Well, speaking only for myself, I've found 5e works very well with TotM, and includes some simple optional rules for playing on a grid. I'm talking about the differences between positioning a rogue for sneak attack damage in PF and 5e; it's not even worth tracking on a grid in 5e, whereas in PF, I wouldn't trust myself to track the AoOs without a grid.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
...when you're playing 13th Age the moment you tell your player "The orc shaman is far away, the berserker and the grunts are nearby, between you and the shaman" you immediately know what you can do in that situation and what'll happen if you cast fireball on the berserker and the grunts (you'll probably catch most of them in the blast!) or if you try to run towards the shaman (you'll run into the berserker and the grunts in the middle!).
When you're playing 5E the moment you tell your player "The orc shaman is 80ft away, the berserker and the grunts are about 20ft away, between you and the shaman" you immediately know what you can do in that situation and what'll happen if you cast fireball on the berserker and the grunts (you'll probably catch most of them in the blast!) or if you try to run towards the shaman (you'll run into the berserker and the grunts in the middle!).
Bringing this back to 5e, supposedly 5e is supposed to be run the same way, without really caring about absolute distances, but everything about the design and its reliance on measuring everything in 5-foot increments runs counter to this.
I'm really struggling to see why inserting numbers into literally the exact same description suddenly means the rules are all designed around using a map. The argument I'm seeing in these posts is this:
Premise: 5E measures things in 5ft increments.
Conclusion: 5E is designed around using a map.
That logic is so invalid I don't even know where to start. Maybe there's a key premise or two that you forgot to mention or something?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
whereas it does provide a great deal of information about precise movement distances and ranges and AoE
You ninja'd me, but see my above post: there's no difference between "about 20ft away" and "in the 'nearby' abstract range band". Saying that one is a tool for TotM while the other is designed for maps is completely absurd.
and detailed maps.
You keep talking about 5E's detailed maps, but there aren't any in the PHB that I bought. Where are you seeing all this mapwork that you think I'm trying to tell you it doesn't want you to use?
|
I'm really struggling to see why inserting numbers into literally the exact same description suddenly means the rules are all designed around using a map. The argument I'm seeing in these posts is this:
Premise: 5E measures things in 5ft increments.
Conclusion: 5E is designed around using a map.That logic is so invalid I don't even know where to start. Maybe there's a key premise or two that you forgot to mention or something?
Yeah, sorry, I'm having trouble articulating myself.
The difference is that in 13th Age when I cast that fireball into a mess of orcs I know I'll hit some of them because that's a function of the rules: even though they are abstract and don't care for exact positioning, there's a procedure for determining how many of them I can catch with that fireball, namely rolling 1d3 (2d3 if I cast recklessly). This can all be done without me needing to know the exact position of the orcs in relation to each other.
In 5e I can catch any number of orcs in a 20-foot radius. Now it's no longer enough for me to know that they're an abstract lump of orcs, in order to determine how many I can catch in my fireball I need to know they're relative positions and distance to each other and myself. What if I'm imagining the situation differently from the GM in the theater of my mind? That's another ambiguity that might require more words than necessary to resolve, an ambiguity that doesn't exist in purely abstract or purely grid-based games. How many orcs can I fit into a 20-foot radius circle of fire, when the game's rules concern themselves with exact distances and measurements?
I mean, it's as simple as that really. I'm not saying that you absolutely need a map to play 5e, but having a map helps a lot, because unless your brain happens to run like a super-computer keeping track of everyone's exact positions relative to each other in the fiction (because that's what the rules concern themselves with) is going to be hard. The rules of 5e are built in such a way that the exact positions of everyone in the fiction do matter, and area of effect spells are just one example of where not having a clear visualization can cause ambiguity: when the game concerns itself with the positions of characters and exact distances relative to each other (I mean, I know you as a DM might play it fast and loose, but I'm talking about the rules as they are presented as written) how do you make a fast and loose ruling grounded in the fiction about whether someone is in cover relative to someone else ("No way, I totally have cover against him!" "Wait, what? No you don't, he moved like 30 feet to the side so now he has a clear shot!" "There's no way he could have a clear shot just by moving 30 feet to the side...")? Using a grid this information is immediately clear (You can't draw an unobstructed line from your square to theirs, they have cover) and in an abstracted system it can be turned into a factor of the environment (Boxes and Crates: Any character in this zone can spend a move action to take cover against ranged attacks, moving while in the zone removes this benefit.) or a factor of relative position in terms of zones (There's an obstruction between two zones, meaning that all characters have cover against attacks from the other zone.)
