SuperBidi |
Everytime I've seen realism raised, it always led to painfull situations. The game has nothing realistic. But, from all your raised situations, Hawk, I don't see a single one that can't be easily solved.
2a. This is out of combat situation which should be solved with out of combat rules.
2b. This is out of combat situation which should be solved with out of combat rules.
2c. What's the issue? He can't choose his target?
2d. Yeah, normal. It was a high level BBEG in a fantasy/sci-fi setting and your players were expecting a building to stop him from running away? Too bad. Next time, they will plan properly.
Hawk Kriegsman |
Everytime I've seen realism raised, it always led to painfull situations. The game has nothing realistic. But, from all your raised situations, Hawk, I don't see a single one that can't be easily solved.
2a. This is out of combat situation which should be solved with out of combat rules.
2b. This is out of combat situation which should be solved with out of combat rules.
2c. What's the issue? He can't choose his target?
2d. Yeah, normal. It was a high level BBEG in a fantasy/sci-fi setting and your players were expecting a building to stop him from running away? Too bad. Next time, they will plan properly.
Both 2a and 2b are combat situations. Both were taking place during rounds.
2c. Other than he did not know they guy was behind him.
2d. Yes, that's what I told them.
SuperBidi |
2a is clearly an out of combat situation. There is noone pointing his gun at the ground during combat, there are just actively fighting enemies. So, being stealthy makes the enemy flat-footed against your attacks, and that's all.
If it ever happens during combat and if it's important, you have to handle it with non combat rules. Trying to emulate non combat situations with combat rules will be disapointing most of the time.
2b is a bit more complex, as using a detonator can be easily emulated with a "manipulate object" action. I would give my player the choice: Either he commits to the task, and don't perform anything else, so I stay with out of combat rules, or he performs other combat actions while being ready to press the detonator, and I handle it with combat rules (with their limitations).
2c. You can't attack someone you're not aware of. Sometimes, combat starts in a situation that is not valid per the rules. It's your case if I understand it well: Your character is stealthy even if he doesn't have cover or concealment. I would give the player one round before applying combat rules, to avoid ridiculous cases like the guy being automatically detected because initiative is rolled. Another solution is to give him a surprise round because the enemy doesn't expect him.
Anyway, from my point of view, you have too many situations mixing combat and non combat. You should really limit them. Like starting the combat against the vehicle after the bridge got blown or stopping your stealthy player to (ab)use stealth all the time.
Hawk Kriegsman |
2a is clearly an out of combat situation. There is noone pointing his gun at the ground during combat, there are just actively fighting enemies. So, being stealthy makes the enemy flat-footed against your attacks, and that's all.
If it ever happens during combat and if it's important, you have to handle it with non combat rules. Trying to emulate non combat situations with combat rules will be disapointing most of the time.
Absolutely not. It was in the middle of rounds. The player on her turn moved up behind a bad guy (who was planning to shoot at the PCs he was aware of, but it was not yet his turn)and put the gun to his head and told him to drop the weapon or she would fire. That is a move action, a ready action and a free action.
Of course what happened back when this first happened was the bad guy spun round, shot the PC with a critical hit, stunning her.
It was per the RAW and was universally hated at the table.
2b is a bit more complex, as using a detonator can be easily emulated with a "manipulate object" action. I would give my player the choice: Either he commits to the task, and don't perform anything else, so I stay with out of combat rules, or he performs other combat actions while being ready to press the detonator, and I handle it with combat rules (with their limitations).
This is more or less ho this is adjudicated currently in my game.
2c. You can't attack someone you're not aware of. Sometimes, combat starts in a situation that is not valid per the rules. It's your case if I understand it well: Your character is stealthy even if he doesn't have cover or concealment. I would give the player one round before applying combat rules, to avoid ridiculous cases like the guy being automatically detected because initiative is rolled. Another solution is to give him a surprise round because the enemy doesn't expect him.
