Doing away with the battlemat

[doseyclwn]

In reading the 1e feelings thread, I saw an interesting idea: give up the battlemat. It makes combat faster and more cinematic.

At first thought, my 3.x gorge began to rise. "But how will you do AoO then?". Then I began to smile. As a DM, there's nothing I hate more than deciding to have my villains run, only to be cut down by AoO. I'm sure they would cause some problems at first, but I think I've been brainwashed.

See, I loved 1e. Loved it. And I love 3.x. I really do, it's just that combat takes too f*(&(*g long most of the time, getting bogged down in "tactics".

My question is this:IF you have done away with the battlemat, does it seem to affect the game much, and is it a positive or negative change?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I love 3.x. I really do, it's just that combat takes too f*(&(*g long most of the time, getting bogged down in "tactics".

Have you tried implementing any of a hundred suggestions for speeding up combat? (By far the most vital, IMO, is a time-limit on player actions. I suggest 15 seconds.)

I just couldn't give up my Magamat. I even used it back in 1E and 2E.

Keep in mind that many feats and class abilities are at least somewhat dependent on the tactical emphasis of 3E. If you get rid of that, you're going to limit character options, especially for fighters.

 

[Crothian]

I have been going without a battle mat for over a year and we have a combat heavy group, no devoted spellcasters. Its easy to set up the fight without the use of minis and to keep things moving fast.

 

[Stone Angel]

We've done it either way. I prefer without the battle map. There is nothing worse than describing a BBEG in all his glory and then saying so this goblin will reprsent him. Plus I like the players to visualize everything themselves, that makes writing the scenes and setting the moods much more challenging.

My players prefer the mat, oh well.

The Seraph of Earth and Stone

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

Actually, in the past couple of years I have begun to swear by the battlemat. I love being able to see where everyone is and have no confusion about how far people are and how the room is set up. For combats with only a small number of people involved is fine. But when you have thirty orcs or some other 'hoarde' kind of villains, it really cuts down on where everything is.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

We've been playing sans battlemat for a while.

I severely limit AoOs to only casting while in melee, firing a bow while in melee or using certain items while in melee range (which includes the reach of the various creatures) trigger AoOs. Certain feats change these rules, of course.

Sure, spell adjudication can be a pain sometimes, but I tend to keep a fairly good picture in my head of where everyone and everything "should" be. And if there are questions, we work them out.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

In past games (pre 3.5) I have never played with a battlemat, but I agree with Keeper of Secrets. It is a great tool and helps you determine your actions better when you know where your enemies are and knowing where buildings and other notable terrain features are.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I'm using a battlemat now, but our last 2 campaigns were battlemat free. Was down to differences in how we wanted the campaigns to play.

I think it's fine going without one and it definitely speeds the game up...

...Just as long as the Players and the GM are visualising the same combat. Seen it where that ends up different and it's been bad for the players.

Found a couple of GMs who have tendancies towards very biased rulings without a map:

Fighting 30 monsters in a 61' X 52' room - no way your fireball can catch more than 2 of them. Any player moving = AOO. At the same time no-one is ever about to catch a cleave... Arguing this is not on at most game tables. Found this sort of stuff can be really frustrating for the players.

Give them the map back and it all plays nicely again.

IMO, a great approach is for the GM to swing arguable rules decisions in favour of the players. Or at least in favour of cinema. It keeps things moving smoothly. Feels more satisfying. And frankly the GM can always throw in a few more beasties if it isn't challenging enough?

 

[Umbran]

I play both with and without the mat. For some combats it is faster without, but for many it is faster with the mat.For small, simple combats, it takes more time to set up and use the mat than it is worth.

However, for combats with many creatures, or that are otherwise tactically chalenging, the mat actually speeds things up. Without the mat, you must use a verbal description, and usually the image evoked in the player's mind isn't exactly the one in the DM's mind. That causes confusion and a lot of repeated "and where was he?" type of questions. The mat clarifies these completely. While it takes a bit of time to set up and move minis around, it's often faster than the alternatives.

 

[Janx]

Battlemats speed up game play, especially with more players playing.

It's simple. Without mat, each player must wait X seconds before their turn. Say that's 15 seconds. With 5 players, I have to wait a minute for my turn. Easily time for my attention to wander. Thus when the DM comes to me, I have to ask clarifying questions (where's the bad guys, who's hurt, etc).

With a battlemat, all I have to do is glance at the mat and I instantly see the current situation, relevant to me. I can make my decision, and go back to staring into space.

The battlemat makes it easier for all players to pay attention, and to return to paying attention without wasting the GM's time.

Janx