Community

The original 3e release definitely hinted at miniatures, but the rules for such were sort of wibbly-wobbly. 3.5 structured grid-size and melee reach by creature size, had further defined line of sight and effect by square corners, simplified Cover (and perhaps Concealment?) into two categories instead 10%/20%/30%/40%/etc. AoE effects were changed to make grid usage easier (Burning Hands, for example, originally covered a 15-ft.-radius half-circle instead of a 15-ft.-cone). And, probably least importantly, 3.5 changed all the example combat illustrations to use Chainmail miniatures on a grid.

Using a battlemap was still ideal in the unrevised 3e, but the rules weren't written with them in mind. Now that I'm looking at my 3.5 PH, it explicitly says that you need a battlemap and minatures...

The only effect I can think of that 4e further changed to make grid usage easier than 3.5 was switching out sphere-shaped Emanations, Spreads, Bursts and other odd-shaped AoEs (Cones & Cylinders) for square Bursts and Blasts. This change would seem too homogenous, but for my part, after trying in vain to draw a circular AoE or being caught off-guard by how weird cones could get, I'm okay with squares.

That's not to say that's the only grid-inspired change, though. Movement was made far more common because of how static the Full Attack-ey 3e often became (usually people just took 5-foot steps to either adjust to the shuffling 'congo line of death' or to avoid having to roll an easy Concentration check to casting defensively). Squares were adopted in place of 5-foot measurements, where previously in 3.5 movement was listed both ways; I've heard from a number of fans that that makes things a bit easier for the metric-inclined folks around the world, so I'm gonna say this was a good move. Perhaps related to grid usage (I'm leaning more towards martial/caster balance), spell and weapon ranges were also reduced; your invisible, flying mage isn't gonna be chucking a Fireball from 600+ feet away any longer!

As a DM, I want to tell a story, not coreograph a "cinematic" battle sequence (especially one that takes 90 minutes to complete).

I don't know if 3rd edition really did it better than 4th edition, but I found that unless the combat was really complex (aka lots of mage casters), most combats where relatively short and where very easy to track narratively with more abstraction, hence the grid wasn't required.  And the truth is that I actually like tactical combat when the scene and the particular combat is a larger, more important fight to the story.   So sometimes I want the combats to be big, epic, tactical battles where players are going to expand every concievable tactic in and effort to defeat and potentially deadly encounter.  But when its a pre-liminary ecounter designed to tap the resources of the group a bit and entertain them, I find abstraction is more interesting.


I suppose thats why I like WFRP 3.0 combat, its an abstracted combat but it holds enough tactical elements in order to make for some very cool epic fights and of course because the whole thing takes a lot less time and effort to both setup and execute.


So Im kind on the fence with the whole miniatures/tactical combat thing, I can't say I dislike it, but I do think it can be done a lot better and preferably a lot quicker.  I mean if you could have quick tactical battles in 4th edition it would make for a much more fluid game, but even a small group of goblins may result in a 45 minute grindathon and it seems like many monster abilities are intentinally designed to slow up the game, allowing for random healing, re-surgence and other elements that increase the length of battles.  Not to mention the considerably higher hitpoint count of monsters which is not proportional to damage done. 

Historically there have been Pirate countries.  I love Pathfinders world (mostly), probably more than their game.

I've been looking at retroclones of late and I lean ACK.