Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5493703" data-attributes="member: 2067">I don't think that grid combat is as close to the heart of D&D as all that. It's been optional in most editions, and in 4e, I keep hearing about people who don't want it.I'm pretty sure you can have a D&D game without having to stick minis on a grid. I'm pretty sure most of MY D&D games have been that way, from 1e to 3e. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I'm not entirely tactically minded. For me, I just need enough tactics to make the combat bits interesting.But I believe there's plenty of room for tactics in a combat designed to be used without a grid. Pokemon's complex rock-paper-scissors cycle of weaknesses and resistances are very tactical, and that game doesn't use a grid. Magic: The Gathering's turns and phases and interrupts and mana management are quite tactical, and that doesn't use a grid. Even 1e's armor vs. weapon table was tactical, though of limited use and not great for actual play. Tactics are about having interesting options that provide certain strengths and weaknesses to characters depending on those options. Getting rid of the grid doesn't mean getting rid of tactics, it just means re-locating them in some other game element. Again, it would mean largely abandoning 4e's grid based combat and the features thereof, but I personally think there is so much to be gained in ease of play and greater game exposure and even the flow of the game that it warrants looking at.But, it is sort of the tension between a turn-based and a real-time game, and you do give up certain things whenever you choose the other one.</blockquote>

Verification