| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely prefer one. I've played with and without, and I find that when there's no mat, I spend the first 4 minutes of my turn pestering the GM - "Which enemies can I see?" "How far am I from the wall?" "Are the enemies all within 30 feet of each other?" "Can I move into flanking?" "How close is the nearest enemy?" "Does he have cover?"
When you have a battle mat, you can actually plan your turns in advance. I find that hard to do when there's no mat. Plus it actually forces you follow rules like movement speed, AoOs, and defensive casting that can otherwise get lost in the shuffle.
I hate the battlemap. I can tolerate it when I PC, but I will not use it when I GM--it's an awful waste of time in my mind, that also harms immersion.
People who are used to it are annoying at first when I try to switch them off of it, always asking me stuff like "which enemies can I see" or "are all the enemies within 30' of each other" but eventually, they let go and just run with it. ;)
Without a battlemap, fights are ridiculously faster. Nobody is worrying about moving around, they just say, I want to move to that enemy there, and I can say, "ok" or "he's farther than that" or "you'll provoke from this other guy," etc.
It just takes a mental adjustment. For example, you don't say, "I want to put my [area effect] here," you say, "how many of them can I get with [my area effect]?"
It takes some trust, though, that the GM isn't trying to screw you over (I'm not). Sometimes, there's some disagreement over what the scene looks like, but a quick explanation fixes that, and still takes less time than moving a figurine around a board.
I've had zero complaints about running games like this in twenty years, and it's non-negotiable for me to run a game for you. Like I said, I'll still PC a game with a map, but it's not ideal. Being unable to avoid the battlemap is one of the main reasons I dislike 4e.
Battlemat for sure. Makes it so much easier for players to figure out what they can see, where they want to go. I can draw out the terrain, use fun props, and really get people to see the environment that they're in. There's far too much hand waving of combat and movement rules without a mat on the table. I tend to also have some smart players that often end up planning ahead, so things go fast when using a mat.
I think the battlemap is horrible.
2: I also think its a crutch. Its far easier and more common nowadays to just draw a room and say 'heres the room' than it is to put any effort into describing the room accurately or creating atmosphere. The less you do it the worse you'll be at it, so using one creates a dependency on one, which is why mpl gets so much flak when it's not there.
3: Now players feel like unless they see it on the table there's no way they can get a clear picture in their head, and if a gm has been on the battlemat long enough then the players are probably right. He didnt describe it very well because he's stopped being used to trying to.
4: Playing in a system where some classes are designed around battlemap definitions is even worse because now the entire structure of your class is all battlechess. Take that away from a person who's had those training wheels all his life and hand them a 2e character and its like uh... so do i get a bonus for blah blah blah?
"I cant bullrush the guy because theres no bullrush skill. "
"Sir? Theres no bullrush skill because you dont need a bullrush skill. A mage can bullrush. Its not a very skillfull manoever. Its more of a gesture. Out here we call it a tackle." I'm not saying anyone cant make an untrained bullrush but I find it hard to believe that there's some battle hardened elite nuanced tackle thats better than an untrained one. Probably get some MMA enthusiasts who would tell me differerently. I can hear the opposition now...
5: I notice a strong tendency that wandering through a city street can be an immersive and colorful experience where players think outside the box and role play and ask questions and investigate and participate. Then combat begins and the theater of the mind drops away and everyone is thinking battlechess. I wont say that everyone has this problem but most of the people i know, when the stairs down to the next level are blocked arent thinking maybe while the party holds the enemy at the choke point I'll tie a rope to this flagpole over here and swing down through the window of the next level. They just think jeez I hope our choke point holds.
Outside of combat? They definitely think of solutions that arent number crunching, but I see more people drop imagination as soon as the chesspiece hits the chessboard. Of course there are exceptions to the rule but at least in my experience the imagination going away when the battlemat comes out is the rule, not the exception.
The most insidious thing about it is that i've caught myself doing it. The frickin battle mat makes ME a worse gamer and I don't want to become the kind of worse that I see myself becoming. I don't want to get lazy and battle matty, but it can happen to you by accident without you even realizing it.
even moreso for creating the a (tendency/habit/atmosphere) not to have to think in colorful imaginitive ways and a growing dependence on those mechanics,
even moreso for forcing combat into this battlechessy 'can i hit him across the diagonal if there's a corner there' kind of conversation, because now its not about the situation anymore. its about the mat.
But the most insidious thing about it is that i've caught myself doing it. The frickin battle mat makes ME a worse gamer and I don't want to become the kind of worse that I see myself becoming. I don't want to get lazy and battle matty, but it can happen to you by accident without you even realizing it.
