log in or register to remove this ad

 

Savage Worlds - battlemat required?

Caedrus

Explorer
I am getting ready to start my first Savage Worlds campaign in a couple weeks, using the Rippers setting. I know the rules say that a battlemat helps, but I am wondering how necessary it is. I would prefer not to use one, but didn't know how easy it would be to leave it out.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


SavageRobby

First Post
In my experience, SW combat is as easy to do with the grid as without. Especially if you ignore the term "adjacent" in some of the combat rules and use the term "engaged" instead, specifically for free attacks from withdrawing and gang-up bonuses (so, to get the bonus or free attack, you must be in combat with the opponent, not merely adjacent to them). That makes it much less dependent on the mat, and more dependent on player description of their actions. (And even when we use the grid, I use those substitutions now anyways.)



BTW, Rippers rocks. Do you have the Rippers Companion?
 

Nailom

First Post
Since there're not so many movement related rules then in D&D (you're either in melee with somebody or not - that's most of it). I guess it's possible.
 

Caedrus

Explorer
SavageRobby said:
In my experience, SW combat is as easy to do with the grid as without. Especially if you ignore the term "adjacent" in some of the combat rules and use the term "engaged" instead, specifically for free attacks from withdrawing and gang-up bonuses (so, to get the bonus or free attack, you must be in combat with the opponent, not merely adjacent to them). That makes it much less dependent on the mat, and more dependent on player description of their actions. (And even when we use the grid, I use those substitutions now anyways.)



BTW, Rippers rocks. Do you have the Rippers Companion?

I like the substitution ideas. They make more sense. Just being adjacent shouldn't necessarily mean you should gain an advantage. I think I will use those!

Don't have the Rippers Companion yet. I'm waiting to see how the game goes, and make sure the group likes the rules/setting. It looks pretty cool, though. I may buy it anyway for the read.
 

SavageRobby

First Post
Caedrus said:
I like the substitution ideas. They make more sense. Just being adjacent shouldn't necessarily mean you should gain an advantage. I think I will use those!

We had a few situations where the adjacent rules were abused. So we modified them. :) It does work out well. One thing we do is let players (and NPCs) declare themselves "engaged", even if they can't necessarily make an attack. So say someone attacks, kills their opponent and then moves next to another opponent. They can declare themselves engaged with that opponent, even though they don't attack this round. That means if the opponent tried to move away, the character would get a free attack, or another character attacking that opponent would get the gang-up bonus. It also means that the character couldn't move away from the opponent without giving the opponent a free attack, too.


Don't have the Rippers Companion yet. I'm waiting to see how the game goes, and make sure the group likes the rules/setting. It looks pretty cool, though. I may buy it anyway for the read.

I like Rippers a lot. Great setting, and great read. Have fun with it. :)
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top