Mearls announced that 5e is going to have gridless combat.

Oh, I can hear the autistic screams already from the people who can no longer maximize the 5' step-flankmarkslantslidedance

WFRP3..ahead of it's time or just common sense in this regards?

jh

Perhaps it s a way to return to a real rpg experience.

The others two things they could do would be reduce the number of COMBO and fully balance every class.

They tried to do it in the 4' edition but the whole system was totally based on tactical movement and miniatures.

So, after 20 years of D&D, I turned to WHFR3!

Its probably good that it would no longer require a grid (which 4th did. With 3rd edition it made many things easier but could be done without), but I don't like the idea of removing the option entirely. I find some of the tone in some of the WFRP 3rd edition stuff a bit irritating, where it essentially says "We're better because we don't use grids and battle maps." Most systems I know allow both free-form and gridded combat (though usually work better with one or the other), but even those that only use one or the other don't tend to be judgmental about the other.

borithan said:

This is the problem.

And yes: we're better because we don't use grids and battle maps!

Emirikol said:

I' ve ditched the gridless abstract combat of 3rd ed. I just find it to be a pain in every way and a lot of the cards benefit a lot from playing on a grid. Playing on a grid actually inspires more interresting combat, use of environment, cover, relative positioning etc. I find the abstract combat to be rather bland and boring. And I have tried. For over a year I have used the abstract combat, but I just can't take it anymore. It just dumbs down combat in a bad way that just doesn't seem to fit the cards very well.

I don't think wfrp is ahead of it's time... how can it be? There is no right and wrong, like one thing being better than the other. New isn't always better. I personally have gone old school, because I find this new way of handling positioning (or lack of) and movement dull and boring.

D&D4 is too much like a mmo, so I very much prefer wfrp. But the gridless abstract movement/positioning system of wfrp 3 really annoys me. It's strange that there is so much detail in cards, recharge etc. Lots of stuff... and then they. You could very well abstract the rest of combat as well. I just don't see what's good about the abstract movement system... it seems pointlessly abstract and I don't see why it's useful. It's not like using a grind is rocket science and I actually find the abstract movement more work. Unless of course you don't keep track of everything, but then why bother. Why use miniatures at all?

I think the abstract movement system of wfrp lands somewhere in no mans land... not useful for keeping track of the tactical side of combat and not really adding anything in terms of roleplaying, plus it doesn't really speed up combat.

I guess it really depends on how you use the abstract system, Gallows.

For my game, the system didn't change anything at all since we were playing like that more or less already.

I always draw maps, don't get me wrong, but the are scribbles on a piece of paper to help players get a feel of the environment and memorize my description.

While before I would draw a house and a tree and say : " Here is the peasant's thatched hut, and approx 50 yards from there, a old, gnarled oak tree."

Now I would say : "Here is the peasant's thatched hut, and at medium range from there, an old, gnarled oak tree."

Once that is done, I'll use figures and location cards to set up a tabletop abstract version that again is just support for our visualization of the scene. My players know that as GM, I take into account anything they do with the environment, giving out advantages and disadvantages freely. So the figures are used to know who is where and to establish relative distances.

Sometimes we don't even use figures and just write on the scrap of paper directly... for simple scenes.

I like the abstract range system because it's verbal, not mathematical. When I describe, I can quickly give precise game mechanic info without breaking to much the description. For example, if I describe a noble's hall, I can just end the description by saying that from one end to the other is medium range. That gives players a sense of scope and that's all I need for the story to stay vivid and well visualized.

I rarely have any confusion at my table as to where PCs and NPCs are in relation with the décor. And some of my players are pretty tight tacticians.

Maybe FFG should have done a better job on explaining how the system can be used with different levels of detail. I agree with you that just using location cards and ranges in a vague and non-descript way is very bland, but I don't think that's what FFG had in mind.

Emirikol said:

Minis and a ruler is the Warhammer way. WFRP v2 only added grids because Pramas wanted to woo D&D 3.5 players. WFRP v3 only removed rulers because there wasn't enough room leftover on the table.

I like grids. I don't like the whole game being about what happens on the grids, which I feel is what D&D 4 is. Many of the aspects of D&D4 and WFRP3 are similiar - recharging or per-encounter powers, etc.

However, WFRP still pulls on the rich RP world that GW has created over years. D&D4 is all about the dungeon crawls it feels like. Granted, most of my AD&D experiences is 1st/2nd with a little bit of 3/3.5 and a session or two of 4.

However, in any case, FFG better not be thinking 'hey what a good idea, a new edition!'

......at least we're faster!

double post... sorry

Jericho I intend to use the grid just like you describe you're using the abstract movement system.

I just find it a lot faster to just count four squares for moving (one maneuver). The ranges are then just really obvious on the grid, but there is not more mathematics about it. It's just a different way to organize and I feel grid is easier and gives a more vivid expression of the battlefield and allowing for more immediate detail. All the things possible with the abstract movement system is possible on the grid. It's just a simple way to handle engaged, short, medium, long and extreme range.

Sometimes the abstract system gets silly when players are at very different ranges from each other and opponents where you need to track range between individual stand ups where it matters. If one engagement then moves away and is at medium range from the engagement it was previously engaged with, then you need to take into account at what range they are to the other engagements in relation to which direction they moved. I want to track it where it matters, because otherwise... why bother. I just find the abstract system really cumbersome, where the grid is straight forward.

