mini could have told me I actually would have hit 5.

Bingo.

 

[Imaro]

Hey for those claiming it's simple... here's a thread where someone is requesting help on running 4e mini-less and grid-less.... http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/278078-off-grid-d-d-4th-edition-without-minis-maps.html

So if it's as easy as previous editions, someone please go over there and let him know what to do and how to do it. So far all he's gotten is "It's not worth it posts" and a vague post about trust and communication... Why doesn't someone step up and give him some examples or even blow by blow instructions on running 4e without mins or a grid. I know I'd be interested in reading it... instead of the vagueness this topic always gets.

 

[Imaro]

I don't agree.

In both cases ignoring the precise positioning means ignoring the level of tactical advantages/disadvantages that comes with knowing it.

The 4e Warlord has a lot of powers that do cool stuff if you know the details of the movement. I'm not arguing it doesn't. These types of things are reasons I WANT to track position with minis.

But if the in game effects that happen based on that precise knowledge doesn't interest you? Why would you be upset about ignoring them?

In 2e if I fire off a fireball- if I'm cool with the DM just saying "You hit 4 of them" I won't care if a mini could have told me I actually would have hit 5.

So you see no difference between the amount of work necessary to continuously (perhaps even every round) adjudicate and approximate a players stable of powers as well as tracking their effects on your monsters/NPC's and his allies... vs. tracking a single rock in an encounter? I'm not even sure what to say... I guess we are at an impasse.

 

[FireLance]

So you see no difference between the amount of work necessary to continuously (perhaps even every round) adjudicate and approximate a players stable of powers as well as tracking their effects on your monsters/NPC's and his allies... vs. tracking a single rock in an encounter? I'm not even sure what to say... I guess we are at an impasse.

The trick is to separate the ability to keep track of accurate positions from the ability to adjudicate the effect of movement powers on the fly. Doing the former makes the latter unnecessary, but without doing the former, the DM could do the latter by simply saying, "Yes," "Yes, but..." "No," or "Roll a die."

For example:

"I have a power that allows me to shift 3 squares. Can I flank the orc?" "Sure."

"I can move my speed before attacking. Can I reach the priest?" "Yes, but you will provoke an opportunity attack from the gnoll if you do."

"I can push the wizard 4 squares. Is that enough to send him into the fire pit?" "No, he's taking care to stay away from that." or "I'd say there's a 25% chance that he's close enough. You do it if you can roll 16+ on a d20."

This means that the effect of movement abilities will need to be filtered through DM judgement and become less precise and objective than they would if there was a battlemat. To be frank, this has shades of "Mother may I?" which I'm not too happy with, but I could live with it if I feel I can trust the DM to be fair (if not always accurate).

 

[Imaro]

The trick is to separate the ability to keep track of accurate positions from the ability to adjudicate the effect of movement powers on the fly. Doing the former makes the latter unnecessary, but without doing the former, the DM could do the latter by simply saying, "Yes," "Yes, but..." "No," or "Roll a die."

For example:

"I have a power that allows me to shift 3 squares. Can I flank the orc?" "Sure."

"I can move my speed before attacking. Can I reach the priest?" "Yes, but you will provoke an opportunity attack from the gnoll if you do."

"I can push the wizard 4 squares. Is that enough to send him into the fire pit?" "No, he's taking care to stay away from that." or "I'd say there's a 25% chance that he's close enough. You do it if you can roll 16+ on a d20."

This means that the effect of movement abilities will need to be filtered through DM judgement and become less precise and objective than they would if there was a battlemat. To be frank, this has shades of "Mother may I?" which I'm not too happy with, but I could live with it if I feel I can trust the DM to be fair (if not always accurate).

Yes, and more to my point... the fact that these situations are bound to arise more often in 4e than in say 3.5, or BECMI... would indicate that it is more difficult to run a 4e game mini-less or grid-less than it would be in those systems since you are called upon to make more ad-hoc rulings and estimations as well as keep track of more things to make said calls fair and accurate.

 

[D'karr]

Yes, and more to my point... the fact that these situations are bound to arise more often in 4e than in say 3.5, or BECMI... would indicate that it is more difficult to run a 4e game mini-less or grid-less than it would be in those systems since you are called upon to make more ad-hoc rulings and estimations as well as keep track of more things to make said calls fair and accurate.

Nope, most DMs I've played with, and players too, have had the ability to talk, drink, chew gum and walk at the same time.

If they are doing it now with any version of the rules there is really no BIG LEAP, as you seem to think, between one and the other.