Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[IronWolf]

When there's a grid, you move your mini and everyone knows where you are without having to speak. Can't do that without the grid.

Even with a grid I need to speak to let the DM know what my actions are.

Without a grid when I say my character is moving to the critter that just cast a spell to attack him everyone in my group knows where my character is, even without a grid or mini representing the combat.

 

[Crothian]

Here's an actual system for playing 4e grid-less/mini-less... Fluid 4e: Gridless Combat. (It does seem a little complex.

Yes, it looks complex. That makes me think that there is not a lot of trust between the DM and players because they need to have so many rules and everything spelled out for everyone. Like I don't think we need a rule that specifically spells out characters will avoid AoO when possible. It takes a RBDM to do otherwise.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't see it as complicated or know what offering a blow by blow instructions will do. there is not a lot of difference between the two.

While I'm of the mindset that people can play 4e anyway they want, grid or no grid, I will disagree with this statement.

If you decide to play 4e without a grid, you are giving up some of the precision of the game, and some powers are dependent on that precision.

As an example, let's say I have a power that does a slide 3 vs another power that does a slide 4. Without a grid, the effectiveness of the slide power is often up to DM interpretation as there is some vagueness to position (are you 3 squares away from the burning lava or 4 squares?).

So if a player says, I use my power to slide that guy 3 squares and knock him into the lava...the DMs interpretation of the position is what determines whether 3 was good enough or just not quite.

Further depending on the DMs style that slide 4 power may not be useful at all, or may be extremely useful because its such a bigger slide than the other powers in the game that the DM often lets it get away with much more.

In a grid, the effectiveness of 3 slide vs 4 slide is based on the board, either he's 3 squares to the lava or 4. Its more impartial to the DMs style.



HOWEVER (here's the big butt)...there is nothing innately wrong with that. Gridless combat can be quicker to setup, might even force the players to use imagination more, and everyone in the game may be fine with the DM's interpretation to keep the game going. Its a perfectly valid way to play.

Valid...but Different.

Grid vs Gridless is a different way to play. And the more a gameset relies of abilities that use precision (and 4e has quite a lot of these) the more different the two become.

 

[Crothian]

If you decide to play 4e without a grid, you are giving up some of the precision of the game, and some powers are dependent on that precision.

Yes, lack of precision is what happens. Others talked about that so I didn't feel the need to repeat their points.

So if a player says, I use my power to slide that guy 3 squares and knock him into the lava...the DMs interpretation of the position is what determines whether 3 was good enough or just not quite.

This is why I say trust is importance and communication are important. A DM can communicate how far the bad guys are from lava (or whatever) and the players can inquire on that if the DM doesn't mention it.

DM style does matter. I said early on that gridless is not for all DMs and every group.

 

[Wik]

Really, it comes down to this. Grids offer the players much more input or "power" than gridless. A gridless game gives GMs more of the processing power and control over a game's pacing.

As someone who switched to gridless for our d6 mini campaign, I am getting all too familiar with this - it is much easier for me to set up the scenes I want to happen, simply because I have more control on positioning than the players do. If I want a player to be in the path of a tidal wave, I can do so, and the players can't "look at the grid" and realize I'm off course.

I used to see that as a strength - I could keep games fast and fun. Now, I'm not so sure - since it's much easier to have what I want to happen, happen... I'm not getting faced with the challenge of winging it on the fly (which is what I love about gaming!)

It is entirely a play style. But I for one would never play 4e without it - there are far too many positioning powers or area attacks that would be unfairly ruled out (even subconsciously) based on what I as a GM wanted to happen in the encounter.

For what it's worth, though, I *do* kind of want to play a gridless MINIs game of 4e. As in, there is a battlemat, and there are minis, but there are no squares or hexes. Everything (range, movement, etc) is instead measured out by rulers, like Warhammer. While it would add a layer of complexity, I think it'd be kind of a fun variant.

 

[Votan]

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).

It can also lead to long turns if a player wants to assess all of the actions that they may or may not be able to take. This is non-optimal and, in this sense, minatures might make things go a lot faster as the tactically oriented folks don't have to go down a shopping list.

 

[Fanaelialae]

IMO it's always been the case that grid-less games grant the DM a good deal more power regarding scenarios where positioning is significant. If a 2e or 3e wizard tosses a fireball or lightning bolt in a grid-less game, it is largely DM's fiat that determines how many orcs are caught in the blast. Same with 4e. IME, that's part and parcel for how a grid-less D&D game works.

