D&D blog: goblin care only about your axe

[Chris_Nightwing]

I'd like to see it simplified to something like "2[w] damage + positional advantage". On the grid, positional advantage is a push, pull X squares based on level (say 1 square per 4 levels). In TotM, it's a reminder you move the opponent if there's some advantage to it, otherwise it just gives a +2 (advantage) to someone's next attack.

That could work. I think in TotM the best way of adjudicating cool terrain or hazards is to set a DC for screwing someone over with it. DC 15 to get an enemy into an alcove he can't get out of, DC 20 to push an enemy off of the cliff and such. If an enemy has repositioned away from the hazard, just apply disadvantage (-2), or if you want to just push them closer, make the DC lower and apply advantage (+2) to your next attempt. I think you can make a coherent system that means everyone is on the same page with what's happening in combat, without using a grid.

 

[Hussar]

I have zero problem with the idea of ToM as a concept. We played something like it for a long time and it certainly works.

However, one thing I really, really hope they include in the opening section describing ToM combat is some very strongly worded advice to not be a dick. No, the bad guys are not always 1 foot further away than you can reach. No, nothing is EVER 11 feet away or 11 feet wide. No, the bad guys are not always 1 inch close enough to hit the PC's.

There was a posrep comment upthread about people who dislike ToM having some bad DM's. Yup, been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. And I know for a fact that I'm not alone in that.

Absolutely have abstract ToM combat rules. But, also just as absolutely, make bloody damn sure that DM's have been coached on how to use the darn system.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No, nothing is EVER 11 feet away or 11 feet wide.

This just hit a funny bone.

 

[P1NBACK]

For simple fights like this one I agree with you. An assassin doesn't need a grid to kill a single sentry.
But what about a big fight with 5-6 pcs, a boss, two or three other monsters plus a handful of minions/lackeys. When my fighter moves do I have to ask where I stand compared to each monster/PC to avoid getting whacked as soon as it's the monster(s) turn to act.
And are we sure that the mental map of the DM is ok? Maybe I wanted to get close to that goblin, but not so close to the ogre over there...
As a DM for 50% of my playing time I love grids. They save time by avoiding a lot of unnecessary questions and preserve a fairness that as a DM I'm not sure I can maintain in complicated fights.

Well, if you'd have read my previous post to that one, I said just because we aren't using grids doesn't mean we aren't drawing maps. 90% of DMs I know run a dungeon with an actual map of the dungeon. So, the idea that if you don't have strict grid-combat rules means that you can't use other tools and draw maps to track combat is absurd.

If I'm running a huge battle I just draw a quick sketch of where everyone is, either using wet-erase battlemat or a dry-erase whiteboard or hell, grid paper.

Even without that you can run a massive combat though. That's what asking questions is for.

"Can I get close to the goblin without being in reach of the ogre?"

A) "Yeah, totally, the ogre is like 15 feet away from the goblin, over near the fountain."

B) "Oh, no, the ogre is practically standing on top of the goblin."

C) "You can, but you'll have to stay on the eastern side of the goblin, near the barrels of military oil. And, if the goblin moves, the ogre has direct line to you with a charge."

 

[DEFCON 1]

- no mention of modules in an article about a very obviously modular subject -- probably best evidence yet that the modular thing was just a crock to keep the community together until the playtest

Not mentioning something is not "evidence". And if you think that way just to try and paint WotC as dickheads who are lying to us about this "modular" thing... then I wonder why the hell you are even following the game along if you've already decided they aren't going to do it?

 

[P1NBACK]

Sorry, didn't see your previous post.

It's all good man.

 

[Dausuul]

- no mention of modules in an article about a very obviously modular subject -- probably best evidence yet that the modular thing was just a crock to keep the community together until the playtest

Glad to hear that this is the best evidence for modularity being "a crock." Since it's the most pathetic evidence ever, that suggests modularity is alive and well in D&DN and the designers meant every word.

 

[Mattachine]

When I played AD&D, I used all three common systems:

1. Theater of the Mind--basic exploration, very simple combats
2. Minis with no grid--combats with lots of enemies, complex trap/puzzle encounters
3. Grid and minis (I used old chessboards)--boss fights, mass combats, combat with important terrain


In my 4e game, I am occasionally using TotM now, and it really does speed play.

 

[dkyle]

No. It's not. It's a matter of what fictional facts we've established. If I tell the DM, "I move to within 50' if the goblin."

That is a tactical move, and now a fictional fact. The DM can't suddenly change that.

That gives specifics on positioning with respect to the goblin. But then it's left to DM fiat where your positioning is relative to the slime.

