|
5 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 7:18PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2011
|
Centauri, I know it sucks but it is pretty obvious that you do actually lose a pretty big part of the depth of the 4e design if you ignore the map in combat.
I'm not saying it is inherently bad or good. I'm not saying you can't play without it. What I'm saying is that it was designed to be played with a map and all of the abilities function that way. There is a reason it is Close Burst 5 instead of Close Burst 25. The board really does matter.
Also, if you are trying to work at the tactical side of things, there are a ton of terrain effects that will really matter to your players in combat. I think last combat we had the players were about to flank something a grand total of twice due to terrain and other limitations. It isn't always trivial, and even when it is there is a lot of other stuff to take into account. Sure you can handwave "hey can I hit all the trogs with my fireball and not hit the fighter?", but its a different game than generic 4e DnD.
This.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 10:23AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Centauri, I know it sucks but it is pretty obvious that you do actually lose a pretty big part of the depth of the 4e design if you ignore the map in combat.
Engaging with that "depth of design" is not always appropriate. It's a schematic when a sketch would do.
I'm not saying it is inherently bad or good. I'm not saying you can't play without it. What I'm saying is that it was designed to be played with a map and all of the abilities function that way. There is a reason it is Close Burst 5 instead of Close Burst 25. The board really does matter.
Not as much as people want it to. It's like alignment: it's there, it's a player choice, and so it seems as though it should make a significant impact on the game. Because it does not inherently have the expected impact, people look hard for ways to justify their choices. In every single combat round.
Also, if you are trying to work at the tactical side of things, there are a ton of terrain effects that will really matter to your players in combat. I think last combat we had the players were about to flank something a grand total of twice due to terrain and other limitations.
The point is: did flanking, or not, make any difference to his group in that encounter. The odds are good that it did not, or at most cost them a few extra resources that didn't matter two encounters later. I guarantee that figuring out how to get that flanking took up game time far out of proportion to its benefit. This is even assuming there weren't arguments, and confusion, and copious amounts of recounting, rechecking and reexplaining as the DM tried to make sure that the players weren't getting around something.
It isn't always trivial, and even when it is there is a lot of other stuff to take into account.
It's there to be taken into account, but it probably doesn't all need to be.
Sure you can handwave "hey can I hit all the trogs with my fireball and not hit the fighter?", but its a different game than generic 4e DnD.
This is a meaningless statement. I don't play a given game a given way for its own sake, I play it that way to enjoy it. Besides which, 4e D&D certainly doesn't prohibit gridless combat, or any other approach I want to take. In fact, it offers several different options for approaching challenges and scenes, and a group should use whichever of those makes the most sense at the time, rather than feeling beholden to something the books don't actually require.
The amount of print or rules devoted to an aspect of the game need influence no one to give that aspect of the game, or any aspect of that aspect of the game, any more weight than any other aspect. The car/stereo analogy is poppycock for this reason, and so is any implication that playing "a different game than generic 4e DnD" has any bearing on how someone should play "generic 4e DnD."
This.
Well done.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 3:21PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2007
|
A group of us are wanting to start playing D&D 4 but I have a question about how to use the maps in the senarios. In each of the senarios it has Maps of what an encounter will look like. But I can never seem to find a full size version of the map anywhere in the senario? How are these intended to be used? Is there a book of maps that I was suppose to purchase? Point me in the right direction here. Thanks!
-Jeff
Jeff, which specific module did you have in mind to run? Many people have made downloadable maps of the best-known modules. If you let me know which modules you are running I might be able to like you a set of maps. Alternatively use google-searching to locate.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 7:38PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2004
|
Engaging with that "depth of design" is not always appropriate. It's a schematic when a sketch would do. No, but you probably should start out by playing closer to the book, learning how the game was designing to be played, and then venture from there once you have a strong basis.Not as much as people want it to. It's like alignment: it's there, it's a player choice, and so it seems as though it should make a significant impact on the game. Because it does not inherently have the expected impact, people look hard for ways to justify their choices. In every single combat round. The problem with alignment is that it is subjective and ambiguous. The fact that its player choice isn't in that debate at all. In Theater of the Mind a lot of stuff is subjective and ambiguous but grid based combat is very straightforward. There isn't a lot of wiggle room there. Things do what they say.The point is: did flanking, or not, make any difference to his group in that encounter. The odds are good that it did not, or at most cost them a few extra resources that didn't matter two encounters later. I guarantee that figuring out how to get that flanking took up game time far out of proportion to its benefit. This is even assuming there weren't arguments, and confusion, and copious amounts of recounting, rechecking and reexplaining as the DM tried to make sure that the players weren't getting around something. This is two issues. The first is whether playing tactically on the grid made a difference. The second is whether following the rules to do so created fewer arguments than not doing it that way.
1:
I would propose that, in several combats I've run, where the player is standing from round to round, whether they have CA or not, whether they can charge that target or not and whether they can see how much they can blast without clipping allies does make a big difference to a tactically minded combat. If it isn't making a difference, chances are that combat needs something to make the choices better and the combat more interesting.
2:
From what I have seen of Theater of the Mind (from playing a lot in 3.5 and PF) not having clear definitions of who is where takes a lot more time than anyone being able to know at a glance. Its very easy to see where everything is and figure out a good tactical move if you can clearly see everything in order to make your decision. Instead of saying "So... on the golbin's last turn it was near the tree that was 20 feet away and it charged the fighter who was a bit away from the rogue. The rogue is like, what 15 feet from me? So if I cast my spell between the fighter and the rogue I think thats where the goblin is and its probably not going to get the tree cause that was near where the goblin started. Right?" Without a clear way to see where everything is, it is harder to make your decisions. At least that is what I have experienced. Imagine how a Battle Interactive would work without a grid.
