D&D 4E 4e requires a battlemat, and I'm okay with it

[Majoru Oakheart]

Not a bad point, I just know that if they came out and said "You now need a battlemat for D&D!", I'd stop trying to find ways around it, and just not play D&D.

And the people at WOTC know this as well. A lot of people buy D&D despite their problems with it and just fix them by themselves and go on about how great the rules are when they aren't even using them. WOTC wouldn't want to leave this portion of the D&D community behind by making a statement like "You now need a battlemat".

Let's be realistic about the situation. In order to follow the rules of D&D, you've needed a battlemat since 3e. When the rules say "in order to figure out if you are flanking you draw a line from the middle of your square to the middle of your allies square and if it passes through opposite sides of the enemies square you are flanking" then there is no way to use the rules without a battlemat(or at least grid paper).

Sure, you can easily distill the rules down to their basic components and easily make up some house rules that allow you to play without a battlemat. You can see that the concept behind flanking is that 2 allies are on opposite sides of an enemy and simply rule when this happens based on the positioning of the enemies and PCs in your mind. You can see that when the rules say you need to be in an adjacent square to be in melee that they mean "be within 5 feet". It is fairly easy to translate all of the rules into non battlemat terms and houserule that whether you are 1 foot away or 5 feet away you are still "adjacent" for rules purpose".

However, you still have to make changes to the rules in order to play that way. And even with those changes there are simply parts of the rules that you'll never accurately recreate. No one can tell me that they actually keep track of 6 PCs, 11 enemies, 15 squares with difficult terrain in them, a river that gets wider near the north end, a small pool, 4 sloping passages and an irregular shaped room and the EXACT relative locations of all of them in their heads and are 100% accurate.

I know when I used to play without a battlemat, rooms became awfully square and featureless in order to give my brain a rest in keeping track of the locations of everything. I hated purchased adventures because they'd give me some complicated looking room with terrain and the like and I'd have to pretend it wasn't there so as to avoid getting a headache.

And I'm not arguing the merits of using a battlemat vs not using a battlemat. I believe there are advantages to both. However, I wish the debate would stop coming up about whether or not one was required to play D&D. One IS required to play D&D. It is just a bit of work to adapt the rules to allow them to be played without one.

 

[BadMojo]

some people think 3x required a mat, and my group not only played matless, but we even played a game that went from level 1-9 that had only two combats, the rest of the experience was gained through exploration, diplomacy, and political manueverings(sp?).

I think you could have played that campaign using the rules from Connect Four and it wouldn't have been any different.

 

[Digital M@]

I think you could have played that campaign using the rules from Connect Four and it wouldn't have been any different.

Now that is funny. I loved connect four.

I don't see why people are so resistant to the mat. I played for years without it and could enjoy the game without it still, but so many aspects of the characters success, advantage, disadvantage etc come from the mat. The rules are written with it in mind. D20 is not like the D&D of old, Boot Hill, Gamma World, Tunnels & Trolls, it was written with space and movement having key roles, where games from the past were not. The mat is part of the game. People need to let go and roll that mat on the table and lay some smack down.

 

[sunrisekid]

The best bang for the buck has to be the flip-mats that Paizo sells. They can take just about any markers and in addition to the plain mats they have various specialized versions (wilderness, a sailing-ship, mountain pass, town square, an inn, etc.).

Thanks for the recommendations! Paizo's "Steel Sqwire Flip-Mat" looks like a good start for my needs at this time.

Here's a question for you regular mat users. The more elaborate mats look like fun but it seems like the more specialized they are (ie, city square, dungeon #2, etc) the more "one shot" they are. Do you find using the same, eg "dungeon mat #1", makes your dungeon feel like the last one, given that the terrain is identical? Or do you find yourself sticking to the more generic tiled mats and sketch out the relevant bits when needed? (I'm feeling that the latter is much more common but I have no experience with this.)

