Playtesters: Are you using miniatures?

[El Mahdi]

Yes and No to Minis, and so far I mostly like the 5E rules.

I use a mixture of Minis and Theatre of the Mind, both to try out the rules in each, and because that's generally how I run my games anyways. Theatre of the Mind as default, Minis when I think it's important to "see" relative positions.

I think the rules are working quite well for both approaches.

 

[Li Shenron]

I didn't vote because I haven't played yet, although I already enjoy the rules.

I plan not to use minis or grid at all. Besides speed and spell/weapon ranges or areas there doesn't seem to be much need to keep track of distances and positions exactly, because there are no special abilities based on exact measurements. I believe it should be possible to run the game with verbal description only, and I want to find out if it is true!

 

[Stormonu]

I made more and more use of minis as the game went on.

I don't know how you'd do combat in this system without a grid. Two reasons: 1) stop-motion initiative. 2) no attacks of opportunity.

If the rules are set up so that characters have options that don't make sense, it doesn't seem like much of a playtest to ignore those options.

Hate to burst yer bubble, but this has been the way of the game for nigh on 25 years. I couldn't conceive of using D&D without so-called stop-motion initiative (can you explain how you do things for a round of combat?), and attacks of opportunity only really came into existence in late 2E Skills and Powers (though prior to that, anyone fleeing a melee gave the opponent a free attack, like an attack of opportunity).

I'm really happy to see that there's very little difference between minis/no minis as far as enjoyment or disapproval of the playtest. The bigger gulf seems between like/dislike.

C'mon you naysayers - I need more data. Vote! I know your out there - Morrus's poll shows there's more than 6 of you who didn't like the playtest.

 

[Campbell]

Hate to burst yer bubble, but this has been the way of the game for nigh on 25 years. I couldn't conceive of using D&D without so-called stop-motion initiative (can you explain how you do things for a round of combat?), and attacks of opportunity only really came into existence in late 2E Skills and Powers (though prior to that, anyone fleeing a melee gave the opponent a free attack, like an attack of opportunity).

I'm really happy to see that there's very little difference between minis/no minis as far as enjoyment or disapproval of the playtest. The bigger gulf seems between like/dislike.

Stop motion initiative has only been with the game since the advent of 3e. With cyclical initiative characters basically act as a man out of time able to direct their actions based on what has already happened in the combat round.

This was the combat sequence before 3e

• DM determines monster actions
• Players determine PC actions
• Determine initiative in groups (each "side" in conflict being a group)
• Resolve actions

Actions were also more abstract. A fighter might declare I attack those goblins over there. He does not get to say I move here and attack that goblin. He was also locked into his declared action. If all the goblins died before he got to make an attack roll too bad.

It's important to note that in 2e individual initiative was a commonly used optional rule, but actions were still declared before anything was resolved.

 

[LostSoul]

can you explain how you do things for a round of combat?

Sure. It's simple: everyone declares an action for the round for the characters they control; if needed, dice are rolled to determine if the action succeeds.

Everyone goes "at once" - which is to say, everyone declares their action for the round at the same time, and that is what they are doing for the next few seconds. Instead of waiting for a character to, let's say, run 60' and hit you before you can make your choice, you hear: "This guy is going to charge you", and you decide what you're doing at that point.

I find it flows much easier.

However - I am pretty sure I have idiosyncratic tastes; I'm not saying that everyone wants to run combat like I do, but I am offering my opinion. Which is - I don't understand how you can run combat without a grid, given that characters are provided options that make no sense in the theatre of the mind's eye. e.g. DM: The orc charges you. You: I run around him and stab him in the back.

 

[Stormonu]

Ah, I guess I misunderstood what you meant by stop-motion initiative then. I thought you were having all actions occur simultaneously (i.e., moving all figures at basically the same time, resolving all attacks at once in one glorious dicerolling-fest). That would have boggled my mind if you were doing it that way.

[MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] - I used the optional 2E initiative rules for my group, but it's been so long I had forgotten about the "declare actions before rolling initiative". Even when I was running my B/X game in March, I forgot to have the characters declare actions before rolling init.

My goof.

However - I am pretty sure I have idiosyncratic tastes; I'm not saying that everyone wants to run combat like I do, but I am offering my opinion. Which is - I don't understand how you can run combat without a grid, given that characters are provided options that make no sense in the theatre of the mind's eye. e.g. DM: The orc charges you. You: I run around him and stab him in the back.