Yes you have the case correct. I will allow a stealth roll with out cover or concealment if you are not currently observed. I like the idea of a bonus surprise round.
Anyway, from my point of view, you have too many situations mixing combat and non combat. You should really limit them. Like starting the combat against the vehicle after the bridge got blown or stopping your stealthy player to (ab)use stealth all the time.
Not sure how you can make this statement. I have consistently brought up the same 3 or 4 situations that happened within the first couple of months that the game was released.
Because of some simple house rules. we now don't have situations or issues.
SuperBidi |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. Moving next to a guy is a move action. Putting a gun to his head is not allowed. The closest thing you can do is a coup de grace, which asks for a full round action and a helpless enemy. Asking him to surrender is at least a standard action.
Watch any movie picturing such a scene, it always takes at least half a minute. It's not a 5 seconds situation.
So, either the action is legitimate, like if the opponent is the last man standing, and you drop out of combat to handle it. Either your player tries to eliminate an enemy with just a successfull stealth check and you explain him it's not that simple.
Hawk Kriegsman |
Nope. Moving next to a guy is a move action. Putting a gun to his head is not allowed. The closest thing you can do is a coup de grace, which asks for a full round action and a helpless enemy. Asking him to surrender is at least a standard action.
Watch any movie picturing such a scene, it always takes at least half a minute. It's not a 5 seconds situation.
So, either the action is legitimate, like if the opponent is the last man standing, and you drop out of combat to handle it. Either your player tries to eliminate an enemy with just a successfull stealth check and you explain him it's not that simple.
What are you talking about? You have the move action right.
You do not have the "Surrender or Die" part right.
That can absolutely fall under combat banter. It is a statement and a "Other Action"
If the player's action was: I say "Drop the weapon or Die!" and intimidate him into dropping it, then yes it is a standard action.
I will concede the point on the gun being right to the back of his head as opponents in adjacent squares are consider 5' apart per RAW.
However, since there is NO rule covering putting guns to people
's heads, it is absolutely with in my right as GM to "allow" the player some artistic license.
SuperBidi |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, since there is NO rule covering putting guns to people
's heads, it is absolutely with in my right as GM to "allow" the player some artistic license.
There is no rule covering putting guns to people's heads, so you can't. It's not a question of allowing it, but a question of creating new combat actions. Because, now, your players will expect to be able to use this new action. And considering that you allowed your player to force someone to surrender with a standard action and a successfull skill check, you're completely screwing with the game balance.
Such type of effects are typically generated by spells. Suggestion is a good example, as its effect is roughly the same than the expected result. But spells are extremely controlled, especially their DCs. On the other hand, skills are far easier to increase. Just cast Invisibility and you get a + 20 to stealth. So, giving to skill uses the same impact than spells without all the limitations on save DCs is completely pushing the power toward skills. Envoys and operatives will love you, casters and soldiers will hate you.
You're making cinematic combats with such rules: You encourage your players to come up with imaginative moves during combat. There are excellent systems for such type of combats (Feng Shui comes to my mind), but D20 system is not an appropriate one.
Anyway, you do what you want as a DM, but we are not playing the same game anymore :)
Garretmander |
If the player's action was: I say "Drop the weapon or Die!" and intimidate him into dropping it, then yes it is a standard action.
This is true, an intimidate check to get the opponent to do what you want is the correct choice here.
Now, if you fail the intimidate, combat resumes as normal, the other guy takes his actions, and the player threatening him get to act on their next turn. No sudden coup de grace or anything.
Personally, I think the needed roll to get a hostile creature to perform an action not in it's own interests would be quite high, but it's certainly something that can happen even in combat according to GM discretion.
I would keep it high, to discourage this tactic as a default tactic, and while I never intent to play society, if I was the GM there, I wouldn't allow such a thing.
