DragonLancer
Hero
I've been running D&D withour mini's since 1st ed, and the game works fine without them. You don't need them IMO. Using mini's in my experience turns it from a game of imagination into a game of chess.
D&D combat without minis - is it possible?
- Thread starter Avatar_V
- Start date
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
Yes. Even WotC has done it (check out their podcasts). It goes just fine.Avatar_V said:
If you want alternate rules, there's a Narrative Combat PDF out there at the usual suspect sites.
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
Avatar_V said:
Yes.
Well enough for me to consider doing it regularly.
No many, remarkably. You just have to ignore all mentions of AoOs and comments about "squares" (e.g., threatened squares).
I had a pre-edited PDF of the SRD that I removed all AoO and "square" references from, though I lost it in a hard drive crash on my old PC
Gentlegamer
Adventurer
A 3.5 game combat without miniatures requires the participants abide by the referee's rulings on position of combatants, areas of effect, reach, etc. It can be done, but most modern players are uncomfortable with the referee making such rulings himself without reference to an objective battle map and miniatures.
kaomera
Explorer
Yes.Avatar_V said:
For me, in the past, great.
None.
My current group of players doesn't want to play without miniatures (although IMO they pretty much manage to eliminate any possible benefits of minis by they way they play), so we use the battlemat and figures. The only really serious issue I have is that when the minis / map doesn't match 100% to what they're supposed to be here always seems to end up being problems...
Li Shenron
Legend
I run some encounters without battlemat, it is quite feasible if the encounter involves only a few enemies. One of the problem for me is certainly to remember where all the monsters are, so if I want to be on the safe side I'd use a map and markers.
I guess that nowadays probably I run 2/3 encounters with a map, although the map is used more to help me describe the place better rather than helping me run the combat itself. However, when there is only 1 monster to fight, we almost always don't bother using markers, since the melee types will usually just stack around the monsters, the rogue will be usually guaranteed a flanking position with 5ft adjustments at most, and the archers/casters will simply stay at a range close enough to avoid penalties (typically 30ft, within reach for almost all spells), but the exact position doesn't matter.
I'm quite sure that without a map we are not following all the rules perfectly. I believe the key concept that allows to be satisfied in such scenario, is to accept that this lack of precision is a sort of randomness that can be just as fun as the randomness from the dice. It is also quite realistic, that characters in the middle of a fight won't be able to always apply their tactics perfectly due to the pressure of the moment. If the players can accept this, then the game without map is just fine.
I guess that nowadays probably I run 2/3 encounters with a map, although the map is used more to help me describe the place better rather than helping me run the combat itself. However, when there is only 1 monster to fight, we almost always don't bother using markers, since the melee types will usually just stack around the monsters, the rogue will be usually guaranteed a flanking position with 5ft adjustments at most, and the archers/casters will simply stay at a range close enough to avoid penalties (typically 30ft, within reach for almost all spells), but the exact position doesn't matter.
I'm quite sure that without a map we are not following all the rules perfectly. I believe the key concept that allows to be satisfied in such scenario, is to accept that this lack of precision is a sort of randomness that can be just as fun as the randomness from the dice. It is also quite realistic, that characters in the middle of a fight won't be able to always apply their tactics perfectly due to the pressure of the moment. If the players can accept this, then the game without map is just fine.
Kae'Yoss
First Post
It's entirely possible to play without minis.
It's even possible to play without anything to act as tactical representation on a battlemat!
But I prefer not to do so, except with easy fights.
Benni? Is that you? Alex? Gereon? Boe?
It's even possible to play without anything to act as tactical representation on a battlemat!
But I prefer not to do so, except with easy fights.
Patryn of Elvenshae said: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!
Benni? Is that you? Alex? Gereon? Boe?
Shades of Green
Explorer
You could always use counters instead of minis - they do the same job in terms of positions/distances at a lower cost and with less required storage space. I've used many things as counters, from dice to markings on the quickly-drawn map, and I might end up creating better-looking cardboard markers and a hand-drawn grid on a large sheet of paper.
