|
Post by lebaron on Aug 24, 2014 23:18:25 GMT
Hi guys,
I'm thinking of going gridless but I have some questions about 2 things first.
1- How do you handle clear flanking? With the grid, an easy rule of opposites makes it possible to know exactly where a character is flanking. What about gridless?
2- How do you handle a medium character (monster, PC or NPC) that can simply put himself in the middle of a 10ft large corridor/bridge/whatever and blocks it by himself? Isn't it a bit overpower to do so?
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Aug 24, 2014 23:41:28 GMT
1: eyeball it. It should be an easy judgement to make, and if ot is an ossue, DM has last word.
2: Not really. Do people actually take up a full 5ft in horizontal width, even counting battle movements? Only rarely (in either case). That being said, using a grid, if I wanted to set up an ideal location for strategic battle, I WOULD sit in the middle of the bridge. NOT off to one side.
In either case, if a creature or person wanted to engage in battle, they would stop at that point on the bridhe. However, in gridless, if a person was...say, 2 inches (approx) from our blocker, and wanted to move full distance (6 inches) past him...sure, I'd say he could try. But he will very likely get an attack of opportunity.
Either way. I may call for a Bull rush attempt.
Also, if you wanted to be a finnicky DM you could enforce squeezing rules (double cost for movement through that area).
But otherwise it doesn't seem particularly advantageous for the blocker on the bridge. Not in any massively game breaking way.
|
|
|
Post by Cyan Wisp on Aug 25, 2014 13:05:24 GMT
For flanking, I would give attackers benefit of the doubt for position as they are distracting the defender, unless they are obviously at right angles or something. In 5e D&D, it would no longer be an issue as flanking has seemingly been replaced with the Help action where two allies are both adjacent to the foe, not necessarily opposite sides of the foe. Rogue sneak attack works similarly - ganging up on someone, not surrounding them.
In the case of the bridge/corridor, I would see this as a benefit of gridless: you can stand anywhere, not just on either side of the bridge. In a gridded game, you could not make that decision. You could only stand on one side - now that just seems odd and not at all heroic!
I think I just said essentially the same thing as onethatwas above, so consider it seconded.
|
|
|
Post by lebaron on Aug 25, 2014 15:30:29 GMT
I do not recall D&D Next removing flanking, but it is true that many abilities only requires the characters/monsters to be adjacent to their target.
This simplyfies flanking a lot.
|
|
|
Post by lebaron on Aug 25, 2014 15:36:53 GMT
Well, well! I just looked into the PHB and I think you are right! Wow! We've been playing wrong all this time! (We started last summer during the early phases of Beta and flanking was a thing back then... I think? )
|
|
|
Post by Cyan Wisp on Aug 25, 2014 19:14:46 GMT
Hey, at least you have the PHB. Mine's still in transit. I think the proof is in the playing with gridless. Big moves, spell or weapon ranges and areas are not a problem as the measuring sticks are pretty easy and quick to use. It was the 5' steps and threatened zones that worried me first - such a little distance that the measuring sticks seemed quite unwieldy in close. It turns out that it is very easy to judge 5' because of the mini bases - just imagine another mini wedged between. You get better at these sort of calls until you begin to realise that absolute accuracy is not even that important: "Hey! You just took a 6' step!" is something that has yet to be uttered at my table.
|
|
|
Post by lebaron on Aug 25, 2014 19:21:36 GMT
My PHB is still in stransit too (should have it tomorrow) but you know... internet, 4chan and stuff... I will definetly talk about gridless to my players. Thanks a lot for the answers.
|
|
|
Post by lebaron on Aug 25, 2014 22:22:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Cyan Wisp on Aug 26, 2014 5:34:24 GMT
Waitin'. Then again, I can't be surprised as I live in New Zealand and didn't order it till the 19th of August.
