|
Does anyone play Pathfinder without minis? Can it be played that way?
I’ve been away from RPGs since TSR went belly up and was purchased by Wizards of the Coast. I played more basic D&D, AD&D, and AD&D2E than you can shake a stick at but we very infrequently, if ever, used minis. I played my first game of Pathfinder last night but it seemed to be a very minis dependent game. So much so that it played out more like a board game with some role playing than a role playing game with some minis. It was still fun, just nothing like when I used to play (narrative combat, etc.). Any insights?
I used to use no minis (back in the days when minis were pretty much all metal and expensive) and we did alright but still used dice or coins to mark where our characters were. Now that we have relatively inexpensive plastic minis (pre-painted, too... woot!) to use, I've never looked back. In a game like PF where tactics are so important and it's ofttimes vital to know exactly which 5' square a given character is in compared to his enemies, minis help a -lot-.
Depending on how visual your group is, it is entirely possible to play Pathfinder without minis. Then again, I can play chess (and usually win) without a board or pieces, so maybe I am not the best source for advice here.
But, as long as everyone accepts that their opinion of "where everything is" might be different from one player to the next, and the DM has final say, it works pretty well.
You know the drill. Player asks the DM if he is close enough to move up to the ogre and attack it with his axe. DM says yes or no. Player moves, then DM says "Aha, but this other ogre here takes an AoO as you move through his threat area". Player says "Oh, I had forgotten that 2nd ogre was so close, but my character would have seen that and moved around him to avoid the AoO." to which the DM replies "OK, that's fair. I'll allow that."
Etc.
As long as everyone is OK with this, especially the DM, then it works almost like it did in 2nd edition.
However, Pathfinder is a much more tactical combat simulation. It really helps if the DM is good at keeping track of where everything is. Otherwise it just gets really abstract, and some classes and/or character builds really feel the pinch. For example, rogues with sneak attack rely heavily on flanking, so if the DM is fast and loose with just saying Yes or No without really keeping accurate track of things, then it's easy for the DM to screw the rogue out of many sneak attacks.
It also requires everyone to trust the DM and accept the tactical judgment calls. It can quickly get ugly if the players are always arguing about what creature was in which space, and who moved where and when they did it, etc. It's espcially troublesome if someone builds a tactical character, such as a fast-moving AoO-heavy CMB specialist. Such a character would lose most of his combat effectiveness if the player running him couldn't know exactly which creatures are provoking AoOs or otherwise playing into his tactical strengths, and the player of such a character will be constantly harping at the DM every time the DM makes a tactical decision that the player things might have a chance to affect his combat actions.
So, end result, it's harder to play without minis than it used to be in 1e/2e D&D, but it's still workable as long as everyone accepts it for what it is.
I currently run a Pathfinder game and play in one of my friend's and we do narrative games in about 1 out of 4-5 games. The system actually does quite fine without it, there's just a lot to keep track of without physical representations.
|
|
FWIW, I still have a lot of nostalgia for earlier editions (w/o minis), but do enjoy the tactics involved with 3rd/PF.
What I do is, simplest combats, I'll do narratively w/o minis and I can still do so quite well in regards to keeping in mind where things are in relativity. And then more complicated ones, I'll draw out and use minis for.
Usually this equates to about 20% of combats w/o minis - the others with. It's also a nice change of pace.
As Blake said - it is harder for the tactics-heavy combat rules to be used effectively w/o minis. But often times, combats are quicker w/o since you don't have players ruminating over which path/squares to click off like they were playing chess/monopoly or something.
One of the things I have dont to "speed up" minis play in combats, and also add back some of that narrative nostalgia that you indicated is missing, is have the players describe the characters actions and movement before touching his mini to move it.
This mitigates the amount of someome moving the mini a square then thinking about it, and moving back and saying "wait" then trying a different approach and saying "wait" and then another etc etc.