The rules for positioning and distance in 13th Age are abstract, and to support this it has procedures to resolve ambiguous situations like "How many orcs I can hit." In a grid-based combat encounter there's no such ambiguity because based on the area of effect of a given spell and the relative positions of creatures you can immediately see who is in the area of effect. The point I'm trying to make is that 5e actually has the rules of the latter while trying to pretend that it's abstract like the former.
I mean, I do think that 5e can be run fast and loose and very abstractly, and based on my reading of your posts this seems to be what you're doing, and if I were to run 5e I'd probably do that as well. But that's just it, ignoring the rules (which concern themselves with very exact, down to the 5-foot increment positioning) in favor of running things fast and loose. The only point I'm making is that even if people are playing fast and loose with positioning and distance in the game, the rules are very much not fast and loose, but painfully and unnecessarily precise for a game that's supposed to be about Theater of the Mind combat.
|
|
I just had this great visualization of a wizard encountering 4 orcs, casting a fireball recklessly, rolling a "6" on 2d3, and then the fireball pauses right before it strikes, while two more orcs get called up from the green room and are told to report to the set asap...
This is great! Thanks! :)
Anyway, I started thinking of how to turn D&D 5e into a more abstract system. I mean, it's not exactly hard, and at least to my mind would make the game closer to my ideal. In my dream D&D with an abstract combat system a classic fireball spell might look like this:
Fireball
Level 3 Evocation
Action: Standard
Range: Far
Target: One zone within range.
All creatures in zone take 8d6 fire damage, I guess they can make a Dexterity save for half or something?
Assuming that all of those mechanical units (like how many zones away is Far range?) have been established previously, you already know what that spell is going to do without needing a map to figure out what happens. Furthermore, there's no ambiguity about who gets hit and who doesn't: you throw this beauty into a zone and everyone takes damage, friend or foe. There's no subtlety to it.
Now, a high-level Wizard might have an ability that says this:
Spell Precision: You may exclude a single creature (probably more at high levels) from the area of effect of any spell you cast.
Now, one of those orcs might be hiding behind a crate or something, meaning that he's got cover from the blast. This would be presented by the following rule:
Take Cover! If a zone's description includes terrain or objects that may be used as cover a character can spend a move action in that zone to Take Cover. While they have Cover all attacks against them are at a Disadvantage and they have Advantage on all Dexterity Saving Throws.
So yeah, that's an example: none of the ambiguity of "How many orcs can I fit into my 20-foot diameter fireball? Wait, Steve, you didn't say anything about these orcs being spaced so widely apart, I'm calling b+*!&!+!!", no need for a grid and miniatures (although I like grids and miniatures too) but just as deadly as the real deal!
The evoker gets the ability to ignore a number of targets equal to 1 + the spell level with area effects.
So that's already a rule.
Our diviner has a Rod of the Evoker that grants him this ability, too. :-D
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Ratpick—I'm starting to wonder if you've actually played 5E or not. Can you come up with an actual, believable example of a real 5E spell/effect and how it interacts with a legitimate gameplay situation in such a way as to suggest that a map is anywhere close to necessary? Because this whole "how many of the orcs in that group will fit in my fireball" thing is kinda ridiculous unless you're routinely fighting armies or you're always finding yourself surrounded by a ring of irregularly-spaced orcs in a wide-open field who start approaching from 100ft away in all directions.
I think it's easier to play on a grid in 5E, but it's not necessary.
It just helps to clarify a lot of things:
PC positions
Monster positions
Environmental Hazards
Cover
Environmental Effects
Ranged effects, like auras, gaze attacks, spell effects, etc.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think it's easier to play on a grid in 5E, but it's not necessary.