|
|
DM Michael
Paint Manipulator
Preparing for 'In the spider's web' part of LMOP
Posts: 169
|
Post by DM Michael on Aug 26, 2014 8:54:54 GMT
I assume you are playing D&D 5th ed. I play with two groups. One of them plays AD&D 2nd ed. The other plays a variant of D&D 3.5. We play semi grid less. 1: In 2nd edition there are no rules for flanking. In 3.5 we eyeball it. 2: In 2nd edition there is a rule about fighting withdraw. I would apply this. If an attacker tries to move past the character blocking the passage, I would allow the character blocking the passage a free attack (corresponds to attack of opportunity in later editions). In 3.5 I would use squeezing rule as suggested by onethatwas. To be more precise: in my mind I would reconfigure the grid so that the character blocking the corridor in the middle is actually standing in the center of a grid square, that means there are half a grid square on either side of him. Any character trying to move past him would have to squeeze through half a grid.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Sept 30, 2014 5:36:15 GMT
So this entirely answers the question i once asked... i was frowned upon for saying this, but looking at you saying i "EYEBALL" it often coming too. i'd sayt he gridless game is more about changing rules to what "you" need then what you should play. though i do change rules here and there, there is one thing i'll never go for in DND. and thats saying... "looks more realistic that way" to that i'd answer...
since when is DND realistic ? if anything, the game should not be and thats why i think holding in the center or holding on the side wouldn't change a thing to me. unless the character specifically tells me that he blocks the passage.
|
|
|
Post by DMScotty on Sept 30, 2014 6:04:01 GMT
An easy way to let go of nit picky positional rules is to remember that whatever you let the PCs do let the enemy do also.
|
|
|
Post by dmgoblin on Sept 17, 2015 1:33:22 GMT
I wonder about depth of story. It looks to me (and I could be WAY off) like the gridless 2.5d system is geared more toward an old school dungeon crawl (railroad) style of play. Is this accurate? The way I DM, I allow my players to fully explore the world. I never know where they will go. I REALLY want to move to gridless, which I don't think is a hard jump, but 2.5d has me thinking. I worry about not having assets built for locations/encounters that my group may face. I am an artist and a crafter and I really want to integrate the craft into my long running game. Does anyone have any suggestions / has anyone dealt with this? Thanks! -goblin
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Sept 17, 2015 10:48:33 GMT
i too am a world creator and let the players delve in it. but i must say that style is not for every groups. more often then not if you dont at least give out a goal the players will not know where to go and picking a random location may not satisfy them.
as for 2.5d... well tiles makes for great pieces, but to me it make the game looks too random delves. aka board game. thats why im playing theater of the mind and 2.5D Next. i only map out the board when combat arises. basically i think th etiles makes the game much more like delve, aka board game. even if the charcaters can do whatever they please they will usually stop at what they see on that tile. thats why i stopped using tiles almost right away and switched to 2.5D next.
a good exemple to watch for great games and great gridless games is the sacquisition incs. games ! chris perkins really mix dioramas and gameplay really well. he makes some awesome stuff.
|
|
|
Post by dmgoblin on Oct 15, 2015 19:15:55 GMT
Paladin- It sounds like you and I DM in a similar style. Maybe I will craft some really fun delves that we can play and just keep the more intensive games in theatre of the mind. I started making LOTS of assets to bring to our next game which is a sort of pirate campaign. I suppose I could still do it since the assets will largely be ships and water... I digress. 2.5d next is something that I honestly glossed over, but it may very well be a solid middle ground solution.
|
|
|
Post by bluecloud2k2 on Oct 16, 2015 5:07:00 GMT
Yeah I don't set up terrain or tiles except if I am setting up combat. I use a mix of my friend's Fat Dragon Games 3d buildings and terrain, home made war gaming terrain, Lego/Megablocks terrain, and my 2.5 tiles (which are a mish-mash of methods)... I really need to take some pics of tiles in play And then last week, my newest player (who never played DnD before 6 months ago decides to try diplomacy and intimidation on the Hobgoblins holding the keep. And rolled a Natural 20. Thus 20 minutes of setting up walls, buildings, and miniatures went out the window. I would have taken offense had I not been shocked and amazed that someone actually ROLEPLAYED!!! Usually my group is all about the hack and slash.
|
|
|
Post by sgtslag on Oct 16, 2015 17:40:28 GMT
My group is heavily into RP'ing, and my adventures are often completely off the cuff, due to their decisions. Because of this, I still use vinyl mats, with water-based pens. I only map out stuff when combat occurs, or they're on a pre-planned, actual dungeon crawl. Many of my 'adventures' that I run, are created by the players' choices of who to go see, who to talk to, and who to attack on the spur of the moment (things happen -- especially when the bad guy NPC's thwart the PC's plans...).
