Minis, themselves may not be required, but just looking at the sample characters, you need some sort of grid system, and markers/tokens/whatever to represent creatures and PCs. There is way to much pushing/shifting/teleporting/whatever going on at low level to toss it back into the abstract, which is unfortunate. Flanking, opportunity attacks, reach, all these seem multiplied in 4e, and a lot of monster abilities seem to depend on being adjacent or shifting to or away from something.
D&D 4E AICN Massawyrm's 4E Review - Part 3
- Thread starter hbarsquared
- Start date
hbarsquared
Quantum Chronomancer
Because I can't believe that people are still hung up on this issue...
Minis and such are not required to play 4E. Minis, grids, maps, etc. can certainly enhance the experience, but are in no way required - at least no more so than any other iteration of D&D.
Dungeons have always been drawn on graph paper. There have always been ranges, areas, and distances to calculate on your turn. These are staples of D&D. And whether you use feet, inches, or "squares" makes no difference: you are dealing with the exact same issues.
The fact that terrain is now a more significant feature should be more exciting to everyone, since it adds depth to an encounter that has been difficult to emulate in pre-4E.
Just because a character or monster stat block says "Close burst 2" does not mean you will be required to have a square grid, a mini, and a tokens to represent the monsters surrounding a creature. You can just as easily wing it in your imagination, if you want.
"Marking" sounds complicated now, but in terms of pure round-by-round management as well as what any given person is required to know at any given moment, it will not be that bad. You can just as easily call out a challenge to a monster to force it to attack you without using any tools besides a paper and pencil at the game table.
4E is simply written to make full use of tangilble tools, as well. Because for most, it makes the game more fun.
Minis and such are not required to play 4E. Minis, grids, maps, etc. can certainly enhance the experience, but are in no way required - at least no more so than any other iteration of D&D.
Dungeons have always been drawn on graph paper. There have always been ranges, areas, and distances to calculate on your turn. These are staples of D&D. And whether you use feet, inches, or "squares" makes no difference: you are dealing with the exact same issues.
The fact that terrain is now a more significant feature should be more exciting to everyone, since it adds depth to an encounter that has been difficult to emulate in pre-4E.
Just because a character or monster stat block says "Close burst 2" does not mean you will be required to have a square grid, a mini, and a tokens to represent the monsters surrounding a creature. You can just as easily wing it in your imagination, if you want.
"Marking" sounds complicated now, but in terms of pure round-by-round management as well as what any given person is required to know at any given moment, it will not be that bad. You can just as easily call out a challenge to a monster to force it to attack you without using any tools besides a paper and pencil at the game table.
4E is simply written to make full use of tangilble tools, as well. Because for most, it makes the game more fun.
Voss said:
Exactly.
The ranger doesn't seem to require much in terms of movement/shifting since a fair number of its powers are "at range" but look at the warlock. The warlock looks like you will definitely need some sort of marker system.
Then again, this does match my experience in previous editions where the non-spellcasters didn't really need to use a markerboard whereas spellcasters lived and died by it IME.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
jeremy_dnd said:
So, should I believe the non-playtester who expresses straaaange opinions ("no more so than any other iteration of D&D" - considering you didn't need them at all in 2E, but clearly did in 3.XE...), or the person who has been playing it for months, well, let me think...
The number of "and move one square" or "and move two squares" or similar abilities that move the enemy in the 4E abilities we've seen is pretty staggering (like, I dunno, has ANY class not had at least one ability that moves around the enemy), so I find your contention illogical at best.
Last edited:
Ruin Explorer said:
Classes that don't seem to require any type of markerboard/mini system (basically, their powers don't require them to know exact placement and can simply be described as "enemy is 10 ft away etc")
Paladin
Cleric
Fighter
Ranger
Classes that you definitely want to use a markerboard/mini system for
Wizard
Warlock
Rogue
Ruin Explorer said:
Not going to step into the debate over whether 4E will require minis, but 3.X certainly does not. I have played quite a few 3.X games with no grid or minis and it went fine. It requires the DM to handwave positioning, but the same was true in 2E--how many orcs can you catch in that fireball? How far is the fireball channeled by the corridor walls? These questions could not possibly be answered without either a) handwaving or b) a map and minis, or mini-equivalents.
Last edited:
Mouseferatu
Hero
Okay...
I believe that, if one wanted to, one could play 4E without minis (or counters, or a grid). I think it would require a few tweaks of the rules, and you might lose some--not all, but some--of the mobility-based options.
