Not using Grid / minis / pawns

[Illithidbix]

Although I haven't had a chance to play it, I very much like 13th Age's combat whereaboust system for gridless play.
(http://www.13thagesrd.com/combat-rules )

Whereabouts
Each creature has a general, relative position on the battlefield. Combat is dynamic and fluid, so miniatures can't really represent where a character 'really is.'

Nearby
Generally, all the heroes and their enemies in a battle are nearby. That means they can reach each other with a single move action.

Behind
If you're behind an unengaged ally, and an enemy moves past that ally to get to you, your ally has the option to move and intercept.

Intercepting
You intercept a creature when you move to stop an enemy attempting to rush past you to attack someone else. You must be near the enemy and the person that enemy is trying to reach.

Far Away
Generally, the heroes and their enemies are nearby each other and you can use a single move action to reach any of them (provided no enemy intercepts you). If you want to be far away, two moves away from the enemies, make that clear to the GM and make sure there's room for that maneuver. Wizards and other casters sometimes like to be far away.

Engaged/Next
In a battle, each combatant is either engaged (locked in combat with one or more enemies) or unengaged (free). When two allies are engaged with the same enemy, they are considered next to each other.

As a very rough hack:

Engaged/Next/Behind = within 5'
Near = 30'
Far = 60' or 90' (not sure which works best)


It seems to be easy enough.
If an ally is Behind you, you can use your Reaction to Intercept an enemy who moves to Engage them.
If an enemy you can see is Engaged by you, then you may use your Reaction to make an Opportunity Attack if they attempt to move away (become free) unless they use their action to disengage.
If you are Engaged then Ranged attacks have disadvantage (as if you were within 5')

Either you cannot Intercept an enemy if you are already engaged, or doing so provokes an Opportunity Attack, depends how you want to play it.)
Reach is a bit harder to work with, but I'd go with "If you are behind an ally then you may use your reach to attack an enemy they are engaged with without having to engage with the enemy.


You do lose a bit of the move-action-move mechanism that 5E added (and I really rather like) and different movement rates.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

Grids are limited by space, resources, artistic ability and physical structure. Gridless is limited by imagination.

 

[Waterbizkit]

I wouldn't refuse to play in or run a game that didn't use a grid, but it's hardly preferential. I started playing back in 2E and even then we used miniatures, even if not with a grid, to provide a better spacial awareness of where everything was during a combat.

I've been the default DM for quite a long while now while we may not always use a grid we still always use the miniatures. For us it simply makes things run a bit more efficiently.

As far as the cost and storage goes, I can't say I see eye to eye on that point. A cheap reusable battlematt with some wet-erase markers is all you need to quickly sketch out a rough combat map and unless you're especially hung up on looks any simple token or spare die works well enough for player & npc/monster positioning. If you have fancy maps & miniatures that's great, but the cheap & simple stuff works just as well.

 

[Magil]

I've read it twice now that since there aren't specific rules for gridless play, that means that the game was designed for gridded play. I disgree. In 5e, grid rules are optional, which clearly infers that the default style is without grid. Also, the rules for gridless play aren't there because they aren't needed. What would you have as gridless rules? You wouldn't, because everything is just "what feels right". That's sort of the whole point behind gridless play.

Remember, AD&D used precise measurements as well, but most certainly wasn't "default grid" play.

Conversely, I see a lot of people singing the praises of using "imagination" for combat, as if implying that putting combat in a grid is somehow limiting. I'd make two points in reference to this.

The first is that I've been taught all my life that simply describing something with words is a lot less likely to get people to accurately absorb information than proper use of a visual context (whether it's props, graphs, or grids), and this is especially true when trying to comprehend spatial concerns. To use a quick example, showing someone a picture of a character is much more effective at conveying the character's appearance than trying to describe the character verbally. Multiply this by several levels of complexity when you enter in the precise distances of measurement that the DnD rule set uses.

The second is that many find some degree of limitations comforting rather than restrictive. After all, the rules do more than tell you what you can do, they tell you what you cannot do, or what requirement you need to meet in order to do it. That is why rules are used. Grids help more than they hurt by "limiting" your understanding of the situation to the most correct interpretation and making sure each individual has the same understanding. I cringe whenever two or three people have a very different understanding of a tactical situation simply because it's not represented visually, when such a thing would not have actually occurred within the game world because the characters should be able to comprehend their situation accurately. It breaks verisimilitude and takes you out of the world. As a small aside, I'd also like to point out that people's imaginations tend to be much more limited than they first realize

As to your question of "What would you have as gridless rules?", the example of 13th Age given a few posts earlier works well. There are games out there that have rules for gridless play, but again I will stress that Dungeons and Dragons is not one of them.

