Post by AJ on May 19, 2013 3:07:35 GMT -5
Thought people might find this interesting.
(quoted from article 'Unearthed Arcana Game Changers' By Robert J. Schwalb and Matt Sernett, Dragon #423)
All in all, I would say that gridless play is regarded as a positive option, but the article is a bit muddled.. it seems like they think playing without a grid means no map at all.. which is kind of odd, and if they think the option has drawbacks, they fail to clearly state any of them, and the concern they have over spell effect ranges is easily dealt with using templates or a simple measuring stick (even a length of string does the trick).
If I was the editor of this article, I would have said "Hey, maps without grids exist you know".
I am thinking the guys who wrote this are not gridless players.
(quoted from article 'Unearthed Arcana Game Changers' By Robert J. Schwalb and Matt Sernett, Dragon #423)
Going off the grid
The Dungeons & Dragons game uses a grid of 5-foot squares to make play more understandable. The grid allows for easier handling of somewhat complicated concepts such as flanking, shifting, range, area, threatened squares, and speed. In addition, the visual presentation of a grid on the game table, showing all the important elements in play, gives everyone a shared understanding of the situation the characters face.You don’t have to play this way, though. Using miniatures on a grid goes back to the earliest roots of the game, but many people have played and continue to play without them. If you want to play without using a grid, keep the following points in mind.
1 Square = 5 Feet: Although you won’t be using the grid, the relative locations of creatures and objects are still important for helping players understand how far their characters can get in a round, and whether or not spells can reach the desired targets.
Areas get fuzzy: Without a map to indicate how far one creature is from others, you must rely upon everyone’s shared understanding of relative distances. The responsibility for resolving these questions will rest on the your shoulders. Most of the time, it boils down to whether a target is relatively close or very far away. Thus, the difference between a burst 2 and a burst 3 (or even 4) spell might all but disappear.
Flanking and Threatened Squares: The grid presents a clear indication of whether a character has moved into a flank or can get around some enemy’s threatened area. Such clarity is generally absent from the theater of the mind. You could try to ignore the rules for flanking and opportunity attacks due to threatening squares, but doing so obviates many of the mechanics that characters and monsters use. If rogues can’t get combat advantage through flanking, how can they get their sneak attacks on a regular basis? For threatened areas, you might instead just think about arm’s reach (or weapon’s reach). A player who says a character is staying out of an enemy’s reach can do so as long as sufficient space exists. Any character within that reach is in melee and thus subject to an opportunity attack for moving far from that spot. For flanking, the player can simply declare an attempt to move into such a position and allow the group’s shared sense of the distances on the battlefield to determine whether the move is possible.
A Map Is Still Handy: When you’re not playing on the grid, even a rough map of the area can be extremely helpful. With a basic map, it’s much easier to get all the players on the same page as far as the space in which they imagine their characters.
New opportunities: Although drawbacks exist, freedom from the grid presents new opportunities for scenes that would be difficult to play on a map. The most obvious element that’s tough on a two-dimensional map is a three-dimensional battle with heights and depths that overlap. In such cases, the fuzziness of the location is a boon to play, allowing the DM and players the opportunity to improvise.
The Dungeons & Dragons game uses a grid of 5-foot squares to make play more understandable. The grid allows for easier handling of somewhat complicated concepts such as flanking, shifting, range, area, threatened squares, and speed. In addition, the visual presentation of a grid on the game table, showing all the important elements in play, gives everyone a shared understanding of the situation the characters face.You don’t have to play this way, though. Using miniatures on a grid goes back to the earliest roots of the game, but many people have played and continue to play without them. If you want to play without using a grid, keep the following points in mind.
1 Square = 5 Feet: Although you won’t be using the grid, the relative locations of creatures and objects are still important for helping players understand how far their characters can get in a round, and whether or not spells can reach the desired targets.
Areas get fuzzy: Without a map to indicate how far one creature is from others, you must rely upon everyone’s shared understanding of relative distances. The responsibility for resolving these questions will rest on the your shoulders. Most of the time, it boils down to whether a target is relatively close or very far away. Thus, the difference between a burst 2 and a burst 3 (or even 4) spell might all but disappear.
Flanking and Threatened Squares: The grid presents a clear indication of whether a character has moved into a flank or can get around some enemy’s threatened area. Such clarity is generally absent from the theater of the mind. You could try to ignore the rules for flanking and opportunity attacks due to threatening squares, but doing so obviates many of the mechanics that characters and monsters use. If rogues can’t get combat advantage through flanking, how can they get their sneak attacks on a regular basis? For threatened areas, you might instead just think about arm’s reach (or weapon’s reach). A player who says a character is staying out of an enemy’s reach can do so as long as sufficient space exists. Any character within that reach is in melee and thus subject to an opportunity attack for moving far from that spot. For flanking, the player can simply declare an attempt to move into such a position and allow the group’s shared sense of the distances on the battlefield to determine whether the move is possible.
A Map Is Still Handy: When you’re not playing on the grid, even a rough map of the area can be extremely helpful. With a basic map, it’s much easier to get all the players on the same page as far as the space in which they imagine their characters.
New opportunities: Although drawbacks exist, freedom from the grid presents new opportunities for scenes that would be difficult to play on a map. The most obvious element that’s tough on a two-dimensional map is a three-dimensional battle with heights and depths that overlap. In such cases, the fuzziness of the location is a boon to play, allowing the DM and players the opportunity to improvise.
All in all, I would say that gridless play is regarded as a positive option, but the article is a bit muddled.. it seems like they think playing without a grid means no map at all.. which is kind of odd, and if they think the option has drawbacks, they fail to clearly state any of them, and the concern they have over spell effect ranges is easily dealt with using templates or a simple measuring stick (even a length of string does the trick).
If I was the editor of this article, I would have said "Hey, maps without grids exist you know".
I am thinking the guys who wrote this are not gridless players.