Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[Raven Crowking]

Like I said before, gridless combat is a skill that a lot of people find hard. So there is no argument there.

Prior to 3e, I never met anyone who found gridless combat hard, despite playing in several American states and Canada. (Shrug) With 3e+, I have met many people who find playing without a grid hard...including people who previously had no difficulties in doing so, and specifically because of an expectation that precise positioning would be important, even when it explictly was not.

So, my viewpoint is a little different here. My viewpoint is that WotC-D&D trains players and GMs to view gridless combat as difficult.

YMMV, though.


RC

 

[D'karr]

So, my viewpoint is a little different here. My viewpoint is that WotC-D&D trains players and GMs to view gridless combat as difficult.

YMMV, though.


RC

Perhaps. I obviously don't feel that way but good point nonetheless.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There is no reason to expect agreement on everything. After all, we have different experiences, so we are naturally going to be seeing the game through a different "experiential filter".


RC

 

[Stormonu]

In 1e, you typically had to know who was adjacent to whom, for the simple reason that you have to be in melee range to make a melee attack.

Opportunity attacks? Fairly simple to figure out considering that you should already know who's adjacent to whom (as above).

To be fair, there were some additional concerns even back in 1E because it had facing rules; shield side attacks, rear attacks, max # of attackers per target (which still carries over to the latest edition).

You could conceivably replace the grid with a skill system of sorts to determine tactical advantage/disadvantage (i.e., a Stealth check to get behind someone, an Athletic check to move into flanking or charge, etc.), but that in itself is a kludge.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You could conceivably replace the grid with a skill system of sorts to determine tactical advantage/disadvantage (i.e., a Stealth check to get behind someone, an Athletic check to move into flanking or charge, etc.), but that in itself is a kludge.

Not if it is part of the actual system.

 

[Jhaelen]

Prior to 3e, I never met anyone who found gridless combat hard, despite playing in several American states and Canada.

I guess, you should try playing in Germany, then

No matter what rpg, all of our games tended (and tend!) to include at least one player who is a quarrelsome rules-lawyer who will always disagree with the DM where his character currently is, trying to force a roll-back:
"No, I'm on the other side of the door!"
"I was saying I wanted to take a look around the corner, not walk around it."
"I would never have tried getting behind the monster, had I realized I had to get that close!"
..., yadda, yadda, ...

It's always been a pain for us to try to play without at least _some_ indication of general positions. It doesn't have to be as accurate as a battlemap, though. A short sketch would often do, but using minis (or some other tokens, e.g. dice) was (and is) preferable.

 

[Imaro]

My children started swimming proficiently about a year ago. Was the swimming difficult to them before because of the water? No, but because of inexperience. But for them to get comfortable, experienced and proficient in swimming they had to get in the water... There is no amount of theory that was going to change that.

Interesting example... so going by your philosophy, it will be no harder for them to swim in a raging river than it is in a 3ft pool of gently swaying water, right? I mean with enough experience they will be able to swim against currents that could carry an elephant away, as essentially they are just swimming in water... correct?

 

[Wiseblood]

You must kluge your combat because you find the RAW unsatisfying. There are options though. Many would say play something else. It seems clear you do not want to do so.

If I was in your shoes I would take the sum of my laziness and apathy multiply it by any resistance that might be put forth by other players and decide if that was a bigger PITA than atteplting a kluge. Of course I still might fail at kluge-ing.

 

[D'karr]

Interesting example... so going by your philosophy, it will be no harder for them to swim in a raging river than it is in a 3ft pool of gently swaying water, right? I mean with enough experience they will be able to swim against currents that could carry an elephant away, as essentially they are just swimming in water... correct?

Good one, I see what you did there. Where are the "applause" smileys when you need them?

Your hyperbole is mildly amusing but I'm not really that interested in it since once again it seems like baiting. I think I've already made my point and opinion abundantly clear. Several others have done so too. I'm just not that interested in seeing the thread devolve into another "edition war" argument framed by exaggeration.

If you want to compare 4e combat and going gridless to a raging river have fun at it, I'm sure someone will bite. Good luck with that one.

 

[Raven Crowking]

@ D'karr: Whether or not Imaro's post is "baiting" (I do not believe it is), it does demonstrate the basic problem in the reasoning being presented. Effectively:

A is like X
X is not hard
Therefore, A is not hard, either​

The syllogism is faulty because, while A is like X, the qualities that make X "not hard" are not necessarily shared by A.

I think it is easier (and more correct) to recognize that A is harder than X, but that the degree to which it is harder may well be situational and/or in dispute.

YMMV.



RC