Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dkyle" data-source="post: 5907633" data-attributes="member: 70707">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.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.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.That's clearly not even remotely similar to DM fiat.  Clarification is not fiat.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: <a href="http://mrlizard.com/rants/grids-again/" target="_blank">Grids Again | Lizard's Gaming and Geekery Site</a>It very effectively expresses much of my thought process on grids, vs. gridless.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. 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification