Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 5208882" data-attributes="member: 53980">I'm not convinced that 4e is any harder to run mini-less than earlier editions, with the exception of large, complex set-piece encounters.&nbsp; Certainly 4e has a number of effects that relate to positioning, but so has every edition.&nbsp; The DM has always had to know (or at least competently make up) the relative positions of all participants.&nbsp; How else would you know how many orcs get caught in the web spell (or how many successful checks each will have to make to extricate himself and how much cover the web currently grants him)?&nbsp; How else could you know whether or not the ranger with a movement rate of 12 can reach the enemy on the far side of the room this round?If a 4e enemy is slowed, you know he can't possibly move adjacent to anyone more than 20 feet away (assuming he doesn't run or use a power).&nbsp; If an enemy is pushed 20' (4 squares) away from the wizard, the wizard can push him adjacent to the fighter assuming the fighter is no more than 25' away (and not on the opposite side of the wizard).&nbsp; If you shift, you're probably doing it either to gain flank or to step away so that you can move without provoking OAs, so it's no more difficult to adjudicate than taking a 5' step was.Now, certainly, it's a little more free form than when you're using minis, but D&amp;D has always been a bit more free form when played thus (IME and AFAIK).&nbsp; I think you'd still need to break out the grid for serious battles (BBEG), but 4e does those quite well (IMO) so I don't see a problem.I think that simply assuming that 4e never handles well without minis is a mistake.&nbsp; I'll have to give it a try the next time I'm in the DM's seat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 5208882, member: 53980"] I'm not convinced that 4e is any harder to run mini-less than earlier editions, with the exception of large, complex set-piece encounters. Certainly 4e has a number of effects that relate to positioning, but so has every edition. The DM has always had to know (or at least competently make up) the relative positions of all participants. How else would you know how many orcs get caught in the web spell (or how many successful checks each will have to make to extricate himself and how much cover the web currently grants him)? How else could you know whether or not the ranger with a movement rate of 12 can reach the enemy on the far side of the room this round? If a 4e enemy is slowed, you know he can't possibly move adjacent to anyone more than 20 feet away (assuming he doesn't run or use a power). If an enemy is pushed 20' (4 squares) away from the wizard, the wizard can push him adjacent to the fighter assuming the fighter is no more than 25' away (and not on the opposite side of the wizard). If you shift, you're probably doing it either to gain flank or to step away so that you can move without provoking OAs, so it's no more difficult to adjudicate than taking a 5' step was. Now, certainly, it's a little more free form than when you're using minis, but D&D has always been a bit more free form when played thus (IME and AFAIK). I think you'd still need to break out the grid for serious battles (BBEG), but 4e does those quite well (IMO) so I don't see a problem. I think that simply assuming that 4e never handles well without minis is a mistake. I'll have to give it a try the next time I'm in the DM's seat. [/QUOTE]

Verification