It just helps to clarify a lot of things:
PC positions
Monster positions
Environmental Hazards
Cover
Environmental Effects
Ranged effects, like auras, gaze attacks, spell effects, etc.
It's been my experience that 5E basically has two ranges: "up to 30ft away" and "farther".
Honestly, what's the practical difference between an enemy being 10ft, 15ft, 20ft, 25ft, or 30ft away? At any of those distances, the practical result is the same: it's within range (whether that's a ranged cantrip, an AoE centered on yourself, a move and attack, or whatever else).
I'm a couple of campaigns into the system, and even prior to this discussion it was already starting to become apparent to me that ranges basically boil down to whether they're inside the three-point-line or not, so to speak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we don't use a grid in 5E (that's explicitly the 'default' as I understand it) but we use figures kind of plonked around the table to indicate relative positions, who's clumped with who and so forth. Is that 'theatre of the mind', 'gridless', something else?
I'm struggling to understand the various points being made here. I would say that 3.5, PF and 4E all require* a grid and that it's helpful (but slower) for the other editions of D&D. Is theatre of the mind and grid-based a true dichotomy?
* "require" as in you can play without them but it's an effort.
I must admit that I really enjoy figures kind of plonked down around the table to indicate relative positions, who's clumped with who and so forth as a play style. So far as I'm concerned, it's not a diametrical opposition. :)
|
|
@Ratpick—I'm starting to wonder if you've actually played 5E or not. Can you come up with an actual, believable example of a real 5E spell/effect and how it interacts with a legitimate gameplay situation in such a way as to suggest that a map is anywhere close to necessary? Because this whole "how many of the orcs in that group will fit in my fireball" thing is kinda ridiculous unless you're routinely fighting armies or you're always finding yourself surrounded by a ring of irregularly-spaced orcs in a wide-open field who start approaching from 100ft away in all directions.
I haven't played 5e specifically, I'll admit, but this type of design is hardly unique to 5e: among the other games I've played are BECMI D&D, AD&D, and Rolemaster. All of those games use precise distances where abstract measurements would do, but they run just fine even without the grid. That is to say they run fine if you run things a bit fast and loose. At times a visualization would've been nice to resolve ambiguity between the GM's narration and what the player thought was going on.
I'll admit right now that this kind of design isn't the gravest mistake you can make in, it's simply a pet peeve of mine: it produces potential ambiguity in the fiction that could be avoided. It annoys me simply because it's halfway between two good things (precise grid-based combat and abstract combat with clearly written rules) and thus only manages to be only kinda sorta okay?
Again, just a personal peeve of mine, I realize that most people play fast and loose with it so they don't run into these issues.
|
|
I must admit that I really enjoy figures kind of plonked down around the table to indicate relative positions, who's clumped with who and so forth as a play style. So far as I'm concerned, it's not a diametrical opposition. :)
Oh, I agree with this too: even when using a more abstract system, while not necessary, give a nice visual representation of the situation that's prettier than notes on a scratch card.
Also, I like pushing little plastic soldiers around.
I've yet to use a grid in my 5e Out of the Abyss campaign. I keep meaning to, and plan on doing it "when it's important." I just haven't found a time when it's been needed. My players have had several fights where it's them vs one opponent, or them vs an equally sized group of opponents, or then vs many different opponents scattered around them. There's been ton of environmental conditions; anywhere from stalagmites/tites scattered around to buildings they could run around or on to areas that were squeezed (which they used as a choke point to limit the number of enemies they had to fight).
So far all of it has been TotM.
Conversely, I'd have a hard time running a PF game without a battlemat/grid. As a player, I insisted on it. When I played 5e (only two sessions as a player), i barely even noticed it was gone.
Honestly, I really like the maps and battle grids.
It's Dungeons & Dragons, not Towers & Titans or Fields & Faeries.
To be fair, I never used a battlemat until I started playing pathfinder. 15 years of 2e (and a little of 3.0 and 3.5) before that was all using TotM.
