Combat without a Battlemap...

[LoneWolf23]

Ok, here's the sitch: my group and I play online, over chat programs and the such. I do have a yahoo group where I post combat maps for the group to use, but that solution is rather cumbersome and unelegant, and often leads to some confusion...

What I need is a set of rules or guidelines for running combat without battlemaps or miniatures, but that still uses it's environment creatively.. I can dig out the old cover rules from my 3.0 DM's guide, but that's about it.

Anyone got any suggestions?

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I've just finished playing in a Star Wars D20 campaign that never used a battlemap. The GM kept it pretty simple and it was a lot of fun.

Basically, 'yes' was the default answer for most things related to the terrain. i.e. is there a table nearby? Can I find a bottle? Is there a chandelier to swing off? Makes for nice 'cinema' style fights that used the terrain...

The big trick is that people are visualising the fight in a similar way. As long as that happens the rest is easy. So clear description that isn't too ambiguous!

Speed, AOO's and reach became a little less relevant - and rather subjective, but as long as it 'felt consistent' this seemed to be fine. Err slightly in the PCs favour as a general rule - counterbalances for them possibly not having exactly the same view of the fight as the DM might.

My 2 cents.

 

[clark411]

prior to my discovery of the regularly touted OpenRPG chat/map client, I used a "range" system when running online combat.

Basically, there were a few states of position that people could be in relation: Melee Range, Close Range, Far Range, Penalties Range, Sight Range.
Melee: I can hit you with a sword. also "Reach Melee"
Close: I can shoot you or close with you and still attack.
Far: I can shoot you but cannot close with you and still attack.
Penalties: I can shoot you, but it's so far I'm suffering Penalties.
Sight: Hey over there, I've got my eye on you. And maybe my.. Fireball.

With combatants of equal speeds, they could engage or disengage through single steps... a Far guy could move to Close, a Close guy could move to Melee, and being in Sight range is where wizards tend to go for. Running, double moving, and accelerated movement worked in relation to this system (a 60 ft monk could move ranges twice as fast as a 30 ft fighter, and 40 ft monks simply got a free range every few moves).

Then you get a lil more complex as you wish when it comes to tactics. Flanking things with reach or who are Large (or bigger) without suffering an AoO for moving around too close could require an extra range movement, and generally speaking, flanking is used primarily to prevent reach opponents from doing the "Melee Range-Reach Range shuffle" as well as the actual numerical attack bonuses.

Finally, addressing this in an environment is pretty simple. You can say "Everyone within this room is in Close Range." and "Reaching that opponent will require three close range movements to avoid attacks of opportunity from his henchmen." All you really need is a fair randomization method of saying who is where in relation to others, or give a free range increment to the "point man" (the guy in front is Close to any encounter, while the guys behind, regardless of their exact order, are Ranged, for instance.) Typically you allow the winners of spots and listens choose at what range the combat begins, so melee Ranger scouts may elect to sneaky up and start battle at Close or Melee, while archer Ranger scouts may instead choose to go for Ranged.

It doesn't aim for complexity and it does have instances that, like most systems, will require DM adjudication from time to time, but in chat dnd, getting combat done with in an expedient manner seems king.


As for creative use of environment, sticking to the core shouldn't prevent this or give it any more aid then necessary. A decent option is to have each player state the presence of a prop in the room, or describe a facet of it. Depending on if they make the situation easier for themselves or harder, you award an XP bonus (for the harder they make it). In this way, you can tend to see people turning 40x40 rooms into deadly spike-filled arenas where automaton monkeys hang from spiked chains throwing acidic lead poo at combatants. Good stuff.

 

[Coredump]

We play all the time without a battlemap. The DM describes what is going on, and you go from there. If you are not sure, you ask. "Can I get to the mage without going right past the guards?" "Can I reach the enemy on a charge?" "Exactly how far is the nearest one?"

While it is less 'miniatures-like' I prefer that. I am sorry, but I find it painfully unrealistic to somehow *know* that the enemy is precisely 80' away in the middle of a fight. Sometimes the DM even takes that into account. "You thought you could reach the mage with a double move, but you are about 5-10' out still" Kinda aggravating, but it feels more realistic. And he does it both ways. He may also pull things a bit out of the norm; by saying you got there, but it is so far you will attack at the end of the round. Or somesuch


Personally, I feel that consistent rules are very very helpful to a game system. But to use them as gospel takes away from the actual game. The game is designed to have a GM, so they can make appropriate interpretations and changes. I like playing Magic, but I feel it is a different game than DnD.

.