3.5 Without Minis?

[Odhanan]

AoOs are the reason why d20 needs minis.

Actually no, it doesn't need minis.

AoOs? Ask: "Am I in contact with the guy?"
DM: "Since you attacked him with your sword last turn, you are in contact, yes."
Then: "So, since I'm in contact with the guy, do I get an AoO, since he's casting a spell?"
DM: "Sure!"

I mean, if you have a DM who's fair to start with, asking questions like this is sort of a role-playing 101. With just a few sessions like this, you just learn how to describe your own actions, to be precise about them while enhancing the flavor of your verbal expression, as well as to trust your DM to do the same thing with the right adjudications from time to time.

I mean, that's not that complicated, believe me!

 

[blargney the second]

My minis get cold & whiny if I don't hold them regularly.
-blarg

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I don't use minis, either. I occasionally scribble out a map so the PCs don't have to rely entirely on my descriptive talents.

 

[Rothe]

Actually no, it doesn't need minis.

AoOs? Ask: "Am I in contact with the guy?"
DM: "Since you attacked him with your sword last turn, you are in contact, yes."
Then: "So, since I'm in contact with the guy, do I get an AoO, since he's casting a spell?"
DM: "Sure!"

I mean, if you have a DM who's fair to start with, asking questions like this is sort of a role-playing 101. With just a few sessions like this, you just learn how to describe your own actions, to be precise about them while enhancing the flavor of your verbal expression, as well as to trust your DM to do the same thing with the right adjudications from time to time.

I mean, that's not that complicated, believe me!

I'll second Odhanan. Even before D&D AoO, the idea of zones of control and free attacks or open attacks have been around. It works just fine without minis as long as everyone is reasonable as described above.

We generally stay away from the minis as most encounters take place in situations with few movement or other options, and what options there are are easy remember. It's when there is a massive battle, such as the battle against 75 skeletons, or the last one with 3 harpies, 50+ goblinoids, bugbears, minotaurs, dryads, a manticore, a pyrohydra and a selection of others. The battlemat makes it much easier to track relative postions and was fairer to the PCs for avoiding getting encircled.

Mini-less as much as possible I say.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Actually no, it doesn't need minis.

AoOs? Ask: "Am I in contact with the guy?"
DM: "Since you attacked him with your sword last turn, you are in contact, yes."
Then: "So, since I'm in contact with the guy, do I get an AoO, since he's casting a spell?"
DM: "Sure!"

I mean, if you have a DM who's fair to start with, asking questions like this is sort of a role-playing 101. With just a few sessions like this, you just learn how to describe your own actions, to be precise about them while enhancing the flavor of your verbal expression, as well as to trust your DM to do the same thing with the right adjudications from time to time.

I mean, that's not that complicated, believe me!

I'm guessing there are not that many players in your group - not that many monsters - and no players playing Druids using multiple summoning Natures Ally like no tomorrow - right?

We had a combat last session with over 24 minis in the cavern at various heights. No minis for that? Unh-uh. And that's not unusual for us - that's pretty de rigeur.

If you are prepared to fudge or leave flanking and movement, tumbling and AoOs out of it - sure. It can be done. But "that's not a problem - say they are all abreast when you describe the room" breaks down in other situations pretty promptly.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Originally Posted by Odhanan
Actually no, it doesn't need minis.

AoOs? Ask: "Am I in contact with the guy?"
DM: "Since you attacked him with your sword last turn, you are in contact, yes."
Then: "So, since I'm in contact with the guy, do I get an AoO, since he's casting a spell?"
DM: "Sure!"

I mean, if you have a DM who's fair to start with, asking questions like this is sort of a role-playing 101. With just a few sessions like this, you just learn how to describe your own actions, to be precise about them while enhancing the flavor of your verbal expression, as well as to trust your DM to do the same thing with the right adjudications from time to time.

I mean, that's not that complicated, believe me!

been playing like this sence 2ed only have a few players now but have had up to 8 at once and with planning and a little bit of notes keeping this is easy to do

 

[JustKim]

I'm guessing there are not that many players in your group - not that many monsters - and no players playing Druids using multiple summoning Natures Ally like no tomorrow - right?