We did TotM for Basic, 1st & 2nd Ed., but used grids for 3.0, 3.5, d20 Modern & Future, PF, & 5E. I've never played 4E.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I haven't played 5e specifically
Yeah, I can kind of tell. You know there are TotM systems that use abstracted "bands" and "zones"; you know there are grid-default systems that describe positions/distances in feet; and you see that 5E uses the latter terminology rather than the former and think you know what that means about how it's designed.
Meanwhile, I demonstrate that 5E's functionality is actually nearly identical to what you point to as the "abstracted" camp, differing only in terminology; and you won't even respond to the comparison?
Did you overlook it? Ignore it? Assume that since you already believe you know which camp 5E falls into, any claim to the contrary must be the result of "playing fast and loose with the rules" despite you not actually knowing those rules well enough to know whether I'm being fast and loose with them or not?
Let me lay it out one more time, as plain as can be:
If you think I'm wrong, then please refute that claim directly, with actual fact-based discussion of what I just said. Thanks.
I'm really struggling to see why inserting numbers into literally the exact same description suddenly means the rules are all designed around using a map. The argument I'm seeing in these posts is this:
Premise: 5E measures things in 5ft increments.
Conclusion: 5E is designed around using a map.That logic is so invalid I don't even know where to start. Maybe there's a key premise or two that you forgot to mention or something?
Yeah, sorry, I'm having trouble articulating myself.
The difference is that in 13th Age when I cast that fireball into a mess of orcs I know I'll hit some of them because that's a function of the rules: even though they are abstract and don't care for exact positioning, there's a procedure for determining how many of them I can catch with that fireball, namely rolling 1d3 (2d3 if I cast recklessly). This can all be done without me needing to know the exact position of the orcs in relation to each other.
In 5e I can catch any number of orcs in a 20-foot radius. Now it's no longer enough for me to know that they're an abstract lump of orcs, in order to determine how many I can catch in my fireball I need to know they're relative positions and distance to each other and myself. What if I'm imagining the situation differently from the GM in the theater of my mind? That's another ambiguity that might require more words than necessary to resolve, an ambiguity that doesn't exist in purely abstract or purely grid-based games. How many orcs can I fit into a 20-foot radius circle of fire, when the game's rules concern themselves with exact distances and measurements?
I mean, it's as simple as that really. I'm not saying that you absolutely need a map to play 5e, but having a map helps a lot, because unless your brain happens to run like a super-computer keeping track of everyone's exact positions relative to each other in the fiction (because that's what the rules concern themselves with) is going to be hard. The rules of 5e are built in...
FWIW, the DMG provides rules similar to the 13th age one you mention to calculate how many foes you catch with an AOE spell. (A cone is size/10 creatures from memory).
Like much of the D&D rules, it's an option.
With any edition of D&D you can role play and use tactics, strategy, etc. but the difference between specific editions is depth of choice and reward for system mastery. It is like comparing sports at the elementary school level, versus high school, versus college. I am sure I could come up with a lot of different analogies. And with any use of tactics or strategy the accuracy of the results is the difference between success and failure, so that is where a grid comes into play. I have used a grid since I started playing D&D with the blue box and forward.
If you like ToTM that is great, but then details are not as important.
As with any other game, it just depends on what you want out of it, and how much effort you want to put into it. So 5E is very abstract and tends to simplify things, where Pathfinder reaches the pinnacle of complexity, and 4E is somewhere in between.
I have not found a perfect D&D, but each version, including Pathfinder has different strengths and weaknesses.
If you like ToTM that is great, but then details are not as important.
This is interesting to me - in my experience, it's the other way around (although maybe I mean something different than you by "details").
We seem to pay much more attention to the idiosyncracies of the environment we're in when we steer clear of the mat. Once we start drawing things out, the room details almost start to be irrelevant. I found that when we played with a grid (in PF and 4E) all we focussed on was the squares - who's in range of whom? Who's flanking who? Who has cover? Can I make it across the room to cut off the mage's escape?...and so forth.
Even if the DM drew in tables, barrels, chandeliers or what have you, we never tried swinging/pushing/flipping or otherwise interacting with them - we just asked if they were difficult terrain.