In normal D&D, that would not happen. Whether using the "declare actions before init" or cyclic initiative, one side acts then the other - not both at the same exact time. The orc would complete his action; the PC would have to wait until the orc's charge was completed before he could react. Of course, under the current rules, the orc could charge forward, strike - then even fall back, if he still has movement left. And the PC could do the same, but they wouldn't be running around each other's backside at the same time; one would complete their action before the other reacted. Sure, the PC could circle around the orc after the orc's finished his turn, but he's got to wait until the orc finishes his attack.

If you were using simultaneous actions, why couldn't the DM simply respond with, "Well, if you run behind him, he simply turns to face you." The orc still has movement left, doesn't he?

That's part of the reason newer versions don't use facing - unlike static minis, it is assumed opponents are in constant motion and trying to keep their opponent in sight and off their back (though this does make "attacks from behind" almost impossible to model under the current rules). If you do use facing, you're going to end up with the wierd results you were talking about where opponents can just blithely maneuver around to each other's back as targets become "weeping angel" figures who can only move as long as no one else is looking at them.

 

[Li Shenron]

Sure. It's simple: everyone declares an action for the round for the characters they control; if needed, dice are rolled to determine if the action succeeds.

Everyone goes "at once" - which is to say, everyone declares their action for the round at the same time, and that is what they are doing for the next few seconds. Instead of waiting for a character to, let's say, run 60' and hit you before you can make your choice, you hear: "This guy is going to charge you", and you decide what you're doing at that point.

I find it flows much easier.

However - I am pretty sure I have idiosyncratic tastes; I'm not saying that everyone wants to run combat like I do, but I am offering my opinion. Which is - I don't understand how you can run combat without a grid, given that characters are provided options that make no sense in the theatre of the mind's eye. e.g. DM: The orc charges you. You: I run around him and stab him in the back.

I would certainly like such style of running combat supported by 5e, but personally I find it harder than stop-motion initiative, not simpler! There's a lot more cases to adjudicate ad-hoc by the DM if you run actions simultaneously, and your last example (which you give for another reason) of running around a charging orc sounds just like what stop-motion initiative avoids, while your way of running combat doesn't, if everyone on both sides act simultaneously.

If you instead run it simultaneously for all on one side but otherwise alternating sides (i.e. first all PCs, then all monsters, etc.), this can make encounters much more deadly... because it's easy for all monsters to attack the same PC without any chance of stopping them until the next turn.

 

[Rabbitbait]

Just finished playing our first playtest. No miniatures, no grid, no drawings of any kind. It was all in the mind and I thought it was fantastic. Having no grid seemed to encourage more improvisation and the loose rules supported that well. The combat was a lot faster than I have ever seen it in my 30 years of D&D playing and very very simple.

It wasn't as tactical, but it was just plain good fun.

I DMed and found it a heck of a lot easier to run than 4e - mainly because I did not need to prepare each set piece battle in advance and carefully work out the powers and abilities of the enemies. I just ran whatever was written.

I think I would still pull out the grid occassionally for significant battles, but I like that I can now run smaller scale battles very easily.

I feel like D&D is rediscovering that it is fun.

 

[Andor]

I used lego minis for the characters. We set up a marching order. Most of the battles were theatre of the mind. For a few I set up lego walls as a sketch of the area and used dice for the monsters. Worked a charm.

 

[LostSoul]

I would certainly like such style of running combat supported by 5e, but personally I find it harder than stop-motion initiative, not simpler! There's a lot more cases to adjudicate ad-hoc by the DM if you run actions simultaneously, and your last example (which you give for another reason) of running around a charging orc sounds just like what stop-motion initiative avoids, while your way of running combat doesn't, if everyone on both sides act simultaneously.

I think that those ad-hoc calls from the DM - those "moments of judgement" - are an important feature of RPGs, and one of the reasons I stuck them into my 4E hack so often. Making it easy to make that judgement call is tricky, but it can be done.

As for the charging orc: I can see someone in my game responding to a charging orc by saying "I wait until he approaches, and at the last moment I'll step to the side and slash at his back." (That reminds me of the Sharpe novels.) I think there's a qualitative difference between that and what you get from stop-motion initiative.

I think the question is one of asking how the player makes choices in the game.

If you instead run it simultaneously for all on one side but otherwise alternating sides (i.e. first all PCs, then all monsters, etc.), this can make encounters much more deadly... because it's easy for all monsters to attack the same PC without any chance of stopping them until the next turn.

Yep, true.