Instead just have them describe what they're doing and where they're going - then have them move the mini to that location. Then as GM, you can determine if they had enough movement to manuever w/o need of AoO.
For instance "I move across the cave towards *ogre 1* tumbling past *ogre2* to duck under his club"
Vs
[hand on mini] "I move here.....5, 10, (diagonal) 15, (diagonal) 25, 30. Okay I attack"
"hmmm you moved past his (ogre 2) reach, he attemtps to hit you with his AoO."
"Wait - I could tumble past.....I'll move 5, 10, 15, (tumble) 25, 30....."
Robert
We played 3 and 3.5 and now PFRPG with some hybrid approach. For a general encounter for which the PCs are expected to have a clear upper hand, we do without minis and fall back to the DM's ruling for what is possible and what is not. Of course, this comes with a little of arguing/clarification of the states of things on the spot. Pretty much along the lines of what DM_Blake said.
For major battles where tactics will define who wins the day, where character deaths are all the more possible, then in order to be fair, the grid is laid down and the tactical moves / combat rules are followed.
This kind of combat usually happens only once per game session, which overall allows to increase the game speed. But also have the drawback of hinting the PCs that a fight without a map is but a minor bump and that no high level slots/resources should be spent. But even then, a lucky crit and a no-battlemap fight can still happen to be deadly.
Also, higher level play can sometimes lead to impractical use of battle maps. When everyone is flying and throwing spells 500 feet away, how do you even use the map?
-Jelly
Also, higher level play can sometimes lead to impractical use of battle maps. When everyone is flying and throwing spells 500 feet away, how do you even use the map?
Yeah, that can get painful.
We put our mini's just off the mat, or on the very edge of it, with distance markers like "300 feet" with an arrow pointing in their direction - this tells us that the particular mini is 300 feet beyond the edge of the mat.
For fliers, we simply put them where they are at ground level, but write their elevation next to them.
It's far from perfect, but I just don't have a 3-D battlemat the size (and height) of my living room...
I've used graph paper for many years.
Minis are such a pain and expensive. I used cardboard cutouts if we really need to get into detailed combat.
The problem I have with battlemats in general is the game becomes more of a war strategy game instead of a game of storytelling.... which I really don't like. It really slows thing down imo. If the players can trust the DM with player/monster placement, and get a general idea through graph paper or a very small battlemat, then things operate much faster.
It's possible, but it depends on a few things:
1. How good are your players at visualizing things? some folks are better than others than tracking what's going on in a "mind's eye" battlefield. Of course, tracking it small ways on graph paper is fine.
2. Do players "cheat" when there is no grid? One of the reasons in a D&D game we started to use battle grids was because there was a player who always magically seemed to be standing in the "right place"--he was in flanking position, but then suddenly he was 10 feet away from the bad guy so certainly he couldn't be hit by that spell, and then... Grids just eliminate that kind of argument right off.
3. How important are the minutia of tactics to your group? Two of the biggest reasons to use the battle grid are tracking threatened areas for AOOs, and for calculating area of effect. Some people don't mind fudging this... "Eh, yeah, you probably get an AOO." Or "Sorry, I doubt you can hit that guy with the fireball and not hit Bob." And people are happy with that. Others are... not. See #2.
All that said, setting up battle maps can take time, and if you want to play fast and lose and don't worry too much about positioning for tactical maneuvers, there's a lot that can be said for playing it without the added time/space burden of minis.
|
|
It's far from perfect, but I just don't have a 3-D battlemat the size (and height) of my living room...But wouldn't it be awesome if you did?
I wonder how that would look like.
for aerial creatures we stand the mini on a dice container (cube) It's hollow, too, so if the person is flying/hovering/levitating above another person you can turn cube upside down over the grounded mini (provided it's not a really big one).
Robert
Most of the players in the campaign I run have their own minis. For all NPC's & monsters I use printed pictures pasted onto cardboard.