If you take the battlemat away does everyone hold their breath and seem confused or paranoid? When you put the battlemat down does everyone breathe a sigh of relief and say 'thank god. now I can see what's going on'... If thats true I think its a problem and I think the mat itself creates the problem, not the player or the gm.
I prefer it. It makes it easier to know what I am doing so that I am not spending the first half of my turn figuring out what I am going to do.
Hands down I prefer it. Everything MP said is exactly why I think it is important. I want to play based on how the set up IS, not how the DM imagines it, but doesn't portray it.
I want to know before I start moving where things are and how they are going to affect me. Rules of the game are like Physics of the world. Distance is the most important thing in battle. If you don't have a easily determined way to understand it all, it is even WAY more abstract than the game already is.
As to Vincent Takeda's complaint of losing immersion, I can understand that. My "battlemat" is either a projected map, a printed map or a 3D dungeon that I have built specifically to work with the game system and my minis. I guess I can imagine his frustration.
But to counter, having played 2E, that SUCKED. It was always at the DMs whim. I want the DM to set up a cool encounter then I want to beat it based on what the set up is. In his example of the corner, it is up to the DM at that exact second whether or not I can make the AoO around the corner based on how far he thinks I am. So he is going to change the situation based on that second and not the original setup. Extrapolate that to 30 or so instant decisions and the DM might as well just tell you the story rather than you bother to roll any dice.
As to the 2E battle system, really? So many things were impossible to figure out. Completely different systems for EVERYTHING. I really like the way it is now designed that everyone looking at the table should be able to understand what their options are.
Oh, and backstab! Yeah, I always move to backstab. Every round. Every turn. What do you mean I am not behind him? Of course I am.
Yeah, I live and die by the grid. Once fully understood and implemented with the proper terrain, it is AWESOME!
But to counter, having played 2E, that SUCKED. It was always at the DMs whim. I want the DM to set up a cool encounter then I want to beat it based on what the set up is. In his example of the corner, it is up to the DM at that exact second whether or not I can make the AoO around the corner based on how far he thinks I am. So he is going to change the situation based on that second and not the original setup. Extrapolate that to 30 or so instant decisions and the DM might as well just tell you the story rather than you bother to roll any dice.
I totally understand this sentiment. I think this particular sentiment boils down to how much adversity you have with your gm.
One of the reasons I like that playing it out though is it clearly defines for you if you are playing against a gm that wants to make things interesting and reward you for your imagination or if you're playing against a gm thats just there to ream you at every opportunity.
I've recently been the victim of a gm who describes a setting poorly, doesnt point out your misconceptions, doesnt retcon actions that you take that wouldnt make sense and will nearly wipe the party based on said misconceptions... All with a cheshire grin and a gleam in his eye. It sucked, but now I know for sure that he's the second kind of gm. I consider it one of very many valid tools for seeing just how much a gm sucks or not. It sounds like you too have had some bad experiences. And a gm you cant trust off the mat is a gm you shouldnt trust on the mat. It gives the illusion that your gm cant make everything fiat, but thats an illusion and he's still doing whatever you cant see to make your life a living hell. Fudging rolls, jacking cr...
Sometimes misunderstandings are a player not paying close enough attention. Sometimes misunderstandings are a gm not working hard enough to properly illustrate the scenario. Resorting to a battlemat is both sides giving up on trying to get better. If you dont use it, you lose it and suddenly everyone sucks at playing without the mat.
I should add another bullet to my argument that there isnt a single paper maché pirate ship thats cooler than the pirate ship my head can paint with a few skillfull words from a gm with a good sense of ambiance.
I love miniatures. We've been using them for years. The more I can paint a figure to look like YOUR character... the more fun I have.
The battlemap however, is kind of meh to me. There are a LOT of things I do not like about it... especially the movements and line of sights and a lot of nitpicky rules that think takes it out of Roleplaying and into Board game territory.
However, so much of Pathfinder is based on various movements and concepts... it's just easier to use it. And if we've GOT to know exact dimensions in the room... then I prefer the battle map to a lot of other jury riggec methods...
Hands down I prefer it. Everything MP said is exactly why I think it is important. I want to play based on how the set up IS, not how the DM imagines it, but doesn't portray it.
Yeah, I'm sorry you've had GMs that were lousy at this. A good GM isn't opposed to the players--he wants them to succeed. I work with my players, not against them, so there's no adversarial nonsense that you're talking about here.
I am consistent about the scene and the rules--no hand waving at all. The main difference is that you have to see with your brain instead of your eyes, you can't stop paying attention until your turn comes up because you can just look at the map to see what happened, and everything is 58176571 times faster, so combat takes moments, not minutes.