I always try to use the environment to my advantage.
I even played a dwarf fighter/ranger in fullplate (in 3.5) that tried to out-swashbuckle a rogue/swashbuckler in the party. It. Was. Hilaaaaarious!
Sometimes not being the best at things is the most fun.
But most of my PCs tend to be at least a little bit athletic and acrobatic.
And when I DM, I try to put fun environmental factors on the battle grid. I have a particular fondness for alchemist labs. Sometimes those potions are useful, sometimes they're not, and sometimes they just blow up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I can kind of tell. You know there are TotM systems that use abstracted "bands" and "zones"; you know there are grid-default systems that describe positions/distances in feet; and you see that 5E uses the latter terminology rather than the former and think you know what that means about how it's designed.Meanwhile, I demonstrate that 5E's functionality is actually nearly identical to what you point to as the "abstracted" camp, differing only in terminology; and you won't even respond to the comparison?
Did you overlook it? Ignore it? Assume that since you already believe you know which camp 5E falls into, any claim to the contrary must be the result of "playing fast and loose with the rules" despite you not actually knowing those rules well enough to know whether I'm being fast and loose with them or not?
Let me lay it out one more time, as plain as can be:
If you think I'm wrong, then please refute that claim directly, with actual fact-based discussion of what I just said. Thanks.
I'm going to concede this discussion to you, not only because I agree with you on the point that in practice 5e runs perfectly fine when it's abstracted (it's more the minutiae that we seem to disagree on), but also because I've realized I'm doing what I've always hated, critiquing a game without actually having played it, something which I ran into a lot when I still used to play 4e. I'm sorry, I should've reflected on that before I got into this discussion. I hope I didn't seem too much of an ass.
And yeah, I do realize that in practice 5e probably runs a lot like a more abstract combat system, as this is my experience with the systems I mentioned in my post (BECMI, AD&D, Rolemaster). So, it's a fair cop.
If you like ToTM that is great, but then details are not as important.This is interesting to me - in my experience, it's the other way around (although maybe I mean something different than you by "details").
We seem to pay much more attention to the idiosyncracies of the environment we're in when we steer clear of the mat. Once we start drawing things out, the room details almost start to be irrelevant. I found that when we played with a grid (in PF and 4E) all we focussed on was the squares - who's in range of whom? Who's flanking who? Who has cover? Can I make it across the room to cut off the mage's escape?...and so forth.
Even if the DM drew in tables, barrels, chandeliers or what have you, we never tried swinging/pushing/flipping or otherwise interacting with them - we just asked if they were difficult terrain.
I never considered my imagination dumbed down when playing on a grid versus strictly ToTM, but the grid provides a frame of reference; so everyone's imagination starts to synchronize versus being farther apart. I guess getting used to either format you will start to make assumptions based on what is drawn or how the DM presents information. That is just a trap everyone falls into once you settle in for the long haul. If the DM mixes it up (grid or ToTM) then you will always be second guessing yourself and your assumptions.
I never considered my imagination dumbed down when playing on a grid versus strictly ToTM...If you like ToTM that is great, but then details are not as important.This is interesting to me - in my experience, it's the other way around (although maybe I mean something different than you by "details").
We seem to pay much more attention to the idiosyncracies of the environment we're in when we steer clear of the mat. Once we start drawing things out, the room details almost start to be irrelevant. I found that when we played with a grid (in PF and 4E) all we focussed on was the squares - who's in range of whom? Who's flanking who? Who has cover? Can I make it across the room to cut off the mage's escape?...and so forth.
Even if the DM drew in tables, barrels, chandeliers or what have you, we never tried swinging/pushing/flipping or otherwise interacting with them - we just asked if they were difficult terrain.
Yeah, me neither. The paraphrasing you've chosen here makes it less interesting to me though, so never mind.
@ Ratpick, that was very gracious of you. It shows that you are a person of good character.
Our group went from Pathfinder to 5e and just adopted the grid system by default. I don't think it even crossed our minds to go grid-less until I started reading this thread, so I can certainly sympathise with your original point of view.