I have on very rare occasions used minis when they helped to visualize unusual fight choreography, but honestly, I do just fine without them and always have. Then again, I also run a roleplaying heavy game, so party marching order and whatnot are less crucial than it might be for other games.
All it takes is some ability to quickly answer in a way that your players accept simple questions such as, "Am I in range or not?"
Last session, a dragon had landed atop a tower in the town center during the annual cheese-tasting festival and milkmaid pageant. One player asked "How tall is the tower?" so he could know whether the dragon was in range or not. I said "Fifty feet" which it turned out put the dragon out of range, but I pointed out that the judges stand hand already been established as being there, and one of those should be a good ten feet up for visibility, not counting the table atop that he could stand on, so getting in spell range of the dragon was still doable.
Were I to have reproduce that for miniatures, I'd either need to build tons of pretty World Works paper miniatures to get a whole medieval village setup or just use my limited skills with erasable markers to sketch out everything on a battle map, all of which would have been moot because the dragons 2000 foot movement rate had it flying away from the square to another portion of the city I had to make up on the fly.
I haven't used minis in any Pathfinder game I've run so far, just like I didn't use them for 3rd edition D&D. For complex battles, I sketch out an "insta-map" to give the players an idea of where everything is. Other than that, I just use description. It's worked fine for me and mine. The only thing worth mentioning is that you need to let the players know ahead of time if a PC's action is likely to provoke an attack of opportunity, since otherwise it can lead to cases of, "I wouldn't have done that if I knew I was going to get attacked."
|
90% ...no scratch that... 95% of the time I DONT use mini's. too slow, too expensive, and feels too board game. Now, don't get me wrong, i do love a good board game now and again, but when i sit to run a rpg...i will run an rpg.
That said, once in a blue-moon, i will have a combat that is very complicated and the use of mini's is a must. For example, when i was running a d20 modern survival horror game, most of the fights took place in narrative; one fight, however, involved 30 - 40 zombies storming a 3 story barn-house with 3 pc's and 6 - 9 npc's. Needless to say, between what windows and doors are zombies breaking in, AoO, guns, explosives, and an ton of zombies to kill - mini's are used. Other than that, i hardly ever use mini's.
|
|
As above, minis not a requirement. The odd player more interested in counting squares than having the roleplaying experinence continue from non-combat into combat may complain about the 5'-step not being as useful without a battle-mat. On the up-side without the battle-mat you don't get the silly 5'-step/shoot or spell dance around the place unless you choose as DM.
S.
The only time we ever use minis is during a huge massed battle, where it does actually matter where everyone is. For the most part otherwise, we just ask questions like "can I charge," "will this spell hit the party as well as the monster," "can I move to him without an AoO," etc.
Granted, it's possibly because we tend to play World of Darkness more than anything, which relies on descriptions rather than maps. Whatever works.
I can't tell you how bad I want a simplified game designed without mini's. A simple way to determine when a thief can flank and sneak attack, a simple way to determine if the wizard is really guarded from the critters by the players. I haven't figured that out yet. I do enjoy pathfinder though, but I also feel the tactics take away from the story. But that is just my taste, I am sure that for many pathfinder does not have that problem. I prefer less thinking about combat strategy and more thinking about the overall plot of the adventure. But their are many things I like about pathfinder otherwise I would still being playing Basic DnD.
I can't tell you how bad I want a simplified game designed without mini's. A simple way to determine when a thief can flank and sneak attack, a simple way to determine if the wizard is really guarded from the critters by the players. I haven't figured that out yet. I do enjoy pathfinder though, but I also feel the tactics take away from the story. But that is just my taste, I am sure that for many pathfinder does not have that problem. I prefer less thinking about combat strategy and more thinking about the overall plot of the adventure. But their are many things I like about pathfinder otherwise I would still being playing Basic DnD.