I prefer maps.
It was ok with no maps in our Shadowrun game... Except I think it might have been intended for battle mats too.
I prefer maps, but for different reasons as a GM vs. as a player:
Part of my fun as a GM is drawing the maps. I would (and do) just draw maps for the heck of it, but having a map and not using it is like spending the time to paint warhammer minis and then never playing the game with them. OF course, not all of my maps have a grid on them, so I guess GM Me falls on both sides of the fence.
However, as a player I must have a map, preferably with a grid. Maybe it is a matter of bad GMs as Vincent and mlpindustries have said, but every time I've played without a map everything fails. If I'd had a map, he would've registered as either 1 square too far or not. Same goes for AoO builds- . If there was a map, I could have positioned my character to make that impossible. Without one, I will always be just out of alignment to suit the GM. Maybe that's good for telling a story, but if the story is all that matters, why roll dice? When I'm a player, I want to play.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
How many people like the hex grid better?
*raises hand
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer mats and maps. Frankly, if I had more time, I'd prefer 3d terrain I make with molds. I went for years visualizing in my head and running my games that way but inevitably there was always one player who had a different vision than mine.
It wasn't adversarial when we argued over combat placement. Or at least, it wasn't GM vs Player; I kind of resent that impression. Instead it was a misunderstanding. "I thought you said 'we enter the room'?" "I thought YOU said the chamber was 'vast and filled with echoes'?"
I concede the point that battlemats eat up time, as does mini placing. But what really seems to take time IMO is decisions. When no map, then trying to remember where everyone is in relation to one another, asking where effects are going off, etc; a lot of clarifying before committing to an action. When map then playing miniature-chess trying to calculate AoO's, where to center spells and the like.
But in the end I'm pro-mat or map over not just because I like looking at things. That's it, plain and simple. Probably a bit of undiagnosed ADD in me but I like looking at a cool map, playing with terrain, handling minis, all of it! They're my toys and I like to play with them.
One last note about going mapless: I found that when we DID do it that way back in the day we ended up drawing out quick sketch maps anyway, or mapping the dungeon as we went. Also for those times we argued we always went to the dice. "Ok, so you're the green d10 and the goblins are these little d4's over here. Grab a ruler..."
I prefer mats when the situation calls for it, but I don't rely on them. I've run one shots where things were simply done by description and they work out just fine, but I inevitably sketch things out on a pad of paper to keep track for myself, and show it to players if they ask.
I've never had a problem with player imagination during combat with a mat. I'll roughly lay out the walls and important objects amd use coins amd dice for players and enemies (which does still require a degree of imagination to play with) and my players will still ask and imagine. "Is there any loose rope lying nearby?" "Is he wearing a helmet and does it look loose?" "How did it react to seeing my spell?"
How many people like the hex grid better?
*raises hand
*raises hand
*raises handHow many people like the hex grid better?
*raises hand
While I hate battle maps of all kinds, I do like the hex grid better than the square grid. Maybe it's my love for Battletech, I don't know. I still won't run a game with a hex grid, but I'll be less quietly annoyed* PCing in one.
*just to make it clear, I'm not some douche who sits ruining people's fun when I'm forced to use a map. I might voice my preference before the game starts, and then just deal with it--I know the rules and can function just fine, I just don't prefer them.
I like playing on the grid. But, I love drawing intricate maps and painting figures so I'm biased. I like the tactical movement, but I liked RPGs just as much before I had a battle mat so I think I could live without it. I totally agree that it distracts from RP and slows down the game
I like painting figures and I agree with mpl. The classes are written in such a way that not using a map for combat in pathfinder is more challenging than not, so you play the way you gotta.
And I only think theater of the mind is a better option when your gm doesnt wanna fiat you to death but I see people that I believe are smart fair intelligent people turn into stalinist fiatting right bastards once they get behind the screen.
If you take away the quality of the gm I still prefer no map to maps, but at least in the combat portion of pathfinder, not using a map is more trouble than its worth. Its written so deeply into how certain classes get anything done that its scarcely possible to run it otherwise.
If the OP's question was would you rather play pathfinder with the battlemat or without the answer is definitely with. If the question was would you rather pathfinder were written to be played without the battlemap I'd also say yes. Pathfinder just happens to be written in a way that it doesnt seem optional. I consider that a shortcoming. It'll always feel like 50% boardgame to me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will use maps, but not mini's. I cannot stand running a game, the fight is about to begin, and the gm says "Hold on for 15 min while I set this battle map up on the table where everyone is keeping their books/character sheets/laptops/food & drink/ etc." It breaks game. At the same time, I under stand what I describe may not be what they imagine. I always bring a dry-erase board with me to every game. If they need a map, or I feel they need one. I take 30 seconds to a min to draw out a basic layout, maybe a few important details. It they takes no effort to say, "there are goblins here, here, and 3 here. You guys start anywhere in this region (circle a small area)."