My group's style is to be open ended, allowing for spur-of-the-moment adventures. With our style, pre-building tiles is limited. One adventure in a land ruled by dragons (well, part of that continent is ruled by dragons) had them running into a family of Green Dragons. I had to design the dragons' lair in all of five minutes: underground caverns, inhabited by a tribe of Goblins, who basically worship the Green Dragons as demi-gods; the Dragons' tunnels are blocked by U-tunnels, dipping down, holding clouds of chlorine gas (it's heavier than air, so it will settle into low places), which keep unwanted critters out of the Dragons' private caverns... The Dragons had other entrances, unknown to the Goblins, so they did not have to always walk through the U-tunnels to enter/exit.
It all started with a random encounter with a Treant, whose cave home (read the entry in the 1977 MM...) had been taken over by a tribe of Goblins. He asked the PC's for help evicting the squatters (this morphed into the Green Dragons' lair, in a matter of minutes, as it all fit into the overall story arch: the Goblins enlarged the Treant's caves to accommodate their new 'gods'; the Dragons made their own modifications, as well). My players entered the dragon lair, but they turned back at the U-tunnels: no way to pass through them without dying in the middle somewhere. It was a simple matter to draw out the tunnels on the vinyl, very quickly, and easily, but it was completely unplanned, until it happened at the table. It also was a lot of fun, for me. The players had erected Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion spell (Book of Infinite Spells owned by a PC mage), for two NPC's to wait for their return, but the Green Dragons came across it (it appeared to be a log cabin which had not been there a few days earlier, but they could not rip it apart...). When the Green's could not enter it, they breathed into the chimney, killing the two NPC's; they also breathed on the Treant, who was waiting, on guard duty, outside the cabin... It all went by, creating new directions for the story, and everyone was challenged, and everyone enjoyed it.
Using 2.5D Next would help, but even that cannot cover every situation which may crop up. Still, 2.5D Next is the approach I am trying to make work for my games (more so for my mini's games, as they tend to be closed environments, where I can pre-design the terrain). The vinyl mats, and water-based pens, however, are very hard to let go of... Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Oct 17, 2015 4:22:05 GMT
in my games there are tons of curve balls sent byt ht eplayers and i can tell you, 2.5D next is really made for that type of thing. you can easily reconfigure on the spot. but you'd need tons of material to ake it work. i have to make some more walls for me. i thought 3 12 inch walls would be enough and clearly its not seeing how my players loves big ass dungeons. but aside fromt hat type of things... i usually only play theater of the mind and lay out when they need to see the stuff.
there is something good in letting them imagine the stuff. its often times more detailed in ones head then it would be in reality. i also had to let go of the tiles because i had players who had been destroying walls, creating pathways. or even shape stone out of different solutions. and thus i ended up thinking that maybe losing times in setting up tiles that may not reflect such changes was just bad. with 2.5d next i had no problem with this sort of things. i just reconfigure the walls and doors the way the players do it.
thats why being in between both styles is a good thing. i dont think laying out the whole delve is a great idea. requires tons of materials and if the players throw you curve balls you are stuck with what they see and cannot really change it. building block by block helps that a bit because removing one block is better then changing a whole tile. but still it is still impossible to guess what the players will do.
so yeah i understand how drawing on a vinyl map could be still the simplest solution. but i think 2.5D next is great at putting that vinyl map type thing to life. its still easy to modify things ont he fly and it puts that awesome 3D onto a boring flat surface.
|
|