Is 13th Age easier on a grid?

[Lawngnome4hire]

I've been reading up on 13th Age, and a lot of it I like. The rules a pretty clear and concise, and there are some pretty good improvements over 3.5 or 4e.
It's not without it's flaws, like every other system out there. The main thing that sticks out to me is the rules they're using to get away from grid play seem to be more complicated than just using a grid. Near and far ranges, engaged and not engaged, intercepting etc. It looks like these were put in place so that you can have similar tactical elements to grid play, without the grid.

So why not just use a grid?

 

[TheFindus]

You can use a grid if you like. Although 13th Age can be played without minis or a grid,
we play with minis and use WorldWorks stuff, which has a grid.
The grid is not a point of reference because the game does not use feet or meters.
It uses engaged, nearby and far away. There is no tactical play one the same level in 13th Age like there is in 4E, so the need for a grid is minimized, if there is a reason at all. "Popping free" from an opponent and intercepting enemies does not require a grid either. So the game does not require a grid, but is just as
much fun with minis on a grid.

 

[Blue]

I'm a long-time battlemap player, since AD&D 2nd ed. I'm running 13th Age without a grid and it's a blast. It does require some description of the battle that would overlap what characters could see on a battlemap. Now, this doesn't replace giving a good description of the area, or even sketching things out.

Nearby and far are simple concepts. Had a recent encounter on a small skyship. On deck? You're nearby to everyone else on deck. High in the rigging? You're far.

Engaged is also straightforward, and gets harder with a grid. Effectively, are you in melee? But since both players and monsters can disengage/pop free without movement at times, or pop free from some but not all, it gets a bit messy to represent on a grid.

I find that not having for everyone to physically move a mini, counting out and worried tactically about the squares they go into, is much faster. Plus if you need to describe moving anyway, my players often kick up the description a notch or four. Running and sliding past a foe, parkour off walls, tossing daggers mid leap, that sort of thing. Gets very dramatic and gets the blood flowing.

Again, for a more tactical game I'd prefer grids. Can't play battletech without hexes. But the free-form feel of the rules allow for a very cinematic, grid-less experience if that's for you and your table.

 

[SteveC]

I have been running the game with a grid because my players are familiar with it (coming from 4E) but the only thing it does is give a visual aid for them to reference. I have had great maps to work with because the adventure I've been running (Shadows over Eldolan) has them. The group has subtly caught on that if you're within 6 squares I'm calling you "nearby" and put engaged characters right next to each other. When someone does a move, I let them move six squares more or less, and they've stopped asking me if the can move an extra square if that's what they need to be next to someone.

So I'd say a map makes things easier, since I find a visual reference to be useful, but it doesn't have to be something you track with a lot of diligence.

 

[Dungeoneer]

I've been reading up on 13th Age, and a lot of it I like. The rules a pretty clear and concise, and there are some pretty good improvements over 3.5 or 4e.
It's not without it's flaws, like every other system out there. The main thing that sticks out to me is the rules they're using to get away from grid play seem to be more complicated than just using a grid. Near and far ranges, engaged and not engaged, intercepting etc. It looks like these were put in place so that you can have similar tactical elements to grid play, without the grid.

So why not just use a grid?

IDK, I figured out 'near' and 'far' back in my Sesame Street days, and that's pretty much all you need to know about 13th Age's gridless combat. If you are trying to figure out how far 'far' is you are not doing it right. It's supposed to be something you can eyeball.

Honestly my 4e group's complaint was that 13A combat was too simple.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

(snip) Honestly my 4e group's complaint was that 13A combat was too simple.

I must admit, I'm ready for a revised edition of 13th Age right about now.

 

[Juris]

We use a map but only for a visual aid. There have been times we haven't used a map and it was fine, but it requires very good descriptions. The thing I like about maps is they suggest combat stunts. If you draw a rope swing on the map someone is going to use it

 

[GrahamWills]

>(snip) Honestly my 4e group's complaint was that 13A combat was too simple.
I must admit, I'm ready for a revised edition of 13th Age right about now.

13 True Ways. Play with an Occultist, a (base edition) Rogue and a Monk, and you will have your fill of complexity. You can even get into the hell-depths of 4e's "I interrupt his interrupt to ...." recursion. It ups the complexity plenty.

 

[GrahamWills]

We use a map but only for a visual aid. There have been times we haven't used a map and it was fine, but it requires very good descriptions. The thing I like about maps is they suggest combat stunts. If you draw a rope swing on the map someone is going to use it

Yup, completely agree. A drawn map (or dwarven forge terrain) makes people more imaginative. We use it pretty much all the time except for simple combats and I'd recommend it. Not gridded, just a rough idea of who is where and where the whirlpool is going to drag you towards ...

 

[Jhaelen]

I'm ready to embrace gridless combat. I really enjoyed 4e's tactically challenging combats, nut now that I'm back to playing Pathfinder, I loath the grid. At least we immediately house-ruled that diagonal movement doesn't cost extra-squares...

I also like the way FFG Star Wars implements combat, and 13th Age seems to use a simplified variant of it. I've found that combat works quite well using tokens.