I really need some help here. Can someone give me insight into the reasoning for playing without a map and minis? I ask because I ran a playtest over the weekend and found that I absolutely hated the combat. I've been playing D&D for just about fifteen years now, and used visualizations for combat for all but maybe my first year. Aside from a couple hitches here and there, I found that 4e's tactical combat was extremely enjoyable and exciting on both sides of the table. Running playtest combat was hell, though. I don't see the appeal of keeping track of sometimes dozens of creatures in my head... especially when the monsters are so terribly bland to begin with. It took all my attention and faculties to just keep track of the basics of what was going on, let alone breathe any kind of flavor or life into the encounters. The end result felt like an old Final Fantasy game instead of anything dynamic and fun. What's so bad about the grid? Why not use the tools we have to allow freedom to focus on other aspects of play? Am I a poor DM for preferring clear rules and aids for running a game? I really am just confused and concerned here... I want to be excited about the new version, but so far the playtest has me feeling more dread than excitement.
I don't understand Gridless combat. HELP!
Giltonio_Santos
Hero
Just use the grid. Some of us prefer not having it as a mandatory element of the game, but there're nothing in Caves of Chaos denying you the possibility of running the combats with minis and a grid. Use it like you did before 3E/4E, because it helps, not because the elements of the game are making it hard to access situations without one.
What were you having to keep track of when you say the 'appeal of keeping track of sometimes dozens of creatures in my head'?
Swarms of rats are coming down the hallway. No need to keep track of where each individual rat is. If somebody lays down a burning hands, make a guess then how many they can get and move on.
Try describing a football or basketball play where the players locations are for a 6 second intervals. One player would be all over the court/field. Don't worry about having the exact locations, only describe the intent, "free hand" the rest.
The goblin archers are staying up on the ledge, the goblin spearmen are climbing down to intercept. You don't need to keep track of how long it takes each goblin to climb down, decide when it becomes important.
The players/DM generally give up the idea of each unit having their exact movement spelled out in favor of more improvitisation. Players don't need to map out their exact movement, just state I want to attack a goblin. Or I want to stop them from getting by me.
The intent with gridless is not to replicate gridding combat in your head. It's to remove the grids entirely.
(I am not saying you should use gridless, I'm saying they are advantages/disadvantages to both, find the one you like and go with it.)
Swarms of rats are coming down the hallway. No need to keep track of where each individual rat is. If somebody lays down a burning hands, make a guess then how many they can get and move on.
Try describing a football or basketball play where the players locations are for a 6 second intervals. One player would be all over the court/field. Don't worry about having the exact locations, only describe the intent, "free hand" the rest.
The goblin archers are staying up on the ledge, the goblin spearmen are climbing down to intercept. You don't need to keep track of how long it takes each goblin to climb down, decide when it becomes important.
The players/DM generally give up the idea of each unit having their exact movement spelled out in favor of more improvitisation. Players don't need to map out their exact movement, just state I want to attack a goblin. Or I want to stop them from getting by me.
The intent with gridless is not to replicate gridding combat in your head. It's to remove the grids entirely.
(I am not saying you should use gridless, I'm saying they are advantages/disadvantages to both, find the one you like and go with it.)
Wepwawet
Explorer
Hahaha I was wondering the same thing
I've been playing so long with a grid that I forgot how to do it without one!
But when I started playing D&D with 2e there was none and no one complained about it. And the fights combats out perfectly. Actually, I think they even felt more real, as you could see everything in your mind.
Now I am excited to try this new edition without a grid
Actually thinking about that I also came up with the Final Fantasy idea. Which in my case is a point in favour.
EDIT: Sorry for not answering your question... I just wanted to share my excitement
I've been playing so long with a grid that I forgot how to do it without one!
But when I started playing D&D with 2e there was none and no one complained about it. And the fights combats out perfectly. Actually, I think they even felt more real, as you could see everything in your mind.
Now I am excited to try this new edition without a grid
Actually thinking about that I also came up with the Final Fantasy idea. Which in my case is a point in favour.
EDIT: Sorry for not answering your question... I just wanted to share my excitement
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
You're not a bad DM for wanting to use a battle map. It's a matter of preference.
Theater of the mind isn't as tactically clear as a battle map in many respects, but it does have advantages in verisimilitude. Battle maps have a tendency to draw you out of the imagined space, or to alter your viewpoint in combat.
For example, when I think back on a combat that used a map, I tend to remember it from the top down. Using Theater of the mind, I tend to remember it from my character's point of view.
Running a complex combat that way is different, though. You don't run forty rats, per say, but run groups of rats. You end up describing the scene more like you would a novel. Characters act more in regards to what's in the scene and less by whats happening in or near their threatened areas.
Theater of the mind isn't as tactically clear as a battle map in many respects, but it does have advantages in verisimilitude. Battle maps have a tendency to draw you out of the imagined space, or to alter your viewpoint in combat.
For example, when I think back on a combat that used a map, I tend to remember it from the top down. Using Theater of the mind, I tend to remember it from my character's point of view.
Running a complex combat that way is different, though. You don't run forty rats, per say, but run groups of rats. You end up describing the scene more like you would a novel. Characters act more in regards to what's in the scene and less by whats happening in or near their threatened areas.
Last edited:
IronWolf
blank
I guess I just can't get it. It saddens me to think that Next might not be something that I can enjoy.
You can use a grid with DDN too though. Just break out your battlemat and have at it. Give it a whirl and see how it works.
I also strongly suspect that by release there is a tactical module that you can use that will give you the tactical style of play you want as an option.
Klaus
First Post
Mearls already said that a grid-and-minis-based, tactical combat module will be available in the next edition. They just want it to be playable without minis for those who dislike them.I guess I just can't get it. It saddens me to think that Next might not be something that I can enjoy.
The Red King
First Post
I understand your want/need for a map and minis, but I don't need one. I do like some of the other poster's say and describe it as it happens, and let everyone know what happens as it happens. A map, minis, and the space for the map and minis just take up a lot of space.
Similar Threads
