Simplifying Distance

[rob626]

I found the precise distance relationships in 3e to seriously hinder immersive combats. Specifically, an rp intense situation that transitioned to combat immediately broke from the story-driven feel to a wargame feel.

I lay a lot of this immersion breaking at the feet of the 5' step and the AoO. Players tended to worry more about provoking or not provoking with such immense detail on how a character got around the battlefield that the game degenerated into D&D minis without the D&D minis streamlining.

<<note: I happen to like D&D Minis. Just not in the middle of my rp session>>

So the question is: What kind of issues do you foresee should the whole 5' shift and AoO's be removed from 4ed? Reduce the distance equations to descriptions of "Hand to Hand, Pretty Close, Not Too Far, Far, and Wicked Far Out There".

I see a lot more theatrical battles, a lot more movement but then again I am guessing that a lot of 4ed powers and abilities are based on concrete distance relationships.

 

[Counterspin]

I'd lose interest if it came down to throwing out the mat. Tactical combat is the reason to play D&D, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[rkanodia]

I found the precise distance relationships in 3e to seriously hinder immersive combats. Specifically, an rp intense situation that transitioned to combat immediately broke from the story-driven feel to a wargame feel.

I lay a lot of this immersion breaking at the feet of the 5' step and the AoO. Players tended to worry more about provoking or not provoking with such immense detail on how a character got around the battlefield that the game degenerated into D&D minis without the D&D minis streamlining.

<<note: I happen to like D&D Minis. Just not in the middle of my rp session>>

So the question is: What kind of issues do you foresee should the whole 5' shift and AoO's be removed from 4ed? Reduce the distance equations to descriptions of "Hand to Hand, Pretty Close, Not Too Far, Far, and Wicked Far Out There".

I see a lot more theatrical battles, a lot more movement but then again I am guessing that a lot of 4ed powers and abilities are based on concrete distance relationships.

I personally like the idea of having generic 'zones', where everybody within the zone is assumed to be able to reach other more or less conveniently, and distances inside the zone aren't measured/considered. Area-of-effect spells would affect everyone inside a single zone, or maybe touch all adjoining zones for truly giant spells. Attacks of opportunity simply wouldn't exist. Big monsters could sit at the border between two zones, and count as occupying both. My only worry would be that we've seen some indications that Attacks of Opportunity are a big part of what makes Defenders 'sticky', so a zone-based system would have to find a way to address the handicap.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

I'd lose interest if it came down to throwing out the mat. Tactical combat is the reason to play D&D, as far as I'm concerned.

No, its the reason to play D&D minis, its the reason to play Battletech, its the reason to play Advanced Squad Leader, its the reason to play Terrible Swift Sword, or any other wargame out there. Saying that about D&D is a step backwards in the evolution of roleplaying games, from that fateful day when Dave Arneson ran his Napoleonic Wars game and no combat ever occurred because everyone was having fun roleplaying.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

The stat blocks we've seen list speed in terms of squares, an elven racial ability grants a bonus to allies within a set radius of 30', and we've seen previews of special environmental variables describes in terms of squares with terrain elements in them. 4e is definitely being designed with grids in mind.

 

[BeauNiddle]

I found the precise distance relationships in 3e to seriously hinder immersive combats. Specifically, an rp intense situation that transitioned to combat immediately broke from the story-driven feel to a wargame feel.

I lay a lot of this immersion breaking at the feet of the 5' step and the AoO. Players tended to worry more about provoking or not provoking with such immense detail on how a character got around the battlefield that the game degenerated into D&D minis without the D&D minis streamlining.

<<note: I happen to like D&D Minis. Just not in the middle of my rp session>>

So the question is: What kind of issues do you foresee should the whole 5' shift and AoO's be removed from 4ed? Reduce the distance equations to descriptions of "Hand to Hand, Pretty Close, Not Too Far, Far, and Wicked Far Out There".

I see a lot more theatrical battles, a lot more movement but then again I am guessing that a lot of 4ed powers and abilities are based on concrete distance relationships.

If you're a great DM then you'll have virtually no issues (possibly issues on whether creatures can push past the front line to get to the casters)

If you're not a great DM then you'll spend most of the session answering questions - how many orcs can I get in the fireball, can I get the orc threatening Bob, can I get the orc threatening Bob and the one threatening Alice, how about the ones threatening Bob and Clive, ...

AoO and shifts are there to give a penalty for moving past / away from an opponent without making it either impossible or trivial. If your players are happy with you handwaving the situation then you'll be fine.

[this is of course dependent on how many actions / powers are dependent on AoO or Opportunity Attacks as I believe they are now called]

 

[Doug McCrae]

4e will put even more emphasis on the battle grid than 3e. There will be lots more powers affecting movement, which will still be in squares. 5 foot steps remain and so do AoOs but they're being simplified.

However I must say how refreshing it is to see someone raise a complaint about D&D being too similar to another form of game or entertainment that is actually completely justified. Very rare, that.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

No, its the reason to play D&D minis, its the reason to play Battletech, its the reason to play Advanced Squad Leader, its the reason to play Terrible Swift Sword, or any other wargame out there. Saying that about D&D is a step backwards in the evolution of roleplaying games, from that fateful day when Dave Arneson ran his Napoleonic Wars game and no combat ever occurred because everyone was having fun roleplaying.

You play your way, and I'll play mine, buddy. I like a D&D game that mixes diceless roleplaying with rules-heavy tactics in equal portions, and Wizards has made a game that does that quite nicely.

 

[Plane Sailing]

You play your way, and I'll play mine, buddy. I like a D&D game that mixes diceless roleplaying with rules-heavy tactics in equal portions, and Wizards has made a game that does that quite nicely.

Don't take things personally, and lets all keep to the subject at hand (to the extent that it can be discussed when we know so little about everything yet)

Thanks

 

[IanB]

A change like that would definitely be something that would cause me to shy away from 4e. I'm definitely in the 'D&D isn't D&D without tactical combat' camp. I don't feel like the natural evolution of a game that more or less started as a wargame is to eventually lose all wargame characteristics.