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I started using a mat with 3.0 and now I'd never go back. If my group suddenly decided they wanted to run matless D&D (at least with 3E or later rules) I'd seriously consider switching groups. The combat experience is far, far better than any I had in BD&D or AD&D without a mat.

 

[Shadewyn]

Since looking at the 4E rules I'm very interested in trying out a game using minis and a battlemap. If the combat rules are not as complicated as 3E I would be happy getting into minis and whatnot. My players have expressed interest in this as well.

Can anybody recommend a brand of battlemat that is nice to work with? My only experience was with some kind of wet-erase mat that was of poor quality: lots of streaking, not so good at erasing. Suggestions for battlemat brand or online store would be appreciated!

The very BEST for gaming in my mind was always "Tact Tiles".

I think the company is out of busines but you can still grab some online I think or from hobby shops. Or if you are clever with tools (http://gmfoundation.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/how-to-make-your-own-tact-tiles/)

the advantages are that you can;

Adjust the size of the map on the fly (1 tile battle, to 4 to 9... )

Pre draw maps in advance but not reveal them to players more than one tile at a time

Go "off the map" easy ... palyers hit the edge, well its modular, just wipe down some stuff you dont need and add it on where you do and then recenter it on the table.

 

[MaelStorm]

Alright before the flames hit. I ran a playtest with the pregens and ran 9 encounters, so I at least have some experience with the system. While I recognize many are saying 4e can run fine without minis and a battlemat, I just don't see it. To me, there's so much tactical movement and forced movement and marking, etc, that you need a map to keep track of it all.

As a dm I don't use minis except for big combats traditionally. If I move to 4e I will likely use the map for each fight. And you know what....

I'm okay with that!!

Why?

Because so far, I'm getting a lot more than I'm losing. In exchange for having to take 5 minutes to set up a board, I'm getting combats that last 30%-50% longer in rounds with no increase in time spent. For the price of tactical movements I'm getting monsters that are very fun to run and very easy to set up encounters. For the price of having to watch my players count squares, I get to see them try all sorts of dramatic actions that are fast and fun to watch.

In short, I am paying a price with 4e, but that price is well spent if I continue to have the kind of experience I had during my playtest. So kudus to you WOTC. I'll buy your minis gladly if you keep giving me the kind of enjoyment 4e has so far offered me.

That's what I think too.

I'm not happy to have to spend extra bucks on it, as I don't have a lot of disposable income, but I think the experience is worth it. A battlemat is a very good investment, though. But minis are much more annoying, since they are randomized. And WotC has to recognize one day that their customers have a need for non-randomized minis, mostly for minions like skeletons, and kobolds, etc.

 

[Voss]

Hexes seem like they may be the best solution to square fireballs and ridiculous diagonal movement.

Thats my thought. A few very minor tweaks and some corner-case combats (how often is it 12+ on 6? The reduced flanking doesn't matter than much), and a lot of the stupid goes away.

 

[WyzardWhately]

That's what I think too.

I'm not happy to have to spend extra bucks on it, as I don't have a lot of disposable income, but I think the experience is worth it. A battlemat is a very good investment, though. But minis are much more annoying, since they are randomized. And WotC has to recognize one day that their customers have a need for non-randomized minis, mostly for minions like skeletons, and kobolds, etc.

Don't get D&D minis just to play the RPG with, they're too high. Find an old copy of heroquest, or a clearance copy of heroscape, or something like that. Or buy those cheapass little army guys, or any other random plastic toy. That's what they did when D&D first started out. If your players want their PCs to look good, they should be bringing their own anyway.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I dunno if I like the idea that a mat is required to use all the rules. Now I like mats. I bought one in '82 after doing without for a few years, and I'd never DM without one now. I can and have played without one, but as DM there's just too many things to keep track of and more arbitrary judgment calls than I care for when I don't use a mat (which may say more about my abilities than about the rules).

Still, if you need a mat that much then the game has probably shifted to more of a tactical game than I like. It's really hard to say without seeing the actual rules though, so I'll reserve judgment 'til I get a chance to play 4E.

Oh yeah, and I'll definitely use hexes.