It will require you and your players to decide, in advance, how precise you're going to try to be. Are you going to keep track of "push" and "pull" distances in your head? Or are you going to go more abstract? (I.e. a "push" just means that the target needs to take an extra move action to reach you.)
So yes, there's some work and some abstraction involved. And personally, even though I used to be a mini-hater, I've found that the movement options and related powers are interesting enough to use that I've become a mini-believer.
But all that said? There's no doubt in my mind that a group that really prefer mini-less combat can find all sorts of ways to make it work.
I believe that, if one wanted to, one could play 4E without minis (or counters, or a grid). I think it would require a few tweaks of the rules, and you might lose some--not all, but some--of the mobility-based options.
It will require you and your players to decide, in advance, how precise you're going to try to be. Are you going to keep track of "push" and "pull" distances in your head? Or are you going to go more abstract? (I.e. a "push" just means that the target needs to take an extra move action to reach you.)
So yes, there's some work and some abstraction involved. And personally, even though I used to be a mini-hater, I've found that the movement options and related powers are interesting enough to use that I've become a mini-believer.
But all that said? There's no doubt in my mind that a group that really prefer mini-less combat can find all sorts of ways to make it work.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
I think you're a bit off here--maybe not as much with the paladin (though the indication that the paladin can't mark an opponent and then hide from it to get the divine damage indicates that there will probably be movement related tricks there) or the cleric as presented (though the minis game seems to indicate that clerics will have area affect spells since thunder burst and sound burst are both on Desert of Desolation minis as powers), but it seems way off WRT:
Fighter: The sample fighter has several abilities that require her to know what squares she and her opponents are in:
The ability to OA an opponent who shifts. That makes it pretty important to know who's adjacent to you--even if you're not attacking them.
The ability to push an opponent one square with her shield attack. Why would you want to push an opponent one square? is there a hazard there? Will that put it next to another fighter but not next to you? Does that move it out of range of the wizard if it decides to risk the OA and move in on him? Pushing or pulling an opponent isn't much use if you don't see where you can push or pull to.
Passing attack: Make an attack, shift one square and make another attack against a different opponent. Without a grid it will be difficult to see where that is either A. possible or B. useful.
Ranger:
Quarry. If you only get the damage bonus against the nearest target then it will be important to know if: A. the target you want to shoot is nearest. B. If there is somewhere you can move to make that target the nearest. C. Whether you will need to take an OA for movement of to shoot from that location.
The one that lets you shift and attack when you are hit. It's going to be important to know if there is somewhere you can shift to and make a ranged attack without provoking an OA. If you're up against a wall or enemies are nearby, there may not be such a square.
As a last thought--are people seriously contending that a game which measures distance in squares doesn't suffer in playability without a grid? Come on folks. We weren't born yesterday.
Fighter: The sample fighter has several abilities that require her to know what squares she and her opponents are in:
The ability to OA an opponent who shifts. That makes it pretty important to know who's adjacent to you--even if you're not attacking them.
The ability to push an opponent one square with her shield attack. Why would you want to push an opponent one square? is there a hazard there? Will that put it next to another fighter but not next to you? Does that move it out of range of the wizard if it decides to risk the OA and move in on him? Pushing or pulling an opponent isn't much use if you don't see where you can push or pull to.
Passing attack: Make an attack, shift one square and make another attack against a different opponent. Without a grid it will be difficult to see where that is either A. possible or B. useful.
Ranger:
Quarry. If you only get the damage bonus against the nearest target then it will be important to know if: A. the target you want to shoot is nearest. B. If there is somewhere you can move to make that target the nearest. C. Whether you will need to take an OA for movement of to shoot from that location.
The one that lets you shift and attack when you are hit. It's going to be important to know if there is somewhere you can shift to and make a ranged attack without provoking an OA. If you're up against a wall or enemies are nearby, there may not be such a square.
As a last thought--are people seriously contending that a game which measures distance in squares doesn't suffer in playability without a grid? Come on folks. We weren't born yesterday.
AllisterH said:
The Little Raven
First Post
I find it amusing how he hypes up how you can make a monster in like 5 minutes, then complains about not having dragons smaller than Large in the MM, when by his own words he can just make one up in five minutes.
Mouseferatu
Hero
Mourn said:
Which would be why he said that his complaints are mostly minor and/or nit-picky.
Similar Threads