Hawk Kriegsman |
Hawk Kriegsman wrote:There is no rule covering putting guns to people's heads, so you can't. It's not a question of allowing it, but a question of creating new combat actions. Because, now, your players will expect to be able to use this new action. And considering that you allowed your player to force someone to surrender with a standard action and a successfull skill check, you're completely screwing with the game balance.However, since there is NO rule covering putting guns to people
's heads, it is absolutely with in my right as GM to "allow" the player some artistic license.
That is just silly IMHO. There are more things that take place in the game than there are rules covering them. There are dozens of things that come up every session not covered by the rules.
For example: there are no rules for having to go to the bathroom so I guess the players can't.....really? No need to brush teeth or bathe, because there are no rules for hygiene. Go meet Layla the space princess in you party outfit that you have crapped in and spilled soup down the front of it, but hey no worries as you have the proper attire on and no where in the rules does it say it must be clean proper attire. So per you it does not have to be.
Yes In the hundreds of hours that we have been playing Starfinder my players have done it only that 1 time.
Also I never said that I allowed my player to force some one to surrender with a standard action. Re-read what I wrote.
You're making cinematic combats with such rules: You encourage your players to come up with imaginative moves during combat. There are excellent systems for such type of combats (Feng Shui comes to my mind), but D20 system is not an appropriate one.
No kidding....we are roleplaying....we don't use maps, tokens or minis, so of course I have to be cinematic. I have to describe the combat round in vivid detail so my player's can "see" the action happening in their mind.
But I am doing it within the confines of the rules.
If my player says they reload but in their head they envision Hit-Girls flipping clips into the air and they go right into the guns.....who cares?
They reloaded per the rules.
Again you make assumptions based on 1 statement. I do not encourage my player's do anything. When they do something clever or role a natural 20 that kills an enemy I give them a satisfying description.
Anyway, you do what you want as a DM, but we are not playing the same game anymore :)
Thanks for the permission.
And as for screwing with game balance; you again have no idea what you are talking about. Anything I let my players do the NPCs can do at the same DC as my players. That's as balanced as it gets. NPC at my table are treated as PCs who don't have a warm body to play them. They are not just hanging around waiting to get killed.
I have been using D20 since it came out. It is a perfect system for my group andthe way we play.
If you don't like they way I do things, maybe just bypass my posts instead of criticizing me, my game and my players and telling me I can't do things.
Hawk Kriegsman |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hawk Kriegsman wrote:If the player's action was: I say "Drop the weapon or Die!" and intimidate him into dropping it, then yes it is a standard action.This is true, an intimidate check to get the opponent to do what you want is the correct choice here.
Now, if you fail the intimidate, combat resumes as normal, the other guy takes his actions, and the player threatening him get to act on their next turn. No sudden coup de grace or anything.
Personally, I think the needed roll to get a hostile creature to perform an action not in it's own interests would be quite high, but it's certainly something that can happen even in combat according to GM discretion.
I would keep it high, to discourage this tactic as a default tactic, and while I never intent to play society, if I was the GM there, I wouldn't allow such a thing.
I agree 100% with this. Although the question would be: Is sometimes surrendering in an NPCs best interest? I would say yes as I am pretty certain that most sentient beings want to live.
SuperBidi |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was not insulting you or whatever, could you stay cool :)
Just saying we are not playing the same game. And, according to this sentence:
No kidding....we are roleplaying....we don't use maps, tokens or minis, so of course I have to be cinematic.
We are not playing the same game at all.
Then, you do whatever you want with D20 system. Just, in my opinion, there are far better systems to handle cinematic combats. D20 system is based on minis and maps. Getting rid of them is a drastic change to the game.Again you make assumptions based on 1 statement.
I make assumptions on 1 statement, and it's a bull's eye ;)
Nerdy Canuck |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We are not playing the same game at all.
Then, you do whatever you want with D20 system. Just, in my opinion, there are far better systems to handle cinematic combats. D20 system is based on minis and maps. Getting rid of them is a drastic change to the game.