Do you have any idea how many minis you'd need to cover a conjurer's abilities? Most of the minis you'd need don't even exist, either because they're too mundane or too D&D-centric with no DDM representation yet. This is not a solution, this is a nightmare.

No, what conjurers need are chits.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Inego Montoya: "I keep seeing this word 'need'. I do not think it means what you think it means."

While I like to have specific figures for specific creatures. What I use is something with the right base size and recognisable as a friend or foe. If it's the right body type that's better. If it's the right creature type even better. The exact figure is a luxury.

That's even considering whether we break out the figures at all for a given encounter.

 

[JustinA]

Anyway, I was wondering if people have found good ways to run 3.5 without using miniatures or battlemats. I want to stick as close as possible to the rules as written.

This is trivial. The 3.5 revision obfuscated the issue by using the term "space" everywhere (a return to the "glorious" days of 1st Edition where distances were measured in table-top inches), but the rules don't require them.

In general, running miniature-less D&D is just like running miniature-less combat in other systems: You don't benefit from the precision of objective positioning, of course, but obviously that isn't a concern for you.

This is actually one of the things I love about the 3rd Edition: Combat rules simple enough that they can trivially be used without miniatures, but robust enough that they can benefit from and take advantage of that precision if and when you want it.

3. I'm spending a ton of money on DDM, and I'm still unable to get what I really need to run most encounters.

Several options:

(1) Don't use DDM. There are other miniature lines that let you buy exactly what you want.

(2) Use Ebay or other online options to purchase exactly the miniatures you want.

(3) Don't worry about always having the right miniature. I, personally, don't like using the wrong miniature ("Okay, everyone imagine that these kobold miniatures are actually shadows") becaues it seems to defeat the purpose of giving a meaningful visual reference. What I do is use those little glass beads that MtG players use to track life points: You can pick up several dozen for just pennies, get them in different colors, and while they mark position they're a blank slate and don't interfere with visualization.

But that's neither here nor there in terms of leaving miniatures behind. Just a comment.

Here's my question: What problems do you think you'll have in moving to a miniature-less combat?

 

[JustinA]

AoOs are the reason why d20 needs minis. I don't see this changing with any 4th edition release.

To resolve an AoO you need to know the answer to precisely two questions:

(1) Am I close enough to hit them?

(2) What are they doing?

If you can't answer these questions without the use of miniatures, then you can't run combat in ANY system without the use of miniatures.

If you are prepared to fudge or leave flanking and movement, tumbling and AoOs out of it - sure.

This is a classic example of begging the question: Your argument basically boils down to, "If you don't precisely track the position of every character ("use miniatures"), then you need to be prepared to not precisely track the position of every character ("fudge")."

Well, yeah. So what?

In reality, the following gameplay is not abnormal or particularly difficult:

DM: You enter a room twenty feet wide and sixty feet long. Six orcs are playing poker in the center of the room. Roll initiative. <the orcs win> The orcs, seeing you enter, leap to their feet and grab their weapons. What do you do?

Fighter: How far away are the orcs?

DM: About thirty feet.

Fighter: I charge the nearest orc!

DM: Not a problem. <resolves the attack>

Rogue: Is there enough room for me to get around behind the orc the fighter's facing and flank him?

DM: You could easily run through their ranks, but you'd provoke AoOs.

Rogue: Okay, I'll tumble. <rolls a 23> Piece of cake.

DM: Okay, you scamper across the room, roll underneath the poker table, and come up directly behind the orc the fighter's facing off against. But you had to move about thirty feet at half speed, so that's your turn.

Wizard: I lay down a fireball to catch the orcs behind the rogue without hitting him or the fighter.

DM: That sounds fine. What's the Reflex save they need to make?

And so forth.

And, yes, this is all slightly less precise than using miniatures. And yes, it's more difficult to keep these things in your head rather than tracking them using an external record.

But in some cases you've got a group who find it more difficult to immerse themselves in their characters if they're having to manipulate miniatures. Or, due to the physical limitations of the playing area, have difficulty finding the space to use miniatures at all.

And, in other cases, an encounter will be easier and faster to resolve without setting up a battlemat. I, for example, freely mix the two methods in my campaigns depending on the nature of the encounter.