It's there to be taken into account, but it probably doesn't all need to be. Right, but taking it into account isn't taking it and throwing it to the wayside. The abilities, the descriptions, all the examples of things in 4e combat take place on a grid. Especially for a new player, playing without one is probably going to lead to a lot of argument and/or ambiguity or a severe lack of tactical playing. Not saying it is impossible, but seems very unlikely from what I've seen.
Sure you can handwave "hey can I hit all the trogs with my fireball and not hit the fighter?", but its a different game than generic 4e DnD.
This is a meaningless statement. I don't play a given game a given way for its own sake, I play it that way to enjoy it.
Right but if you are trying to learn how to play 4e. Like, if you ever want to go and play it at a con, its probably important to vaguely know how the rules work. If someone showed up at my LFR table with a character and was baffled that they had to learn the grid system from scratch and they had been ignoring it for a year of play I would feel bad for them.
Besides which, 4e D&D certainly doesn't prohibit gridless combat, or any other approach I want to take. In fact, it offers several different options for approaching challenges and scenes, and a group should use whichever of those makes the most sense at the time, rather than feeling beholden to something the books don't actually require.
From the PHB1:
"When a combat encounter starts, it’s time to turn your attention to the battle grid. The combat rules assume that you use D&D Dungeon Tiles, a poster map, a gridded white board, or an erasable, gridded mat to show the area where a battle takes place. The rules also assume that you use D&D Miniatures to represent the adventurers and the enemies they face." So actually the books pretty clearly state they assume everyone is using gridded combat. They state that pretty clearly at the very beginning of the description on combat.
That entire section basically says "We are giving you all of the rules in all of these books starting from the premise that you are using gridded combat." Thats pretty darned close to "we require you to use a grid to play".
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out hereSpoiler:
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here
If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here
Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 7:47PM
#25
|
|
|
I echo what people say above--just get a wet-erase battlemat and draw the room for each encounter. I do not think the game would really be improved by having gigantic table-sized battle maps necessarily published for every map in every adventure.
Especially considering that in the single adventure I purchased (Marauders of the Dune Sea) before WOTC abandoned my world to the internet, one of the two battle maps was completely worthless. Dark Sun battle mat full of oxen, medievial-European market decorations, water, etc.
And the darksun tileset - half the maps are of water. I get that water would be source of battles, butthere's more water in the darksun tileset than the forest one I brought.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 3:52PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jun 12, 2009
|
"http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75862/29330951/Is_There_a_Way_to_Play_Saga_Edition_Without_Maps..._"
Might help. The two systems are very similar at the base of their comat rules. They use the same types of maps, etc
We summoned a devil once. All we used was the D&D books, too. It was pretty kwazy.
God of Arrested Development and Intelligence 
Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander
Pie-Cooling-On-A-Windowsill of the House of Trolls
In the morning HK'll be sober but you'll still be a meatbag.
I know I misspell "Danke" in my posts. It's an inside joke.
"Ten cents gets you nuts." -George Michael
Spoiler:
Show
''Being president is like running a cemetery: you've got a lot of people under you and nobody's listening.''
—Bill Clinton
You are not a moral man. There are not enough middle fingers in the world for you.
Actually, Santa just didn't like you. However, you weren't on the Naughty List, so he had to give you something "better" than coal.
I'd take coal. Heating your house is expesive, and engery cost arn't going down.
Mabey if i beat enough homeless people, i won't have to be cold this year. 
"Heroes"...I wish I had those. I remember in my first-ever campaign one PC went around shootin all the unconscious baddies in the head to gain Dark Side Points...
Whaaaaaat?!??
Wow...way to waste perfectly good potential slaves.
Er...no wait I mean..uh...something not evil!
(Quotes screwed up on the next one, won't give the poster's name. It's in the Best Lines thread on the D&D forum)
First, an experience from a game I played in a few years back. Our DM didn't like 3.5 as a whole but liked parts of it. So he hands us a big ass rules packet for his modified FR campaign, complete with quotes from important NPC's on the front. I can't remember most of the HRs, just that some how gods like Cyric and Bhaal existed at the same time, despite the obvious problems there. In the end the game became a problem more because of the railroading than the HRs, but it ended with this classic line, after our ranger tried to disarm the strange woman following us WITH HIS BOW: DM: You just killed (insert random noble sounding name here) JP: Was she important? Jack: Dude, she's quoted on the front of the rules packet!
"Why in the wide,wide, world of all things irrational would I help you?
-Daniel Jackson
"Fun will now commence."
-Seven of Nine
"Excellent."
-Mr. Burns.
Whey is a crotch.
Cut the last encounter on your way out after dealing with the Darth. He's the BBEG. Treat him as such. Play up that Darth Revan is THAT much of a badarse. When the shuttle landed, I had no less than 13 JEDI MASTERS step off the shuttle. The PCs were slack-jawed. After the meetup with Bastila (as she's carrying Revan's body), only TWO jedi masters remained with her. Let me tell you, the player whining about not getting to fight Revan himself shut up pretty quickly when he saw that. 
There's so much you can do with insanity, especially when it has alot of resources.
1. Cleric cast protection from fire on Tank.
2. Tank goes in and get surrounded by enemies.
3. Wizard cast fireball and blows them up.
4. ???
5. Profit
I go by the saying," If it ain't friendly fire then it's not working."
|
|
|
