Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khaalis" data-source="post: 4126489" data-attributes="member: 2167">Personally, I've been using 3D representations for combat since AD&D. I started with using Dice and Coins as PCs and Monsters and hand drawn "terrain" on paper in days before I could afford the fancy lead minis and other fun accoutrements. I've always had problems with a highly detailed combat encounter (or even some basic adventuring style encounters such as opening doors) not being visualized. There are always those players that try to "bend" a scene to their advantage when things don't go the way they want (e.g. "No i wasn't standing there, I was over here. If no one heard me its not my fault. I'm over here not there." or "I heal the warrior. But the warrior is over fighting the dragon... if you were next to him you would have been hit with its breath weapon. So which is is it? Are you still in back by the wizard like you said, or next to the fighter?"). Battle maps did away with all that. It also clarified ranges, line of sight, etc.As for the more tactical aspects such as actually 5' grids, I can give or take it. It adds a level of strategy to the game that myself and our group of gamers enjoy (lots of Mech players and strategy Board game players) so it doesn't bother us. Overall though, I have seen 3E run without minis and maps, and it works IF you have a DM AND Players that aren't at all about following rules and willing to "fudge" powers, skills, spells etc. to make it seem more cinematic, such as going on faith that the wizard's fireball doesn't actually hit any party members, the ranger firing into melee without concern for possibly hitting an ally, etc.  Personally, I think that if you want this style of combat you shouldn't be using D&D in the first place. There are better storyteller systems for that style of game. JMHO.</blockquote>

Verification