In my experience, maps and minis aren't at all common.
And they are absolutely not an essential of the D20 system - they're nice to have, sure, but if you don't have the money for them or something that's just fine.
BigNorseWolf |
SuperBidi wrote:We are not playing the same game at all.
Then, you do whatever you want with D20 system. Just, in my opinion, there are far better systems to handle cinematic combats. D20 system is based on minis and maps. Getting rid of them is a drastic change to the game.In my experience, maps and minis aren't at all common.
And they are absolutely not an essential of the D20 system - they're nice to have, sure, but if you don't have the money for them or something that's just fine.
they are the default though. And unless your group consists entirely of people who can play chess in their heads it keeps everyone on the same page for some of the more tactical aspects of combat.
Hawk Kriegsman |
Yeah, I'm gonna say I prefer maps and minis where feats like fleet are actually useful.
Not that my groups never deviate from maps and minis, but combat just works better with them. Even if 'maps and minis' means bottlecaps and a sewing board.
We had tons of maps and mini's with WFRP, 3e, 3.5e and Pathfinder (still have them in boxes). Somewhere along the Pathfinder process we collectively decided to ditch the maps and minis. Obviously we carries this over to Starfinder.
There were certainly satisfying times when the players thought the fight was almost over, only to be dismayed when I went to the miniatures cabinet behind me to grab additional reinforcements.
Also have a tone of gaming stones. Used to love placing them out.
Nerdy Canuck |
Nerdy Canuck wrote:they are the default though. And unless your group consists entirely of people who can play chess in their heads it keeps everyone on the same page for some of the more tactical aspects of combat.SuperBidi wrote:We are not playing the same game at all.
Then, you do whatever you want with D20 system. Just, in my opinion, there are far better systems to handle cinematic combats. D20 system is based on minis and maps. Getting rid of them is a drastic change to the game.In my experience, maps and minis aren't at all common.
And they are absolutely not an essential of the D20 system - they're nice to have, sure, but if you don't have the money for them or something that's just fine.
No, extra products are not default.
There are a lot of ways people deal with not having them, such as just asking the DM about distance.
BigNorseWolf |
No, extra products are not default.
The rules for movement and positions
work best when keeping track of positions using a battle mapand miniatures. A battle map is typically divided into a grid
of 1-inch squares, each of which represents a 5-foot-by-5-foot
area. Starfinder uses miniatures on the 30 mm scale (meaning a
miniature of a 6-foot-tall creature is approximately 30 mm tall),
available at paizo.com or your local gaming store
And you want to deal with starship combats facing rules in your head?
There are a lot of ways people deal with not having them, such as just asking the DM about distance.
This really doesn't have anything to do with what the default method is. Default doesn't mean "there's no way around it" or "mandatory". Its just something the game assumes you have (cited) or the most common way of playing (which i think would be fairly likely)
Nerdy Canuck |
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
No, extra products are not default.The rules for movement and positions
work best when keeping track of positions using a battle map
and miniatures. A battle map is typically divided into a grid
of 1-inch squares, each of which represents a 5-foot-by-5-foot
area. Starfinder uses miniatures on the 30 mm scale (meaning a
miniature of a 6-foot-tall creature is approximately 30 mm tall),
available at paizo.com or your local gaming storeAnd you want to deal with starship combats facing rules in your head?
You can bring whatever arguments you want, but the facts which your argument requires are not true, so...
The default method is something that's available with the minimum required purchase to start, which is the books and some dice. Anything which requires more than that is automatically not the default.
Additional products might be helpful, and might even make for a genuinely better experience, but they are not the default.
Nerdy Canuck |
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
The default method is something that's available with the minimum required purchase to start, which is the books and some dice. Anything which requires more than that is automatically not the default.No. That's not what that word means.
Yes, it actually is. The default cannot require things which people are not going to have by default.
