D&D combat without minis - is it possible?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The owners of the home where we meet and play have a ridiculously huge collection of minis.

So, we use them because, otherwise, what are they there for?

Plus, they're fun!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Absolutley possible, and sometimes more cinematic.

But except for very simple combats, I prefer the battle mat & minis now, as I enjoy making the most of 3E's tactical options.

 

[IanB]

I always, always use them. I'm not someone who can play chess in my head, and having the minis out proving where every character is at any given time saves a lot of argument about whether or not someone can actually do something.

 

[s.j. bagley]

my group doesn't use minis at all.

 

[blargney the second]

My first 3E DM didn't like minis, so we played from 1st to 9th before that campaign dissolved. Every group I've been with since used minis for the majority of our combats. I vastly prefer the latter.

That being said, we infrequently do really simple battles without minis, and it works fine. However, I would never want to do complex battles without them again.
-blarg

 

[HellHound]

I played 3.x for almost 6 years. I used minis about 4 times in that period. Worked fine for us, just like with every prior edition.

I'll often have a quick map on the table that we can show where things are, but never actually use a battlemat and minis.

 

[JustKim]

I can't help but think all the cries of "mini-centric" directed at 3E and now Star Wars Saga have something to do with the pictures and diagrams of miniatures in the books. They make a nice visual aid in the book or on the table, but the things they illustrate are completely possible without a gigantic grid and visual representation of everything on it. Recall that when 3E came out, WotC was not making mass-produced painted miniatures or miniature maps. We had the same tools we used to play 2E, and we did just fine with them.

 

[Agamon]

The owners of the home where we meet and play have a ridiculously huge collection of minis.

So, we use them because, otherwise, what are they there for?

Plus, they're fun!

QFT

I can play without them, but I don't very often because they are so readily available for us. Plus, I've been using 'minis' of all sorts since I first started playing oD&D. D&D has its roots in wargaming, it's fairly natural to use them.

That said, I plan on running an M&M game when my AoW game is done, and I won't be using minis for it.

 

[eyebeams]

People self-report that playing without minis is easy, for reasons that are obvious but would offend to repeat. But when I have examined games as a third party, play without miniatures virtually always featured errors and uncertainties.

This doesn't always make the game less fun (I've seen lots of games full of juding mistakes that were tons of fun), but if you play a character invested in position-sensitive advantages you will usually suffer in a game without miniatures. DMs tend to arbitrarily deny AoOs, weapon reach benefits, sneak attacks and movement-based feat benefits.

 

[HellHound]

People self-report that playing without minis is easy, for reasons that are obvious but would offend to repeat. But when I have examined games as a third party, play without miniatures virtually always featured errors and uncertainties.

This doesn't always make the game less fun (I've seen lots of games full of juding mistakes that were tons of fun), but if you play a character invested in position-sensitive advantages you will usually suffer in a game without miniatures. DMs tend to arbitrarily deny AoOs, weapon reach benefits, sneak attacks and movement-based feat benefits.

Without minis, DMs also tend to arbitrarily grant AoOs, weapon reach benefits, sneak attacks and movement-based feat benefits.

In fact, since I run a game where the characters are the tactical experts instead of the players, I'd rather not have all of combat rely on the players' abilities to game the rules instead of their characters.