D&D blog: goblin care only about your axe

[Blackwarder]

I think you're misreading the quote:



I think his point is that combat won't be too terribly different from what folks have come to expect from D&D over the past few editions, but that it'll be optimized so that it works just as well on- or off-grid.

He's not saying that you will need to make minor tweaks. He's saying the tweaks will be baked in.

(Baked Tweaks are delicioius, by the way.)

I agree with you, don't get me wrong, that's exactly what I think Bruce meant with this.

Warder

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My main concern with the agnostic approach is that ToM-compatible mechanics are a strict subset of grid-compatible mechanics, so an "agnostic" design is really just a ToM design. I like the features in 4E that basically require a grid to use properly. An agnostic design simply couldn't include those kinds of features.

I've run a lot of "mainly grid systems" off the grid, and a lot of "TotM" systems on some form of grid. I disagree with your assertion here. There are mechanics that make the translation more easily than others, on either side of the equation. So writing an agnostic system is writing one that confines itself to mechanics that make that translation well. And therefore, the only way to design it well is to design it as an agnostic system. Then implement the pieces for "TotM" and "grid" on that design, and test them concurrently, eliminating or refining any pieces that fails in either.

For a relatively complex, good TotM system that does not readily translate to a grid, consider the more advanced Burning Wheel combat sub systems. You can use miniatures to good effect (if so inclined) to represent proximity, but a grid it almost entirely counter-productive with that system, due to the abstract (but detailed) nature of how distance is handled.

 

[Henry]

I don't really get this. What, other than presentation, is so different about 4e that makes grid-less combat so impossible?

Isn't it simply a question of precision?

Yes, and precision makes all the difference. In a game where you have a "Damage: 2[W]" power, and a power that says "Damage: 1[W] + push target 2 squares", which one would you pick? In a game that uses no grids, the second power is less useful, because it relies solely on the subjectivity of the DM to decide it's utility, and the ability of the other players to remember to take advantage of it. If there's a grid and minis, the rogue sees this and says, "ooh, now I'm flanking that foe" and uses his sneak attack. With no grid, the DM:

1) has to remind the rogue he's in flank position
2) has to remember who else is now close to the pushed foe, enemies and foes alike
3) what effects this has on the combat.

If the DM flubs this, the players aren't going to know it, and when they later find out "ooh, I'm sorry guys, I should have let you know that put him really close to the chasm, and someone could've knocked him in" or "oops, Daren's rogue should have been able to sneak attack him" then it's a pain to adjudicate. In the end, every power with a move attached, or dependent on positioning like a charge, is liable to be dropped in that game in favor of powers that just do straight damage or status effects.

Now, if there were only a few move-related powers, it's no big deal, but 4E has DOZENS of pushes, pulls, shifts, charges in powers for EACH character class, to the point where it can be laborious to properly judge the worth of any given power if the only "grid" is in the DM's mind.

 

[Minigiant]

I like the goal but don't see how it works. Especially with the DM empowering and action improvisation thing they are doing.

If I say "I hold the hammer in front of me and push the goblin back." , how does the game handle it? Does it have rules for TOM pushes and separate rules for grids? In TOM, the DM just gives you the modifiers and you push the goblin into the fire. No matter the distance or with distance rules. In grids, all distances are clearly measured. Or do they so a "Medium and small creatures push 5ft or one square normally."

It goes back to my "Every DM/game is different so you don't know what you are getting" fear.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I wonder if you could have powers with duality built in:

Tide of Iron:
Do some damage
Grid: strength check pushes some number of squares
Totm: strength check against DC determined by DM puts enemy in hazard/next to ally/against a wall/etc.

 

[YRUSirius]

I don't think that pushes or pulls will vary in quantity. They will just push away or pull close (a fixed number of square, pretty sure just 1 square; for ToM then it's just getting pushed out or in melee or something like that).

-YRUSirius

 

[Steely_Dan]

This sounds like my ideal, and is definitely doable, finally. You can play pure Grid, pure TotM, or mix it up (I love old school scrap paper, metal miniatures and a ruler).

I've heard about Zone-combat?

 

[Dragonblade]

I really dig this column. It sounds exactly like what I want in 5e combat.

75% of the time, I want quick and cinematic old school no minis 1e style combat with some movement, but movement thats easy to adjudicate without squares or a grid. But also works such that players don't feel like they are missing anything because there is no grid.

But 25% of the time, for an important big battle, I want full 4e style tactical gridded combat with grid friendly movement based abilities and so on.

I don't know how, but if they can make it easy switch between the two, I'll be super happy!

 

[Incenjucar]

I doubt it would be by power, as that would cause a lot of text bloat. I more expect them to just make rules concerning forced movement outside of a grid using a simplified positioning system. Something as simple as a +1 bonus or a -1 penalty or "grants (combat) advantage."

 

[dkyle]

I don't really get this. What, other than presentation, is so different about 4e that makes grid-less combat so impossible (and vice versa)?

Isn't it simply a question of precision? In ToM it's all approximately X many feet and on grid it's exactly Y many squares. On grid it's "I run past him, but stay out of reach of any OAs." *moves mini, counts squares* "Blast! Can't make it in this round." but in ToM it's "I run past him, but stay out of reach of any OAs. Do I make it?"

In a ToM system, it's impractical for the DM to have a means to answer that question other than their own whims. At that point, a mechanic ceases to be a mechanic, and is just dressing for DM fiat. A good ToM system avoids mechanics that require that kind of judgement.

The problem with ToM in 4E is that what is deterministic mechanics on a grid, becomes fraught with DM fiat and handwaving in ToM.

I've run a lot of "mainly grid systems" off the grid, and a lot of "TotM" systems on some form of grid. I disagree with your assertion here. There are mechanics that make the translation more easily than others, on either side of the equation. So writing an agnostic system is writing one that confines itself to mechanics that make that translation well. And therefore, the only way to design it well is to design it as an agnostic system. Then implement the pieces for "TotM" and "grid" on that design, and test them concurrently, eliminating or refining any pieces that fails in either.

For a relatively complex, good TotM system that does not readily translate to a grid, consider the more advanced Burning Wheel combat sub systems. You can use miniatures to good effect (if so inclined) to represent proximity, but a grid it almost entirely counter-productive with that system, due to the abstract (but detailed) nature of how distance is handled.

I think we have a difference in semantics here. To me "Theater of the Mind" refers to pure imagination, with mechanics that use real-world measurements. The way non-minis combat in DnD has traditionally worked.

Abstract positioning and zone systems are a very different matter, and I suspect, very foreign to most DnD players. If a zone system exists in 5E, I have to expect it'll be a module sitting next to the grid module.