If you can track every relative positioning, between every creature, and every possible terrain feature of interest, then yes, ToM is effectively equivalent to grids, with respect to mechanics like forced movement. But unless you're some kind of savant that can play 10 simultaneous games of blindfold chess, that isn't possible.

Again. Wrong. It's up to, "Did you describe yourself getting in position to push the goblin into the acid slime? Yes? Ok you do if you hit. No? Then describe how you set that up."

How does one "get into position" with respect to the goblin, that somehow changes whether the goblin is 10' or 15' away from the slime? This line of questions does not make sense in the example I responded to.

I wouldn't enjoy that either... That's why we roleplay it out.

"Ok, you see the goblin coming down the hallway."
"How far is he?"
"About 60', just at the edge of the dimness of your torchlight. He sees you and starts reaching for his club."
"Great. My movement is 20', but if I charge I can move 60'. Is there anything that might hamper my movement in the hallway? Like, rough terrain or something?"
"Nope. Just a dungeon corridor with flagstones for flooring."
"Great. I charge."

I mean, where in that is the DM fiat? Nowhere. It's the player's prerogative to use questions to clarify the environment.

There's none in that example. That is a different, far simpler, example than the post I replied to. The problem arises from complexity. Sure, the first round you can track how far the combatants start from each other. But 3 rounds later? You really know, with certainty and without handwaving from the DM, the distances between every combatant, and every terrain hazard? I doubt it. Your original line of questions suggested that the player did not know, until he asked the DM, what distance the Goblin was from the slime.

The same must occur with grids... "What's the wavy line you drew? It's red is that a wall of fire?" "Oh, no, that's just a curtain."

That's clearly not even remotely similar to DM fiat. Clarification is not fiat.

The DM's answers establish facts, that we can make decisions based upon.

Sure, if you're playing with a 5 year old, those facts might change randomly. But, we're like, adults right?

But even adults have a limited capacity to remember facts. Mentally tracking the exact relation of 10 different creatures to each other, and various terrain hazards, is well beyond most of us.


Also, I saw this article linked from RPG.net: Grids Again | Lizard's Gaming and Geekery Site

It very effectively expresses much of my thought process on grids, vs. gridless.

I can traditional D&D TotM of the type you are discussing a particular implementation of TotM. Traditional D&D grid play is also a particular implementation. Or rather, each version has a had a particular implementation that favored one or the other. Your question to me is the same as, "Now that we've narrowed you down to cars and trucks, which will it be, a Toyota Corrola or a Ford Ranger, since those are your choices?"

I'm not seeing a meaningful difference between ToM play in any past edition of DnD. They were all basically the same. Everything was specified in absolute measurements (inches in original D&D, then later feet, then squares in 4E). There is a world of difference between that, and Burning Wheel's abstract distances.

It's an example of an agnostic mechanic, between grid and TotM. How precise or abstract you want to make it, and similar mechanics, is another question entirely. On that last part of your quote, I'm not sure you got the import of the example, though. The example is that you don't get so zoned into knocking people into things, that you leave out room for the possiblity that getting people away from you is useful. Find a way to model that in the game, and the problem of grid/TotM translation goes away. You can still knock people into things for even more fun when available, but it is no longer the main focus.

OK, but I just don't see those kinds of abstract mechanics being an option here. 5E is supposed to "feel" like traditional DnD. Especially the core. Abstract distance mechanics are extremely far removed from how DnD has traditionally worked.

Also, your push is only a pale shadow of what pushing is in 4E. Pushing someone away from you is rarely an especially useful thing. Basically, it only matters if you can't back up for some reason. Pushing things into specific places is the primary usefulness of pushing. Take that away, and almost nothing of value remains.

But it's only an example. Name me another place where grid/TotM doesn't translate back and forth very well, and I'll give you another one.

Opportunity Attacks for anything other than simple "I engaged him, and now he's moving away". For example, is the Fighter in the way of the monsters trying to reach the Wizard?

AoE effects. A simple Fireball is almost impossible to resolve without extensive DM fiat after a round of combatants mixing themselves up.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Also, your push is only a pale shadow of what pushing is in 4E. Pushing someone away from you is rarely an especially useful thing...

Well, first my theoretical construct does everything the previous ones do plus some other things. So it is only a "pale shadow" insomuch as one has artificially contrived to provide things to push into that can only be regulated on a grid. That caveat out of the way ...

In D&D, typically, yes pushing out of the way isn't much. In reality--and a not inconsiderable amount of fantasy fiction, such as Conan--it is more. So now suppose for a moment that you can change that facet of D&D to conform more to the source material? What implications does that have?

You seem to be arguing that as long as we stick to all the traditional assumptions of D&D, we'll continue to have all the traditional problems of D&D. I don't disagree with that!