Done. From that point on, the only thing my players need are distances. It prevents us from worrying about things like diagonals and the third dimension.
I like maps and unlike what others have said, I am still very good at describing areas. To me, a mat isn't a crutch for lazy GMs, but a valuable aid. I also don't run into the issue of counting squares because I'm pretty good about judging distances from my Warhammer 40K days. Players and Boss NPCs are usually the only people that get minis, while I use colored dice for other encounters.
Drawing out the battle field can be nice, even for a descriptive GM. Sometimes, players and GMs won't remember that there's a certain obstacle in the way and drawing it out helps to keep track of things like obstacles, alternate pathways, things of that nature. Humans are very visual and tactile by nature, so I find that visual aids in addition to descriptions help. Of course, I only break out the battle mat if there will actually be combat, just in case people sneak by or use diplomacy. I don't need a pretty map so it usually takes me about a minute top to draw out the battlefield. Plenty of time for people to roll initiative, look at spell lists, etc. One thing I like to do is continue the narrative as I'm setting up. Like, when I throw in a couple of goblins, I'll say, "And suddenly, you see six crazed goblins leap out from behind the bushes, howling and singing deranged warchants!"
In addition, while I won't have a battle mat for every dungeon room, I like to photocopy any dungeons I make and cut them out. It makes for a really handy minimap. Of course, I make sure it doesn't have things like trap locations or secret doors ;).
That said, of my old 2e group (my dad and his friends), I've been the one that embraces new stuff the fastest. Battlemats, minis, e-readers, and PDFs... I'm pretty a-ok with anything that aids the gaming experience or is just plain cool.
I will use maps, but not mini's. I cannot stand running a game, the fight is about to begin, and the gm says "Hold on for 15 min while I set this battle map up on the table where everyone is keeping their books/character sheets/laptops/food & drink/ etc."
Can be fixed quite easily with a little bit of simple planning. Either pre-place one of the large chessex vinyl maps, or buy some disposable grid paper, pre-draw everything and then cut it down into smaller pieces that can be placed as people move into those areas.
Short Answer: I can appreciate both types of game, but my preference goes to games without maps or minis.
Long Answer I *think* I prefer to play without a battle mat. At any case, I much prefer how players describe their actions when no maps are involved. Because there's no mistake about it; players do behave differently with and without maps. I don't think the creativity lightswitch is turned "on/off", but it definitely goes from one type of creativity to another, and I appreciate both for different reasons. I tend to use whichever works best with my group's style and interests.
I do love playing with props in addition to the map. Hell, given enough props, I like to ditch the map and play just with minis and props, Warhammer style. Then players really get into "tactical mode". If I use the map, I tend to draw as much scenery as possible on the map for players to interact with. If we're going tactical, might as well give more that a large (or small) empty arena.
If given the choice, I much prefer hex over square grids. As DM, I find it easier to draw what I need to draw without being "regulated" by the grid. I find the hex grid 1) much more versatile for movement and 2) much easier to ignore when walls aren't exactly straight or not supposed to be straight (that's my pet peeve of published maps: they're always super straight, super square, with no round tower and every building lined-up perfectly, almost artificially so).
Even when playing without maps, I like to have battle boards showing who's fighting who, who's under what effect etc. It's a bit boardgame-y, but it doesn't detract from the player's "imaginary mode".
'findel
I'm definitely in the Pro-Map camp. I've been using them since the 80s in 1st Ed, through 2nd Ed, 3rd, 4th and Pathfinder. The Game has always been a game based off a Wargame, and minitures were always intended.
Have I played without a Map? Yup. But I can only think of 1 DM who did it well (and that campaign had 8-10 players). The rest of us who tried, lost details of who was where (or who thought who was where), what details some people picked up (or added) and sometimes just the numbers of badguys in a room. The one that did it well, as he aged (post college as opposed to in college), even he converted to a Map (in 3rd Ed). It was easier on him to keep track of it.
Fireball has an area effect. The Dagger has a Range increment to throw it. The races have different movement rates. All these things have been true since 1st, and the map makes all those things easier to see (without disagreements). 3rd Ed probably pushed the Need for a Map. All 4th Ed did was convert the Feet into Squares, so people using a Map didn't have to convert numbers. If you can do the game in 3rd/PF w/o a map, you can do without it in 4th, you just covert the Squares back into Feet.