With that said, everyone does what works for their table. My experience with Theater of the Mind is almost exclusively negative and I'm by nature a tactical thinker, so naturally I have a strong bias against it. I don't doubt that the game can be run without a grid (though I have yet to see it done effectively--the most successful examples I see of it tend to be where the game ignores the written rules to an extent which I am uncomfortable with), but even though the grid is presented as an "optional rule" in 5E, I don't buy it. The rules were very clearly written with the grid in mind. The fact that they use five-foot measurements rather than "squares" is simply a cloak to try and disguise the fact, but it's not fooling me.

 

[Dausuul]

The PHB indicates using grid as an option. Would you play in a game that didn't ? In my limited experience with playing in a few groups minis etc seem to be expected now. Pathfinder assumes it, although 5e does not.Way back when we never did, and had a great time.I'd love to go out and drop $$ on all this stuff, but I'm a gamer on a budget

I would and I do. I have a huge collection of minis, but the other DMs in my group use them more than I do. To me, breaking out the minis and the battlemat takes more time than it's worth for a short combat.

My preference is a mix: Theater of the mind for skirmishes, mat and minis for the big set-piece battles and climactic showdowns. But I will happily play with minis always, minis never, or any mix of the two.

 

[Lidgar]

My preferred method is to have minis/tokens. Heck, we often use candy for monsters, because, you know, you can eat them as a reward for killing them and taking their stuff.

The use of grids on the other hand is totally optional. I find having some kind of dry erase surface is helpful to draw more complex encounters every once in a while. But by no means mandatory.

My favorite use of a "grid" was the time we used coffee mugs (to represents our characters) and the grid pattern on the living room carpet to position PC's in a dungeon corridor encounter.

 

[Dausuul]

Also taking into consideration I'm just getting a new group together and are first session is still pending. Suspect I will go without to start and see if the group gels, and we get some momentum going then will look at picking up some and adding that to the game if needed. I agree is nice though for combats and can help new players learn . . .

Why not go old-school? Just buy a pad of graph paper and a few pencils. When combat starts, if anyone's confused, you can sketch out the battlefield and use whatever's handy (spare dice, M&Ms, coins) to represent the combatants. That'll give you a sense of how often you need the visuals and whether it's worth investing more heavily.

 

[Giant2005]

I have been playing with grids in one of my games for the last couple of years, mainly because that group has only ever used grids and like everyone else, they hate change.
However I much prefer TotM. When I look at minis and a grid, that is all there is to look at for me - I cannot activate my TotM powers while visual aids already exist, and my TotM powers usually provide a much more cinematic experience than the minis ever could.
Sure with TotM it is almost certain that everyone else is imagining something completely different to me, but that isn't a weakness, it is TotM's main strength. When using TotM, everyone is imagining their own ideal battle which guarantees every battle is epic in scope. Minis add a limitation which prevents that - you can't picture your own ideal battle in your mind because the minis are right there on the table, telling you that your ideal battle isn't happening.

 

[Li Shenron]

The PHB indicates using grid as an option. Would you play in a game that didn't ?

I have, and would play again, but in recent years my favourite has been "gridless with minis", which means to use minis (and other objects) to show positions, distances, directions but without an actual "discrete" grid. I feel like I'm getting the best of both worlds.

 

[Sacrosanct]

but even though the grid is presented as an "optional rule" in 5E, I don't buy it. The rules were very clearly written with the grid in mind. The fact that they use five-foot measurements rather than "squares" is simply a cloak to try and disguise the fact, but it's not fooling me.

Well, you don't have to buy it, but it doesn't change the fact that grid play isn't the default assumption in 5e. The fact that grid rules are explicitly listed as "optional" in fact means that it's not the default style. Don't forget what else I had also said. AD&D had very clear measurements as well, and it wasn't meant to be played on a grid as default, so just because 5e uses 5ft measurements in no way implies or infers that grid play is expected.

I'll add one more thing. Just because there are no rules for gridless play doesn't mean that grid play is the default for the reason I already mentioned--because you don't need them. That's like saying D&D is designed to spend 90% of your time in combat because 90% of the rules are around combat. And that's not true at all.