BigNorseWolf |
Yes, it actually is. The default cannot require things which people are not going to have by default.
I do not consult you for your own private dictionary of what the words I use mean. If you can't figure out which definition I'm using from the context, ask instead of going all kant for 4 posts for NO reason and with less reason to believe you. ESPECIALLY when i said "this is what i meant" and you're trying to tell me no thats not what you meant.
SuperBidi |
In my opinion, we can't get in line in this topic with 2 very different ways to handle combat. The mindset of players during tactical combat is not at all the same than their mindset when playing cinematic combat.
Tactical combat has a set of rules, and you can hardly move away from them. All of your actions have to be translated into game rules, so putting a gun to someone's head will either be ignored or forbidden. What count is the tactical aspect of the game, as most players are basing their actions and getting their pleasure out of it.
On the other hand, cinematic combat is very loose with the rules. Most of the time, the DM will be nice with his players, allowing them funny moves like putting a gun on someone's head. Cinematic combat is more about imagination and fun.
Maybe is it the real topic here. Not realism vs game mechanics, but cinematic vs tactical combat.
And, definitely, Starfinder set of rules are meant for tactical combat. Trying to use them for cinematic combat will ask for a lot of house rules.
BigNorseWolf |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanics for the gun to the head thing
1) You have to sneak up on someone OUT of combat. This won't work in combat, they're too alert and too prone to just shoot you when youthey see you getting near them
2) You forgo your surprise round.
3) If they decide to act, you have a special initiative roll off. You get +10 to this. When you go, if you go first they're flat footed and you crit them if you hit them.
Hawk Kriegsman |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanics for the gun to the head thing
1) You have to sneak up on someone OUT of combat. This won't work in combat, they're too alert and too prone to just shoot you when youthey see you getting near them
2) You forgo your surprise round.
3) If they decide to act, you have a special initiative roll off. You get +10 to this. When you go, if you go first they're flat footed and you crit them if you hit them.
I like this a lot. Will introduce this tonight before we start.
Also BNW your idea of treating low-level security guards as traps rather going into combat rounds was a huge hit last night.
I made the PC sneak verses perception to get up to the "trap" unnoticed. Then a disable roll of DC20+CR using the attack value of the PCs knife or unarmed (the only tried with a knife and improved unarmed). Make two rolls and disable a low level guard.
Worked great! Player's loved it.
Thanks much.
Hawk Kriegsman |
Actually in the rule book it is quite clear that this game IS intended to be used with a battle mat and miniatures. I should mention that we in fact do use the space flip mat and Starfleet Battles ship counters for space combat.
You also need a tactical battle map with 1-inch squares and a starship battlemap with 1-inch hexagons, as well as tokens or miniatures to
represent your characters and ships.
So the must use minis and mats crowd is correct per the rule book.
Garretmander |
Hawk Kriegsman wrote:Well not must, just it's expected. Doubly so for starship combat. We lose track of facing WITH the map i can't imagine trying to do that in my head.
So the must use minis and mats crowd is correct per the rule book.
Hex grids having shared spaces in firing arcs, and ship A facing vs. ship B facing for weapons and shields in a pain in the butt.
Luckily one of my players is way better at understanding hexes than I am.
Ascalaphus |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once upon a time we had a campaign with a precursor D&D variant where we didn't use a battle mat. But people playing archers kept complaining about "teleporting bear syndrome": enemies tended to go from being on the extreme edge of visibility to right in your face in just one round.
Anyone trying to play a build based on keeping distance, doing hit and run, or controlling space with attacks of opportunity, that basically didn't work without more rigidly defined space.
Also, I'm one of those people who can't follow directions. If you tell me how to go to the stores, you better write that down for me. Now try getting me and someone else on the same page about where give hyperactive weasels (the PCs) have run off to in the last couple of turns.
I can play without a grid. I can't play without a sketch map at least, otherwise I have to insist that there can be no more than two creatures. In total. Otherwise I can't keep track.