Played Gurps & Battletech on Hex Maps, where facing is actually important. Couldn't see either of those without it either. Shadowrun we use a (square) map for most battles.
If you can do the game in 3rd/PF w/o a map, you can do without it in 4th, you just covert the Squares back into Feet.
I disagree. Roughly 40% (or even more, honestly), of all powers involve a Push, Pull, Slide, or Shift. While forced movement may occasionally matter sans map (can I push that guy off the cliff? or I want to drag him over away from his allies), it generally just lacks the impact. Pathfinder can be easily abstracted to ignore the map and tactical movement and whatnot. 4e is designed specifically around tactical movement--that's like, half of combat.
I can do every RPG I've ever played without a map, except for 4e (and well, I guess you could count Mechwarrior when you're actually piloting a mech, since it switches to a literal miniature wargame at that point).
At the very least, I want to have a diagram of the battlefield and where people are located. But I prefer a battle grid in all its glory, if I'm playing a game with abilities that are built around it (e.g. attacks of opportunity).
No mat, no minis for me.
I prefer descriptive and (when possible) cinematic combat, and I've found going off the grid to encourage these much more. It's the difference between a first person view and a third person isometric view. One you're thinking as the character, the other you're thinking of them as a character.
I would run (not walk) away from any pathfinder GM that tried to play without minis (or at least markers of some kind)...those of you who do so are fooling yourselves that you are playing the same game as those that use minis. It may be a fun game, but it is not Pathfinder...
|
|
I would run (not walk) away from any pathfinder GM that tried to play without minis (or at least markers of some kind)...those of you who do so are fooling yourselves that you are playing the same game as those that use minis. It may be a fun game, but it is not Pathfinder...
I completly disagree and do NOT ever tell me or any other player we are having fun wrong or not playing pathfinder if I don't use minis. I find that offensive. If that is not your style of play, good for you, but do not throw your opinions in someone else's face. Have some social grace man (or lady).
|
Mat and minis.
We're already making tactical mistakes with those (giving AoOs, not seeing that an enemy has a direct charge line to the caster). I just cannot imagine how it would be without them.
Also the GM has an ENORMOUS collection of minis. He uses the fights to showcases them. Who am I to go against the GM's wishes ? ;-P
Since the first time I rolled initiative with a d20, I have never once gamed with someone - or even met one in person - who didn't use a mat for combat. Reading the above posts though I can't help but wonder if one side of the discussion is more vocal, or if it is a regional preference.
All of my gaming has been in and around Seattle.
It's been my experience (and this is obviously YMMV territory) that combat is faster without the grid than with it.
I agree that free-form combat is usually faster. But faster doesn't necessarily mean better (for me, anyways), just like speed chess isn't necessarily better than regular chess.
The fact that D&D with a battle map feels like a wargame is an asset, not a liability! :-) If I felt like playing a quick-moving game (and sometimes I do), I'd probably be using the rules from FUDGE or Toon or something like that.
I like both mat and no-mat.
I use a mat when I GM to streamline combat encounters. It basically removes the fuzzy logic from range/area of effect/movement you get when people don't use a mat in combat. Fuzzy logic is that lack of parity between what the GM envisions when a player does something and what the player envisions... the two are rarely equal.
I never use a mat outside of combat. Outside of combat the mat just slows things down as people fiddle with minis instead of taking actions.
PS: If you don't like squares or hexes try realistic movement. You know where you simply draw stuff out exactly as it looks and the use a simple ruler to judge distances, move pieces, or figure AoE. The freedom of realistic movement is awesome: Go where you want, move in any direction even in a straight line, avoid blast spells that are square or chunky in area!
I use a battle map but I don't like to. I come from 1st/2nd edition where such things were not needed. The D20 system has forced gamers to play this way though due to the nature of combat mechanics.
If you can do the game in 3rd/PF w/o a map, you can do without it in 4th, you just covert the Squares back into Feet.I disagree. Roughly 40% (or even more, honestly), of all powers involve a Push, Pull, Slide, or Shift. While forced movement may occasionally matter sans map (can I push that guy off the cliff? or I want to drag him over away from his allies), it generally just lacks the impact. Pathfinder can be easily abstracted to ignore the map and tactical movement and whatnot. 4e is designed specifically around tactical movement--that's like, half of combat.
I can do every RPG I've ever played without a map, except for 4e (and well, I guess you could count Mechwarrior when you're actually piloting a mech, since it switches to a literal miniature wargame at that point).
One of the Badguys is on the Wizard, I use my power to "Push" him away from the Wizard so he doesn't have to cast Defensively on his own turn.
