So far I've liked most of what I've heard about 4e, except for one thing - the essential need of a battlemat. If Pathfinder RPG manages to de-emphasis the battlemat (it doesn't have to be completely gone as I know many do like it), I would certainly take notice.
To me, the battlemat slows down a game. In fact, if I never have to describe a room as 20'x20' again, just as one never has to in a written novel, then I'd be super happy (but that may be asking too much...) So I'd like to see a game where feats and skills and combat don't depend on the battlemat, although a battlemat is optional for those who desire to use one.
In other words, I'd like to see fewer powers and combat options with phrases like "flank," "attacks of opportunity," "move 1/2 squares," etc. I'd like to see powers that are less tactical and more imaginative.
Most of the terms I've mentioned are not sacred D&D cows and were introduced in 3.0. But I'm curious as to what others think, whether they agree or not.
While I'm not opposed to the battlemat (I always used them when I DM), I would like to see a lot more feats intended for use out of combat. Maybe bump up the bonuses for skill enhancer feats from +2 to +3 and/or add a bunch more 'social' feats.
It's actually pretty easy to just house rule out some 'battlemat' combat feats, having done it.
Maybe the Pathfinder RPG can have sidebars that suggest non-battlemap options for those who don't use them.
Personally I love my battlemap and even like some of the movement that has been brought into 4E, and would like to see some combat feats added that can bring some more motion into 3.5.
Agreed. Ideally, I'd like to see the game allow for both battlemat and battlemat-free combat. I'm a fan of miniatures myself, but my last group were bigger on the roleplaying, and it was hard to do miniatures on IRC.
Without at least a squared paper grid, it's difficult to visualize where everyone is in relation to everyone else. You can ad-hoc it, but unless you're particularly talented you can't hold it all in your head at once and still manage to communicate it all with verbal flair. Little stuff like attacks of opportunity go by the wayside and flanking becomes more fiddly.
|
for years and years we played D&D without ever using a battlemat. But with 3.x we began using them a lot.
For the vast majority of combats I prefer not using a battlemat.
But for the BBEG, I find a battlemat infinitely more enjoyable.
A simple balance like 3.x is now is fine with me. The way 4E appears, I will not play it because of its almost demand that a battlemat be part of every combat.
I agree with the compromise approach. I play with maps only to the extent that they help the players visualize the scene. I think tactics belong in the storytelling.
There are plenty of tactical options inherent in the existing actions a character can perform. In place of battlemat-oriented rules, I would like to see rules that encourage creative use of those actions ("Aid Another" for example, doesn't get used nearly enough it seems, yet it's exciting to watch a team of movie heroes working together to get in one devastating hit.)
I understand, though, that miniatures are a huge part of D&D history. I wouldn't want to take that away from those that use them. Plus, I am still an addicted buyer of the Gamemastery maps. If those continue to sell well, I doubt Paizo will entirely do away with the map grid! :)
I like the sidebar for non battlemat options as well. I've run the game on a battlemat for many years now, and I have no intention of changing. I pay for painted minis so my players have good representations of their PCs. That makes them and me feel better about the game, but if all they do is sit on a shelf, that's kind of goofy.