Claxon |
I haven't followed the whole discussion about whether or not maps and minis are de rigueur, but I will place my vote that they are essential and necessary for Starfinder/Pathfinder. Starfinder and Pathfinder are both combat heavy games focusing on tactical combat. If you ignore the movement and spacing rules of these games, you remove a lot of whats happening in tactical combat. This does not mean its impossible. It also does not mean you need to spend money. But it does mean you might need to sketch the battle map (or use an electronic battlemap) and bottle caps. Roll20 is a free service that will let you do your battles electronically.
While you can play Pathfinder and Starfinder without this tactical combat aspects, you are removing the core of the game. At its heart Pathfinder and Starfinder are tactical combat games. 90%+ of the rules are devoted to tactical combat options. Now, not all of that is removed when you get rid of minis and maps, but it does really change the game and make for a cinematic rather than tactical combat. Which is great if you group likes it. It's just not the general expectation people have when other people say they play Pathfinder/Starfinder.
Malach the Merciless |
Once upon a time we had a campaign with a precursor D&D variant where we didn't use a battle mat. But people playing archers kept complaining about "teleporting bear syndrome": enemies tended to go from being on the extreme edge of visibility to right in your face in just one round.
Anyone trying to play a build based on keeping distance, doing hit and run, or controlling space with attacks of opportunity, that basically didn't work without more rigidly defined space.
Also, I'm one of those people who can't follow directions. If you tell me how to go to the stores, you better write that down for me. Now try getting me and someone else on the same page about where give hyperactive weasels (the PCs) have run off to in the last couple of turns.
I can play without a grid. I can't play without a sketch map at least, otherwise I have to insist that there can be no more than two creatures. In total. Otherwise I can't keep track.
Way before minis and battlmats became the norm for D&D, I used graph paper for maps, and players marked positions using said graph paper as rounds went on. We also a lot of use of theater of the mind. As a DM I would try and be accurate with distance so Player 1 knows Enemy 1 is 120 feet away, next round enemy is now 90 feet away. etc, etc, etc. It takes a little bit of talent and some decent one the fly note taking, and homemade combat charts. I still play a lot of other RPGs like this, GURPS and Call of Cthulhu come to mind. But since D&D 3.0 we have used battlemaps and minis/pawns. I haven't tried Starfinder without a battlemap and pawns, but if I had too I could.
Pantshandshake |
Well not must, just it's expected. Doubly so for starship combat. We lose track of facing WITH the map i can't imagine trying to do that in my head.
A long time ago, in a Spelljammer game, I learned that mapping out your moves in front of you with a d4 (hopefully on an empty chunk of hex map) really lets you solidify what your ship is doing and which end is where once it's your turn. You just have to pick a number for the 'front.'
Hawk Kriegsman |
At my table we have found it easier to play without minis and a battle mat for ground combat. We have the same tactical combat that we had with Pathfinder when we did use miniatures.
There is really no difference between a player moving a miniature up 6 squares on the battle mat and then stating they fire a mook #1 verses the player saying "I move up 30 feet and shoot at mook #1".
Just as there is really no difference in me moving a green gaming stone 6 squares to a black line drawn on said battle mat and stating mook #1 shoots at PC #2 verses me just saying "The space goblin moves 30 feet to a cover position behind a low stone wall, he fires at Hawk from his new position."
I just have to be more descriptive in describing what is going on and where everything is than I did with a battle mat and minis. IMHO this is a good thing as it has forced me to be a more descriptive GM.
The rules are used just the same either way.
My players state that they absolutely can much better visualize what there characters are doing in their mind without battle mat and minis.
It has also been our experience that combat goes faster as my players no longer spend and inordinate amount of time stating at the battle mat and minis counting every blade of grass and calculating every possible combination of possible moves. Its role playing not chess.
That being said, I absolutely agree 100% that a battle mat and markers are needed for ship combat.