He's near a Cliff, I use my power to try to "Push" him over
He's trying to stay away from the fighter? I "Slide" him in
How would you deal with these in 3rd Ed/PF? Or do your Casters not worry about threatened Casting, Bull Rushes off Cliffs, or Maneuvering around in Combat? If you're capable of these issues in 3rd/PF, 4th isn't harder. It's in a different format, but still there.
All those abilities you named have 3rd ed/PF versions. Your group might not use them. But they exist in some form. Ff you/they don't use them in 3rd/PF, you/they don't have to in 4th (you can choose not to choose them, just like not Bull Rushing anyone).
Bull Rush = Push
Grapple/Move = Slide (includes Pull)
Trip = Knocked Prone
5' Step = Shift
One of the Badguys is on the Wizard, I use my power to "Push" him away from the Wizard so he doesn't have to cast Defensively on his own turn.
He's near a Cliff, I use my power to try to "Push" him over
He's trying to stay away from the fighter? I "Slide" him in
How would you deal with these in 3rd Ed/PF? Or do your Casters not worry about threatened Casting, Bull Rushes off Cliffs, or Maneuvering around in Combat? If you're capable of these issues in 3rd/PF, 4th isn't harder. It's in a different format, but still there.
All those abilities you named have 3rd ed/PF versions. Your group might not use them. But they exist in some form. Ff you/they don't use them in 3rd/PF, you/they don't have to in 4th (you can choose not to choose them, just like not Bull Rushing anyone).
Bull Rush = Push
Grapple/Move = Slide (includes Pull)
Trip = Knocked Prone
5' Step = Shift
It's a question of how common these things are and what focus they receive.
I sure hope people are going to try and bullrush enemies off of cliffs. In 4e, though, for a shield fighter, almost every attack is an attack and a bullrush. It's totally irrelevant to the fight 90% of the time, but in 4e, it still happens, while in Pathfinder it only happens when relevant.
I sure hope people are going to try and bullrush enemies off of cliffs. In 4e, though, for a shield fighter, almost every attack is an attack and a bullrush. It's totally irrelevant to the fight 90% of the time, but in 4e, it still happens, while in Pathfinder it only happens when relevant.
my response ended up more of an edition war-esque rant, so I'm hiding it from anyone who doesn't want to read it.....
Thst's more because i 4e it isn't a "OR" situation, but an "AND" situation. In PF/3e its, I can Push OR Attack, and Killing Quickly is usually the best outcome (see many topics on why Healers aren't fully needed topics on the forum).
If there was a Feat which allowed you to Push & Still make an Attack (at full bonus), I think it would be more prevalent. Greater Imp Bull Rush does allow the guy being Pushed to be AoO'd, and Quick Bull Rush allows you to still get your secondary attacks in. Not to mention being able to Bull Rush through additional opponents.
Anyone trying to Optimize won't take those 2-3 Feats (because there are many much better), where in 4e the Choices to do something different are much easier off the bat. BTW, in 4e, you don't HAVE to take it and there are Powers that just do more raw damage and you could limit their choices to those kinds of Powers just as the System for 3e/PF does for them already.
But back to the point, just because those powers in 3rd/PF aren't used often doesn't mean they couldn't be used often. If someone took all the Bull Rush Feats, how would you handle it without a Map Board (Hex, grid, white or other) in 3e/PF?
How do you handle a 5' move to Full Attack someone? That would come up in 3e/PF where it wouldn't in 4e, and is overall a similiar mechanic.
And if you can handle one, why is the other so hard to keep track of?
But back to the point, just because those powers in 3rd/PF aren't used often doesn't mean they couldn't be used often. If someone took all the Bull Rush Feats, how would you handle it without a Map Board (Hex, grid, white or other) in 3e/PF?
How do you handle a 5' move to Full Attack someone? That would come up in 3e/PF where it wouldn't in 4e, and is overall a similiar mechanic.
And if you can handle one, why is the other so hard to keep track of?
Are you trying to get me to say I couldn't run Pathfinder without a map? I don't get this push.
The thing is, in a game where I was not using a map, people wouldn't take feats like you're talking about, just like they probably wouldn't take AoO feats. Why would you take those things without a map, unless you're purposefully trying to challenge the GM and get them to use a map?
As for why this can't be done in 4e--I guess I don't think there is enough substance there without the movement powers. All the interesting powers involve push/pull/slide/shift/OA.
And it's the difference between:
3rd/Pathfinder) Hey, don't take this weak feat chain and maybe two or three other scattered abilities
4e) Hey, don't take about half of these powers--you know which half I'm talking about: the interesting half
Quick answer: definitely mats, maps and minis. Hex over squares (See the threaten or charging through diagonal square threads).
