D&D General On simulating things: what, why, and how?

[Oofta]

Agreed. Why does everything need to be "square" anyway? Can't we have a monster which "grid-size" reads 4x2?

Size could be listed as "Huge (4x2)".

Because the game doesn't assume facing. It assumes you're constantly turning and twisting, facing one direction one moment another the next.

If you did the 4x2, you could easily trap a creature facing one direction without the ability to turn 90 degrees.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Because the game doesn't assume facing. It assumes you're constantly turning and twisting, facing one direction one moment another the next.

If you did the 4x2, you could easily trap a creature facing one direction without the ability to turn 90 degrees.

Sure, but creatures can get into positions where they can't turn... it happens, so why not allow it on the grid.

Facing is an optional rule and better if you want more simulating-types games.

 

[Reynard]

Agreed. Why does everything need to be "square" anyway? Can't we have a monster which "grid-size" reads 4x2?

Size could be listed as "Huge (4x2)".

If I recall, 3E did that?

 

[Oofta]

Sure, but creatures can get into positions where they can't turn... it happens, so why not allow it on the grid.

Facing is an optional rule and better if you want more simulating-types games.

You'd hit all sorts of arguments. With just 4 PCs you could easily get situations where one person is at the tail ... but is still being attacked by a bite. In addition, I think you are overestimating how easy it would be to trap a creature in one direction. Theoretically you could "trap" a tiger so that it couldn't turn, but it's not at all realistic. People will be keeping distance between them and the teeth and claws of death, only lunging in to make a hit. Same with the tiger, it's keeping as much distance as it can from all opponents only to lunge. Potentially you could do it with a very long creature (such as a snake) but that's such a niche it's not worth it.

Same way a person standing there doesn't really take up a 5 ft square. Use some tape and mark out a square some time (we did it by counting tiles on our floor) and it's actually a decent approximation of space you'd want if you were swinging a weapon. Of course it's a simplification, but that happens all over the place.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I just don't know why some model has to exist of this. Its enough that the table agrees "this is the kind of fiction it is" (genre/tone/setting) and that should MOSTLY be enough. So, there's not a need for systems to tell us how far we can jump and etc. It is what it is. If we all see it as comprehensible and coherent with the rest of the fiction, that's all that matters. We saw the fictional position, we reasoned about things, we were able to make decisions and consequences followed in expected ways.

The problem here is quite often the table isn't in agreement to how these kinds of things work. That's the whole point in mechanics, to give everyone a common ground of how they'll expect things to work in a given case. That doesn't technically need to have any resemblance to reality, but unless there's an active reason to do otherwise, why not?

 

[DND_Reborn]

If I recall, 3E did that?

Honestly, I don't remember. I haven't looked at 3E since 2007...

You'd hit all sorts of arguments. With just 4 PCs you could easily get situations where one person is at the tail ... but is still being attacked by a bite. In addition, I think you are overestimating how easy it would be to trap a creature in one direction. Theoretically you could "trap" a tiger so that it couldn't turn, but it's not at all realistic. People will be keeping distance between them and the teeth and claws of death, only lunging in to make a hit. Same with the tiger, it's keeping as much distance as it can from all opponents only to lunge. Potentially you could do it with a very long creature (such as a snake) but that's such a niche it's not worth it.

Of course you'd have to make adjustments, such as:

• With facing, the bite could only attack targets on that front facing.
• Likewise, with 5 feet reach, someone at the tail couldn't attack the head, etc.
• You could change facing once on your turn. Or maybe it would count as 5 feet of your speed?
• Maybe you could use your reaction to chance facing one on someone else's turn?
• You can also "move in smaller spaces" by having it count as difficult terrain, so turning in a tight space would be possible I would think.

People should only be lunging in and then moving out when they attack. You only stay toe-to-toe with an opponent to press your attack.

FWIW, many creatures would probably still be square.

For the record, I never said it was easy to trap a creature, just that it is possible.

Same way a person standing there doesn't really take up a 5 ft square. Use some tape and mark out a square some time (we did it by counting tiles on our floor) and it's actually a decent approximation of space you'd want if you were swinging a weapon. Of course it's a simplification, but that happens all over the place.

Yeah, we've done that, too. But you put two people 5 feet away from each other and neither is likely to hit unless you move to the "edge" of your space due to the reach of most weapons, and then move back to "center" when your attack is over.

 

[Reynard]

Off topic, but: I'm still not convinced that the grid solves more problems than it creates, compared to everything from rough sketches to theater of the mind.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Off topic, but: I'm still not convinced that the grid solves more problems than it creates, compared to everything from rough sketches to theater of the mind.

The best thing about using a grid (IMO) is everyone can see, knows, and agrees on the exact position of everything (creatures, terrain, etc.). Distances, AoE, etc. can be accurately measured, and so forth.

ToM relies on trusting the DM's "vision" of the scene. Sketches can give you some of the above, but not all of it.

IME as long as everyone agrees on the grid rules, I've never had a problem with it, personally. I think some of the rules in 5E could be improved on, however.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So, which is a better way to model Captain America? Give him a power that lets him "Toss a car" once per combat, or grant him the power to toss a car whenever he wants and now he's pulling every bad guy's head off?

I'll point out this is not an unsolved problem in superhero games. Mind you, its solved by usually baking in genre emulation, but its not done by making things only apply quite that selectively (not, mind you, that it still supplies a simulationist desire because it has "setting rules" that no normal character can be aware of).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Agreed. Why does everything need to be "square" anyway? Can't we have a monster which "grid-size" reads 4x2?

Size could be listed as "Huge (4x2)".

There are certainly other grid-centric combat systems that do that (TFT comes to mind).