Claxon |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At my table we have found it easier to play without minis and a battle mat for ground combat. We have the same tactical combat that we had with Pathfinder when we did use miniatures.
There is really no difference between a player moving a miniature up 6 squares on the battle mat and then stating they fire a mook #1 verses the player saying "I move up 30 feet and shoot at mook #1".
Just as there is really no difference in me moving a green gaming stone 6 squares to a black line drawn on said battle mat and stating mook #1 shoots at PC #2 verses me just saying "The space goblin moves 30 feet to a cover position behind a low stone wall, he fires at Hawk from his new position."
I just have to be more descriptive in describing what is going on and where everything is than I did with a battle mat and minis. IMHO this is a good thing as it has forced me to be a more descriptive GM.
The rules are used just the same either way.
My players state that they absolutely can much better visualize what there characters are doing in their mind without battle mat and minis.
It has also been our experience that combat goes faster as my players no longer spend and inordinate amount of time stating at the battle mat and minis counting every blade of grass and calculating every possible combination of possible moves. Its role playing not chess.
That being said, I absolutely agree 100% that a battle mat and markers are needed for ship combat.
If it works for your group that's great, I just have a hard time imagining AoO, reach weapons, and ranged combat working well without a battle map. Or rather working the way the rest of us are used to.
This is a bigger problem in PF1 in my experience, as combat reflexes is a thing and people are more likely to have melee weapons and it seems like more things provoke in PF1. In Starfinder I think it is more possible to run combats without a map (only 1 AoO and melee attacks are less common). Especially if it's just 1 enemy vs the party and you have a melee character to face tank. However, I feel it's too easy to turn the area into a "featureless" terrain that doesn't account for walls blocking avenues of movement or detritus making impediments to movement in general.
Hawk Kriegsman |
Hawk Kriegsman wrote:At my table we have found it easier to play without minis and a battle mat for ground combat. We have the same tactical combat that we had with Pathfinder when we did use miniatures.
There is really no difference between a player moving a miniature up 6 squares on the battle mat and then stating they fire a mook #1 verses the player saying "I move up 30 feet and shoot at mook #1".
Just as there is really no difference in me moving a green gaming stone 6 squares to a black line drawn on said battle mat and stating mook #1 shoots at PC #2 verses me just saying "The space goblin moves 30 feet to a cover position behind a low stone wall, he fires at Hawk from his new position."
I just have to be more descriptive in describing what is going on and where everything is than I did with a battle mat and minis. IMHO this is a good thing as it has forced me to be a more descriptive GM.
The rules are used just the same either way.
My players state that they absolutely can much better visualize what there characters are doing in their mind without battle mat and minis.
It has also been our experience that combat goes faster as my players no longer spend and inordinate amount of time stating at the battle mat and minis counting every blade of grass and calculating every possible combination of possible moves. Its role playing not chess.
That being said, I absolutely agree 100% that a battle mat and markers are needed for ship combat.
If it works for your group that's great, I just have a hard time imagining AoO, reach weapons, and ranged combat working well without a battle map. Or rather working the way the rest of us are used to.
This is a bigger problem in PF1 in my experience, as combat reflexes is a thing and people are more likely to have melee weapons and it seems like more things provoke in PF1. In Starfinder I think it is more possible to run combats without a map (only 1 AoO and melee attacks are less common). Especially if it's just 1 enemy vs...
Thanks for that. It was not an easy transition when we did it in Pathfinder 1 for the reasons that you have laid out.
It is now like second nature to us in Starfinder.
That being said I do have to occasionally sketch out a quick map if my description is not up to par and my players need a visual.
Fortunately it does not happen too often.
SuperBidi |
Out of my three characters, one is unplayable without a map, and another one is close to unplayable.
I have a mechanic specialized in line weapons riding a stealth drone. So he walks on walls to find lines hitting the maximum amount of enemies without touching allies. He needs a 3D map.
