Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BobTheNob" data-source="post: 5878477" data-attributes="member: 82425">We did a group analysis of what was taking combats to be so drawn out. Grids werent the number 1 item, but they were acknowledged as one of the contributers. When players micro-position where they stand, where that fireball lands, the best "tactical" positioning, its all takes time. This is the trade off (which was eloquently pointed out) between hyper-accurate positioning and speed. The other thing Im not so hot on with grids is that they arent the theater of the mind. Its great when your mind constructs the image of what is going on. The more the grid is in place, the less I find this happens (for me).I actually want a middle ground on this. A "zone" system, where players are just considered to be in zones.* You break the battle area into zones which are linked to each other. Logical breakdown of the battle theater.* Every participant is considered to be in a zone and zones can have multiple participants in them* You can use a move action to move from one zone to another* If you are in the same zone as an enemy, you can melee attack it.* If you are in the same zone as an enemy they can AOP you (and vice-versa)* Ranged attack ranges are measured in zones* Area attacks target zones (for instance, fireball attacks all creature in a zone up to 3 zones away)Its simplistic...but thats what I want, simple. It rewards placement (to a degree) and gives you something to build tactical challenge upon, at the same time doesnt do square-by-square micro-management. I have been going over iteration's of this in my mind for a while now, cant quite perfect it, but the principle of it seems to intrigue me.</blockquote>

Verification