4e rules will make some games much harder to run

[entrerix]

My apologies if a thread like this exists and I didnt see it. After reading the new class powers, warlords in particular, it struck me that these rules will be much harder to accommodate in some games. Mine in particular.

Any groups which don't use a playmat/whiteboard/graph paper to chart out exactly where will have a hard time using rules like "slide opponent two squares" and such. I know its easy to say "just tell your players to imagine the kobold was knocked ten feet to the left", but I don't want to have to worry about keeping track of exactly how many feet away each enemy is, that's why we don't use a mat to begin with.

normally I'd say something like "you enter the door, two kobolds see you enter and charge at you from the left, while their large and unfriendly looking gnoll taskmaster sweeps in from the right with his spear leading the way" no need to describe exactly how many feet or anything and the players get a feel for whats happening and use their imagination to fill in minor details, and if they want specifics they can ask for them.

but now, if a player is using a warlord most of his skills lose their value since no one really knows or cares about the precise positioning of opponents. At first i thought a couple easy houserules, but it looks like it would affect almost all of the warlords skills...

I could go on with more specific examples but I imagine my point has come across... this is not a gripe by the way, I'm feeling a little worried is all because I'd hate to warn players "dont pick the warlord because most of his skills will be of little use in our games"

if anyone has any thoughts, suggestions, or houserules they want to share please do!

 

[keterys]

I imagine in a more free form game, you'd just have a chorus of things like

'Okay, I'll slide so I'm flanking with A' and 'Backing off the ogre for me' and 'Sweet, closer to their wizard. Can I reach him yet?'

It certainly seems much harder than, say, BECMI-2nd to deal without a mat, but it feels just as hard as 3.x to me.

 

[entrerix]

thats a very optimistic approach, but maybe thats just the thing, tell my players to be flexible as always and recommend people who want to play warlords be more aggressive with stating their position in relation to the enemies around them. I guess as long as its being called out as the action occurs it might not be so bad... I just was feeling a bit of despair as I read through the warlords power list

 

[keterys]

There's probably a dash of optimism in there, but I'll admit I did already offer to run 4e without a map for someone, so I'm at least putting my money where my mouth is, so to speak

It definitely takes skill and flair, but I also like being able to use 4e's special moves descriptively without a map... I'll smash into him and push him into the bookshelf to knock it over! On a battlemat, that might not work, maybe stuff isn't close enough, etc... but without one? Eh, sure, sounds cool!

 

[WayneLigon]

Recycled concern from 3E. If your 3E game didn't suffer from not using a mat, I don't see how your 4E game will suffer.

I can't imagine not using some sort of mat. Distance is always going to be a factor for someone (archer, anyone? Spellcaster?) and y'all must never get into arguements like 'I said I was going behind the tree to take cover'.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I thought I had:

Say every square of forced movement imposes a cumulative -1 penalty on the next check, unless a move action is taken to alleviate that.

The penalty represents being in the wrong position to work optimally, but by moving, you can manoeuvre back into the right position.

It's certainly a hackjob of a rule... but I think it could be a starting point.

Cheers, LT.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I plan on trying it out soon myself.

The biggest reason that I don't like mats & figures is that in every game I've played WITHOUT them I remember the events as if I was my character - seeing the events from my character's eyes.

WITH mats & figs I remember moving the figures around the mat.

I think that playing without figures would be pretty silly if you bothered with measuring distances at all. It's not like the character is running along with a yardstick. "Hey, I just moved 10 feet forward!"

However, it's really important to use terms like forward, back, left, and right, and to think of things in terms of here, there, and over there.

Right Here is anything you can reach, or fight in melee.
Here is anything you could get to with a shift. (Think of a shift as a slow, careful short move, rather than a specific minimal distance.)
There is anything you could get to in a single move. (This would include moving as fast as is feasible given the terrain.)
Over there can be quantified in number of moves. ("Over there by three" would take three move actions to arrive, making it now "here")

Movement rates should really simply be a comparative number that suggests that in a race to get someplace quickly (or a chase) the character with the highest speed wins.

This may sound complicated, but it gets pretty easy once you get the hang of it.

I'd simply say that forced movement in 4e that is less than 3 would keep a character "here" (relative to where they were before, but not in melee (if that's the intent.) and any forced movement of 3+ would move the target from here to there.

Anyway, I think I might be starting to confuse myself with terminology so I'll shut up now.

Any thoughts?

 

[small pumpkin man]

Any thoughts?

I agree, we've played with and without mats, and while I like mats, I agree that they're not necessary, and I don't see them being necessary in 4e, although I can see not using them making combat less interesting. things like "move a character 5 feet" just become "move a character out of melee", and people take them less.

I honestly don't think the Warlord would be horribly nerfed, Pin the Foe and the Charging power look fine in a matless environment.

 

[BASHMAN]

I don't want to have to worry about keeping track of exactly how many feet away each enemy is, that's why we don't use a mat to begin with.

normally I'd say something like "you enter the door, two kobolds see you enter and charge at you from the left, while their large and unfriendly looking gnoll taskmaster sweeps in from the right with his spear leading the way" no need to describe exactly how many feet or anything and the players get a feel for whats happening and use their imagination to fill in minor details, and if they want specifics they can ask for them.

if anyone has any thoughts, suggestions, or houserules they want to share please do!

Welcome to the Crusade!

 

[Iron Sky]

The biggest reason that I don't like mats & figures is that in every game I've played WITHOUT them I remember the events as if I was my character - seeing the events from my character's eyes.

WITH mats & figs I remember moving the figures around the mat.

You know, that's something I didn't realize I missed until you mentioned it. Our group never used a battlemap until about a year ago when I made my own by printing out 4 sheets of gridded paper, taping them together, then taping them to a chunk of cardboard and "laminating" it with masking tape (may sound pretty ghetto, but it cost essentially nothing and has worked fine for aver a year).

Anyway, I don't know if my players feel the same way, but I tend to not get as "into the scene" as I used to. Partially because I don't have to. Before grids, I had to imagine where everything was, imagine the environment, and where all the players were. Led to a more vivid image of the scene and allowed for more to be hidden by the DM, but had the disadvantage of leaving much more for the DM to remember and bringing about many disputes about character/enemy placement - especially in DnD.

Now we do gridded combat in almost every system. It takes less work for me as the DM and has cut down arguments by an order of magnitude, but it definitely takes everyone out of character and reduces the immersion alot.