The other one is a powered armor envoy with a reach weapon applying coordinated shot and attacks of opportunity in a 20ft. radius.
But I must admit I like strange builds.
As a DM, I tend to choose cinematic combats when I want to reduce the level of complexity (for new players for example). I voluntarily ignore all the movement and positioning rules, attacks of opportunity, flanking, most soft covers, difficult terrain and such.
Hawk Kriegsman |
Out of my three characters, one is unplayable without a map, and another one is close to unplayable.
I have a mechanic specialized in line weapons riding a stealth drone. So he walks on walls to find lines hitting the maximum amount of enemies without touching allies. He needs a 3D map.
The other one is a powered armor envoy with a reach weapon applying coordinated shot and attacks of opportunity in a 20ft. radius.
But I must admit I like strange builds.
While it would be a challenge, I could work with both of these characters as I play now. I have players that use area weapons and spells (spider climbing technomancer launching explosive blast from walls and ceilings comes to mind). '
Agree you like strange builds.
As a DM, I tend to choose cinematic combats when I want to reduce the level of complexity (for new players for example). I voluntarily ignore all the movement and positioning rules, attacks of opportunity, flanking, most soft covers, difficult terrain and such.
None of these items get ignored, cut or compromised in my game. They all are in play.
Keep in mind in many of the encounters I am looking at a map, so it is relatively easy for me to tell the players where they are, things are, the enemy is and how the relationships between everything is.
BigNorseWolf |
Just as there is really no difference in me moving a green gaming stone 6 squares to a black line drawn on said battle mat and stating mook #1 shoots at PC #2 verses me just saying "The space goblin moves 30 feet to a cover position behind a low stone wall, he fires at Hawk from his new position."
This has a tendency to break down very quickly when you have complicated terrain and multiple people trying to be strategic.
SuperBidi |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While it would be a challenge, I could work with both of these characters as I play now. I have players that use area weapons and spells (spider climbing technomancer launching explosive blast from walls and ceilings comes to mind).
You could, but I can't :D
If I have time to think and a proper map, I can play such builds. Without that, I'll stick with something simple.Hawk Kriegsman |
Hawk Kriegsman wrote:This has a tendency to break down very quickly when you have complicated terrain and multiple people trying to be strategic.Just as there is really no difference in me moving a green gaming stone 6 squares to a black line drawn on said battle mat and stating mook #1 shoots at PC #2 verses me just saying "The space goblin moves 30 feet to a cover position behind a low stone wall, he fires at Hawk from his new position."
Yes this is valid and I have had a time or two where I had to call timeout and clarify things. But this also happened with maps and minis.
I have run a combat with 6 PCs holed up with NPC colonists in a compound facing an attacking force of 300 (in 6 waves of 50 with anyone resting for 10 minutes having to take 60 rounds to do it) that started 5,000 feet away and had to advance through rocky broken terrain that had ample cover and opportunity for tactics and flanking.
BTW this scale of encounter cannot be done with a map and minis very easily due the sheer size of the battlefield.
This kind of encounter takes planning and plenty of notes but it is doable.
It took most of a Saturday and was very tense, but my players still talk about it as one of their favorites to this day.
Hawk Kriegsman |
Hawk Kriegsman wrote:
While it would be a challenge, I could work with both of these characters as I play now. I have players that use area weapons and spells (spider climbing technomancer launching explosive blast from walls and ceilings comes to mind).
You could, but I can't :D
If I have time to think and a proper map, I can play such builds. Without that, I'll stick with something simple.
Well fair enough. You know what tools you need to play at your best.
Hawk Kriegsman |
Hawk Kriegsman wrote:
BTW this scale of encounter cannot be done with a map and minis very easily due the sheer size of the battlefield.
And you can't just use your unpainted miniatures because....?
:)
Oh they are painted and we had enough.
We decided that needing 420 feet of space was out of the question.
:D