Long answer: As a kid, I loved model trains and dioramas. Miniature representation of terrain and figures has always looked cool to me. The rules application is secondary to me, but I do feel it makes adjudicating easier IMHO. Also, I disagree with those who feel it takes away from the description aspect. I now have more time to put colorful descriptions together instead of explaining the set-up of the room.
Also, I wish that all the mats and map packs that Paizo makes would be in hexes, but it's not a deal breaker.
It's a preference thing, simply put!
Strange Doc
|
|
Another no-mat vote.
Dry-erase board? Oh, heck yeah; gaming without a MAP, I don't like.
But a "battle-mat?" Not so much.
And I hate miniatures. Biggest. Waste of Space. Ever. In my opinion, obviously YMMV. Unless you have an 8'x10' playing surface, no encounters occur at range...
I couldn't agree more. As a frequent GM, I typically err on the Players side. If a player isn't sure, I give them the benefit of the doubt, not some monster. Once in a blue-moon, I'll run an encounter that really is better with a mate (I've run one in the last year).
But back to the point, just because those powers in 3rd/PF aren't used often doesn't mean they couldn't be used often. If someone took all the Bull Rush Feats, how would you handle it without a Map Board (Hex, grid, white or other) in 3e/PF?
How do you handle a 5' move to Full Attack someone? That would come up in 3e/PF where it wouldn't in 4e, and is overall a similiar mechanic.
And if you can handle one, why is the other so hard to keep track of?
Are you trying to get me to say I couldn't run Pathfinder without a map? I don't get this push.
The thing is, in a game where I was not using a map, people wouldn't take feats like you're talking about, just like they probably wouldn't take AoO feats. Why would you take those things without a map, unless you're purposefully trying to challenge the GM and get them to use a map?
As for why this can't be done in 4e--I guess I don't think there is enough substance there without the movement powers. All the interesting powers involve push/pull/slide/shift/OA.
And it's the difference between:
3rd/Pathfinder) Hey, don't take this weak feat chain and maybe two or three other scattered abilities
4e) Hey, don't take about half of these powers--you know which half I'm talking about: the interesting half
No, what I'm trying to figure out, is why a 1 sq Push Power in 4th Ed is so much harder to deal with that a 5' Step from a Martial type in PF who wants to still make a Full Attack is. How do you deal with Difficult Terrain/Obstacles in PF? Or the Class abilities to ignore them?
And Movement Powers don't take up that many of your choices, because you're missing all the "Weakened", "Knocked Prone" and other things on top of Powers that JUST do damage. You're overestimating their presence and underestimating their presence in PF.
Seriously. Here's another example. 4E = I use a Power to shift 5 sqs during combat. Why is this more difficult than saying "I want to move to the other side of the room....only I do it without provoking AoOs"? In PF, you're saying "I want to use Acrobatics to get to the other side of the Room without provoking AoOs, what's the DC I need to make". You're saying you can't handle it in 4e, but are capable of doing basically the same thing in PF (only in this example, its actually tougher).
You've made the statement that these things are undo-able without a Map in 4e, when as far as I can tell, they exist in most combat situations in PF (more than JUST Bull Rush).
I'm of the opinion both systems are hard, if not impossible, to do without a Map. If your solution is to cut several Feat Trees, Racial/Class Abilities, Skills, Spells and Magic Items out, then I guess I've found out how you do it.
Mat and minis/tokens in D&D/PF. No maps in other systems (maybe in GURPS when I get the chance to GM it again - hexes are soo better than squares).
I admit that I love tactical games (why I did not bought that cheap Battletech box I saw many many years ago? WHY?!). In fact I wouldn't bother with gming Pathfinder if it weren't for tactical combat - for less combat oriented games I use other systems.
@ZugZug: Actually I think mpl is saying that because their players know that it is going to be gridless, that their PF players don't bother with any of those combat maneuvers, either taking feats in them, taking class choices in them, or in attempting them. But if they were GM for 4e, some players would still try to utilize those choices because there are less interesting choices in 4e and thus they would have deal with them, which going gridless is difficult for.
Basically, PF players wouldn't bother, so it is not really an issue with them. 4e would, so it would be. That is the impression I got.
Now if that is necessarily a good thing (I'm not sure if removing character choices is something I'd view as preferable) or even accurate (perhaps 4e players wouldn't bother with it in that case either), is another issue entirely.
No, what I'm trying to figure out, is why a 1 sq Push Power in 4th Ed is so much harder to deal with that a 5' Step from a Martial type in PF who wants to still make a Full Attack is.