I can only suggest that maybe add a subsystem. Treat BAB as a Combat Skill.If you visualize that a flanking attack, or whatever, is possible, the have the PC make a Combat check to see if they got into position. Can be opposed by the target's Ref save, or Combat roll. Might not be perfect. Might add more roll play, but it is a skill based mechanic that can be used to avoid minis on smaller scales.
I have played DND and its' clones for many ,many years and have had many fun games without using minis at all. Now that I am older and have a little more liquid funds I decided to give minis a try. I have a club for Pathfinder in my school and my students absolutely LOVE the miniatures and the mats. I can only say they must be a very visual bunch (maybe most kids are).
It is a large group (7) and they are new to the game, so combat tends to be slow, but I don't see why comabt can't be faster with a group of experienced players. The only problem I have is ranges at the higher levels. They can go way off any map you can buy. To deal with this we place minis or markers at the edge of a map or table with a number by it representing how far off the map it is. They works pretty well.
The only other problem I have with minis is that compared to the sheer variety of creatures you can have, the number of minis is rather limited, which means they get used alot. While that helps justify their cost, it dilutes the presentation of 'new' or 'more powerful' versions of any given creature.
Still, you can't have it all, I suppose.
I've been playing in a pathfinder game for about half a year now, and I played 3.5 for many years before switching. I've only used minis maybe 10 times tops, and it was never really needed. We almost never run into troubles with flanking or any sort of tactical situations. The only time it becomes a problem is when one of the players stops paying attention. A quick sketch of the map solves almost any problem that might come up.
|
|
Just for a little follow up help to the OP; I think the important thing is that once you're comfortable enough with the mechanics, you can start to do a lot of the narrative visualization in your head without minis.
It's just a learning curve from 2nd/1st edition to the tactics in 3rd that is the trick.
I think it's easier to get a mental picture in the beginning by using the grid and minis until you're comfortable enough with guesstimating how far one can move and how hard it would be to avoid AoOs or get into flanks for different benefits, as well as issues such as reach and area of effect spells.
Robert
It's easy if you get used to it. Usually the DM describes the room and where the enemies are relative to the party. It ends up abstracting tactics just a little bit because you end up just using distance and not a battle grid. I've found that it actually speeds up play quite a bit because you don't have to draw into a grid and players decide on moves quicker because you don't have decide the perfect square, you just decide how you want to move relative to the bad guys. It also make the game more fun IMHO because the DM and the players have to describe everything so the image I get in my mind's eye is a lot more vibrant and detailed then when I used minis.
|
|
The benefits of not using the minis are defined above - and it definitely speeds up play.
The downside to it is that the tactics of the game do include alot of emphasis on things such as AoO and feats/tactics that build on that - the 5'steps the casting defensive, the Step Up, Stand Still feats, Combat Reflexes etc.
In short - a lot of the combat rules and tactics therein are hinged on the use of them to make AoO, threatened squares and movement an intregal part of the game.
By not using minis and abstracting using narrative descriptions, it does tend to diminish the role of these aspects and feats within the game.
There CAN be some unbalancing factors when you do that. No always; not even most of the time, but it could be the case; and I just wanted to point that out. Some creatures, and some character (builds) and tactics rely heavily on these.
Now, if everyone can live with the idea that the emphasis on such things is okay to be mitigated, then no harm no foul; but at least be aware of the plausible side effect of not using them and how it will affect that part of 3.x rules.
Robert
I only break out the maps and minis for Society play or for game days and the like. For our home games it's all narrative. More immersive that way, I've never been able to really "see" the fight when it's on a gridmap. Just doesn't work as well for me. Much more vivid if it's all in my head.
I don't think it takes away from the tactical edge in the games. Not at our table. Our games are plenty tactical--but it does move the tactics from the kinds of tactics that are more game based, to ones that are grounded more in the story, if that makes sense. And I really like that better anyway.
I guess to answer the original question, I'd totally concider running games all narriative. There's nothing in the game that makes it so you can't. Our group loves it.