Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Philotomy Jurament" data-source="post: 3151788" data-attributes="member: 20854">Nah, minis aren't necessary at all, although the 3E rules (especially 3.5) do seem to assume the use of a battlemap/minis as the default.Minis can be helpful, though.&nbsp; I played for years without minis, but started using them with 1E (we used the 1&quot; = 3.33 ft. scale described in the 1E DMG).&nbsp; I always used them with 3E.&nbsp; Now, I'm running Castles &amp; Crusades, and I use them for some battles, but not all.&nbsp; I've drifted away from using the map as a definite grid, though.&nbsp; I've gone back to a ruler/tape-measure for quick evaluation of distance (usually faster than counting squares, if the distance is medium or long).&nbsp; I think &quot;decoupling&quot; from the grid/squares does make movement and combat feel a bit more organic.&nbsp; Another thing I've been getting away from is a strict 1., 2., 3... order in initiative.&nbsp; Instead, I've been asking for declaration of actions, then rolling for initiative, and then deciding how any declared movement would play out.&nbsp; For example, two groups charging would meet in the middle, rather than the more &quot;chess-like&quot; practice of having one side move, then the other, etc.&nbsp; I've found that this also improves the organic feel of combat.&nbsp; I've also found that initiative, itself, is often unnecessary.&nbsp; Sometimes it's obvious which actions would go first.&nbsp; In those cases, I don't bother with initiative at all.&nbsp; The approach I've been taking has also lessened the need for individual initiative, and I tend to use group initiative quite a bit, these days.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Philotomy Jurament, post: 3151788, member: 20854"] Nah, minis aren't necessary at all, although the 3E rules (especially 3.5) do seem to assume the use of a battlemap/minis as the default. Minis can be helpful, though. I played for years without minis, but started using them with 1E (we used the 1" = 3.33 ft. scale described in the 1E DMG). I always used them with 3E. Now, I'm running Castles & Crusades, and I use them for some battles, but not all. I've drifted away from using the map as a definite grid, though. I've gone back to a ruler/tape-measure for quick evaluation of distance (usually faster than counting squares, if the distance is medium or long). I think "decoupling" from the grid/squares does make movement and combat feel a bit more organic. Another thing I've been getting away from is a strict 1., 2., 3... order in initiative. Instead, I've been asking for declaration of actions, then rolling for initiative, and then deciding how any declared movement would play out. For example, two groups charging would meet in the middle, rather than the more "chess-like" practice of having one side move, then the other, etc. I've found that this also improves the organic feel of combat. I've also found that initiative, itself, is often unnecessary. Sometimes it's obvious which actions would go first. In those cases, I don't bother with initiative at all. The approach I've been taking has also lessened the need for individual initiative, and I tend to use group initiative quite a bit, these days. [/QUOTE]

Verification