Neither is hard to deal with, but neither will really matter. That's the problem. In Pathfinder, the 5' step isn't some special character option. You didn't expend resources on it or feel like it is central to your character. It's just a tool to avoid AoOs.
But without a map, you don't move square by square avoiding AoOs, you say, "can I avoid AoOs?" and the answer is yes or no. So, it's not meaningful.
In 4e, though, that ability to push enemies 5' is one of two at-will powers you have. It's a huge percentage of your character choices. But the effect is still insignificant. Who cares if you moved the guy 5' unless you're 5' from something dangerous?
With a map, you plan out every square of movement, so every square is important. You have to consider if enemies are on this side of you or that, where corners are. Without a map, it's different. You just go places. You don't worry about individual squares of distance, just distance over all. A 5' push is irrelevant 90% of the time, even though it's, at level 1, for example, 25% of your character's powers, and probably the thing you're doing more than 40% of the time.
How do you deal with Difficult Terrain/Obstacles in PF? Or the Class abilities to ignore them?
I describe the terrain and obstacles and it takes people twice as much movement to get where they want. They can't carefully adjust position while engaged without provoking in difficult terrain. Powers that ignore that (which are rare, by the way) work normally.
And Movement Powers don't take up that many of your choices, because you're missing all the "Weakened", "Knocked Prone" and other things on top of Powers that JUST do damage. You're overestimating their presence and underestimating their presence in PF.
And you're not paying attention to their significance from a character building standpoint.
I could probably go on for a while, but I guess it comes down to this: I don't find characters or their abilities interesting in 4e at all, so the only thing left that's cool is the tactical movement and movement powers. It is a fun tactical system (and I'd play 4e without complaint), but I have no interest in running that as an RPG. If I wanted to run a tactical combat game, I'd just do Battletech.
Seriously. Here's another example. 4E = I use a Power to shift 5 sqs during combat. Why is this more difficult than saying "I want to move to the other side of the room....only I do it without provoking AoOs"? In PF, you're saying "I want to use Acrobatics to get to the other side of the Room without provoking AoOs, what's the DC I need to make".
The difference with those things, you're right is pretty much nothing. Though the acrobatics check is almost certainly too high to bother trying ;)
You're saying you can't handle it in 4e, but are capable of doing basically the same thing in PF (only in this example, its actually tougher).
I guess "can't" and "don't want to" got confused somewhere around here.
You've made the statement that these things are undo-able without a Map in 4e, when as far as I can tell, they exist in most combat situations in PF (more than JUST Bull Rush).
I just don't see all the movement powers you're talking about, sorry.
I'm of the opinion both systems are hard, if not impossible, to do without a Map.
I guess I have come to the conclusion that I think neither is hard to run without a map, but that I feel like there is no value in running 4e without the map.
@ZugZug: Actually I think mpl is saying that because their players know that it is going to be gridless, that their PF players don't bother with any of those combat maneuvers, either taking feats in them, taking class choices in them, or in attempting them. But if they were GM for 4e, some players would still try to utilize those choices because there are less interesting choices in 4e and thus they would have deal with them, which going gridless is difficult for.
Basically, PF players wouldn't bother, so it is not really an issue with them. 4e would, so it would be. That is the impression I got.
Now if that is necessarily a good thing (I'm not sure if removing character choices is something I'd view as preferable) or even accurate (perhaps 4e players wouldn't bother with it in that case either), is another issue entirely.
But I think that's why I have an issue with it.
We're willing to play a certain way in PF because we're going gridless.
We're not willing to play the same way in 4e even though we're going gridless.
That's how I'm reading it. If you're willing to go through the "Self Limitation/DM Limitation" in one, why not in both?
MPL mentioned "Push", "Slide", "Pull" or "Shift" affecting Combat as the reason you can't go mapless in 4e. I'm merely disagreeing, and saying most of that kind of movement happens in PF. Bull Rushing into a Room, Teamwork Feat to Swap Places, Teamwork Feat Escape Rout to Avoid AoOs, a Rogue's Positioning for Sneak Attack, Difficult Terrain being ignored by some players and using Acrobatics to move around a crowded area are all in PF. If you're willing to do the work-a-round on all of these (and others), why is 4e so much more difficult?
I play in both systems. I don't play one to the exclusion of the other.
I know how much Tactical Movement I do in PF. It's alot. I know how much Tactical Movement I do in 4e. It's also alot.
My original statement was "If you can do the game in 3rd/PF w/o a map, you can do without it in 4th". MPL is saying I'm wrong, and giving reasons. I'm saying the Reasons I'm being given as to why it doesn't work in 4e, apply to PF just as much.