As for an example of grid-less play, it's been ages since I've done it but I think I can give a simple example.


DM: You open the door to see three orcs with large axes gathered around a table at the far northern end of the room. There's a pie on the table. It's a 30 x 30' stone room with a roaring fire pit against the eastern wall. The orcs snarl and move to defend their pie. Roll for initiative.

Fighter: I charge the orcs, trying to get as many as I can within sword's reach.

DM: The orc narrowly dodges your swing. You're adjacent to two of the orcs. The one on your right is marked.

Ranger: I stand in the doorway to block their escape. I focus my attention on my target and arc a pair of arrows over the fighter at the orc he just attacked. Twin Strike and Quarry.

DM: You nail him soundly in the shoulder. Blood begins to soak his jerkin instantly. The orc looks pissed (and he's bloodied)!

Wizard: I move over to the nearest corner of the eastern wall and ready an action to attack the first enemy that moves adjacent to me with Thunderwave.

DM: Okay. The orc on the fighter's right side is attacking him. The orc on his left moves carefully away (shifts) and charges the ranger. The remaining orc carefully makes his way around the table and then charges the wizard.

Wizard: That sets off my readied action. I want to Thunderwave him into the fire pit.

DM: Go for it...


That encounter is a bit sparse on detail, and I left out the rolls as they aren't especially relevant, but hopefully you get the idea. I don't see why you would need to do grid-less combat in 4e any differently than any other edition of D&D. I don't contest that you can do it differently if you prefer (such as in Imaro's link), but I really don't see why you would need to.

 

[D'karr]

IMO it's always been the case that grid-less games grant the DM a good deal more power regarding scenarios where positioning is significant. If a 2e or 3e wizard tosses a fireball or lightning bolt in a grid-less game, it is largely DM's fiat that determines how many orcs are caught in the blast. Same with 4e. IME, that's part and parcel for how a grid-less D&D game works.

<snip>

I don't see why you would need to do grid-less combat in 4e any differently than any other edition of D&D. I don't contest that you can do it differently if you prefer (such as in Imaro's link), but I really don't see why you would need to.

Very good example and exactly my point, and the point that I have seen Crothian make. If you trust your DM and the DM trusts the players you don't need all this added complexity. And you can do "gridless" combat with the same simplicity as it was done in previous editions. You can do it differently and add all these "positioning" rules, you don't need to. In addition, do you do that with other systems that you play gridless?

If you didn't mind that 3 instead of 4 orcs were under the blast radius of a fireball in 1e, 2e, or 3e, then why worry if a push power catches 3 instead of 4 orcs? If you didn't mind that your character moved 6 inches in 1e and didn't reach the furthest orc but got in the face of the 2 closest, why should it matter if your character moved 6 squares in 4e and didn't reach the furthest orc but got in the face of the 2 closest? If you didn't mind that in this 50x50 room the lighting bolt that you cast in 1e only hit the same target twice, why does it matter if in 4e the thunderwave pushed the furthest character into the fire pit but did not push the 2 nearest ones?

If you trusted your DM to handle combat without minis and battlemats in 1e, then why the hang up now?

You can make gridless combat as complicated as you want, but if you're going to do that and add all these positioning rules wouldn't it make more sense to just use a grid? Then again you might want to use gridless for expediency, and in that case you can run it exactly the same as you had done before.

Gridless/battlematless combat has always had a large degree of DM ad-hoc rulings attached to it no matter the edition, unless you wanted to go and create all these positioning rules like those seen in the link above.

There is no added difficulty, if I was able to determine that 3 instead of 5 orcs were under the blast of a fireball in 1e, I can just as easily determine if 3 instead of 5 orcs are under the blast radius of a 4e dragonborn's breath. If don't see the added difficulty in one over the other.

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC, when you say "no grid" do you mean no visual representation of any kind, or a visual representation but not one used as a classic gridded battlemat?

Neither of those encounters required any sort of visual representation, apart from textual/spoken ones.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Really, it comes down to this. Grids offer the players much more input or "power" than gridless. A gridless game gives GMs more of the processing power and control over a game's pacing.

My experience differs from yours.

A grid can be used to empower players. It is not the only way to do so, however, and a gridless system can be just as empowering as a grid system.


RC