Hello!

I've been enjoying Genesys and Edge of the Empire's narrative, theater-of-the-mind style play immensely. I have always disliked the D&D style hard defined, very meticulous grid based combat, where someone has to memorize the different amount of squares a medium Blast spell uses versus a medium Cone spell, and that sort of thing.

However, my players have all acquired minis for their characters and they love it when I bring out a map. I've done it in several instances, and typically either use ones without a grid or simply ignore the grid and instead "eyeball" measurements. "Okay guys, from statue to the pit is medium range", that sort of thing. Recently I tried something new and made a map with large (2.5inch) hexes instead of the standard 1 inch squares. I explained that the hexes could be occupied by more than one target, and everyone in the same hex were engaged. So it worked like this...

In the same Hex: Engaged

One hex away: Short range

Two hexes away: medium range

Four hexes away: long range

I hope you can picture what I'm describing. It worked really well! It was loose enough that you could still eyeball things very easily, but gave enough tactical weight that the party enjoyed the strategy aspect of moving their minis around. It also made things like Blast spells a lot easier: They target a hex, anyone in there is going to get roasted.

What do you think? I'm going to continue trying this method out, and would love to find out how it goes if anyone decides to give it a shot.

There's a thread which has discussed this topic extensively, if you're curious.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/276892-grid-based-combat-and-non-relative-distance/

37 minutes ago, Swordbreaker said:

There's a thread which has discussed this topic extensively, if you're curious.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/276892-grid-based-combat-and-non-relative-distance/

don't think this is the same thing. as he is not worried about the tactics of having a map only the 3d spacing. I think if you do what you're saying it basically RAW way of doing a map. I thought about doing this myself but wanted to start without a map then fall back to this if it does not work well for my players(I have one I suspect it may not)

when looking into it came up with two ways I was thinking of mapping it. FYI

one) http://arcknight.squarespace.com/shop/clear-map-grids-superclusters.

two) using dwarven forge title each title being a range band. (I already have them from running dnd, would not buy them for this purpose.)

It’s definitely a solid middle ground, one I have heard a number of times over the years of FFG’s narrative systems. I definitely wouldn’t recommend it for every single encounter, but when there’s more than a handful of mini’s out on the table then you probably stumbled upon the best solution, that uses a grid, there is.

32 minutes ago, Richardbuxton said:

It’s definitely a solid middle ground, one I have heard a number of times over the years of FFG’s narrative systems. I definitely wouldn’t recommend it for every single encounter, but when there’s more than a handful of mini’s out on the table then you probably stumbled upon the best solution, that uses a grid, there is.

I'd only use it when range matters for longer than the time to close the distance. If everybody is kung fu fighting, you can easily just cluster minis that are actually engaged and assume everyone is effectively at short range otherwise.

For my table

Engaged-in adjacent square/hex

Short-out to 5 squares (25ft)

Medium-out to 10 squares (50 feet)

Long-out to 20 squares (100 feet)

Extreme-40 squares (200 feet)

I know this clips off the ranges a bit from core, but it feels "good" and allows for easy conversions of "can move up to short range" on a grid.