What I am trying to say is that the grid is just a way to put down an automatic range finder under the standups, so you don't have to track it, consider it and remember it. It changes nothing really... it's just a ruler that tracks all ranges in two dimensions, but we still use the ranges.

That said some of the cards targeting engagements can get real silly, because we have had engagements of 20 total stand ups sometimes and a blunderbus can hit them all in one go. You'll house rule that of course, but again with a grid this just becomes instantly simple and above all has some consistency.

Consistency is important for me as a GM. I want my players to know the fairness of the game lies in the consistency, because then I can challenge them and they are more in control, the more they can see, react to and the more my interpertation of the combat is similar to their expectations and perception of what's going on.

These are my grid house rules:

• One maneuver equals 4 squares of movement. Disengaging costs one maneuver and moves you one square. Players have one maneuver each round for movement. They can use fatigue to gain extra maneuvers. If they use more than two maneuvers for movement in their turn however, they can't attack.
• Range increments (squares):
o Engaged = touching bases (1)
o Short = 2-5
o Medium = 6-9
o Long = 10-17
o Extreme = 18-29
o Out of range = 30+
• Combat conditions and pushing/sliding enemies
o Staggered = push 2 squares away
o Exposed = Push 1 squares away
o Rattled = Slide 2 squares
o Sluggish = Push 2 squares away
o Any other = Ask GM
• Opportunity attacks: When you move from a square adjacent to an enemy he gets an attack of opportunity on you, unless you use one maneuver to disengage (move one square). An enemy can only get one attack on you this way in your turn, but several enemies may all get attacks. Pushing and sliding does not provoke opportunity attacks.
• The standard size of an engagement is 4 times 4 squares, in relation to effects that targets engagements.

They are simple and the combat conditions and pushback is something we just want to test. It could easily be removed and you would have the exact same system as exists in the current abstract rules... just consistent and easy to work with. The opportunity attack is no different from the current rules that force people to use a maneuver. I just give the option of not doing it. The engagement size of 4x4 squares is something we need to test, but these are the rules and they aren't complicated or mathematical. It's more of a measurement tool.

Before making these rules I had some laminated rulers saying MEDIUM, LONG, EXTREME, SHORT and would put them between standup engagements to track, But in some bigger fights it was a clutter that really detracted from the game.

So the reason I want to use a grid is not complexity, but simplicity

Emirikol said:

Or just like most games out there.

Sebashaw said:

That said some of the cards targeting engagements can get real silly, because we have had engagements of 20 total stand ups sometimes and a blunderbus can hit them all in one go. You'll house rule that of course, but again with a grid this just becomes instantly simple and above all has some consistency.

Unless you are facing a dozen small rats or dogs, why on earth would you (as the GM) allow a single engagement with 20 participants? That is obviously not really possible physically, and the GM should have broken that engagement up into about 3-4 separate engagements. Remember, an engagement range is an area of just a few feet, close enough to strike with a melee weapon or whisper. Engagements really should not contain more than 5 or 6 people at most. In this "engagement area" opponents are moving and maneuvering, swinging weapons, etc.

I like to envision a circle, centered at the center of the engagement, with a radius of ~3 feet, so about 6 feet in diameter (give or take, of course). Anyone who can fit in or close to that area could be considered as part of that engagement.

If you consider it with a grid in mind, I would look at it like an area of 9 squares (ie a center "target" square, with all the surrounding squares). I also envision WFRP combat being more fluid and dynamic, with opponents needing more room than a single "square" to swing their weapons, avoid attacks, etc. Thus, each person in an engagement needs about "2 squares".

As another option, use a stand or a token to represent "the engagement". All standups that can touch this token are involved in that engagement. You should be able to get 4-6 standups touching it, depending on the size used to represent "the engagement".

I think it just comes down to the control that the GM has. While the rules do not specifically limit the size of an engagement, the GM is well within their right to do so. A GM probably should take control, or, as you mentioned, some things can get pretty outrageous.

borithan said:

1) Because to me a good game is a game I can play RAW so, if one of 2 system is better, why are there both?

2) I was joking.

dvang said:

Yes you can do that but there are situations where people are fighting and attacking each other so that 1 is attacking 20 that is attacking 19 that is attacking 17 that is attacking 16 etc, We have had situations where the whole combat was one big engagement because of whom attacked whom. It's just too vague for me and I just find using a grid much more straight forward and simple.

I can house rule it, but on a grid I don't have to worry about it and it's the same every time. In close quarters you may have to tell players that max 4 can be engaged at one time. On a grid I just find it easier because I can combine the description with the visual cue on the grid.

I guess that after a year of using the abstract movement system I have just given up on it. It's just not adding anything to our game and a grid is more simple and easy to use.

Sebashaw said:

1)RAW will usually allow the system that works better for the game, so you can freely ignore any less than ideal option.

2) I realised you were joking, I was just referencing my irritation at the tone in the WFRP 3e rules again.

Honestly it seems to break down into two general groups:

1: The Tacticians prefer the grids

2: The Roleplayers prefer the gridless

Just use the system that you have the most fun with after all thats why you are playing right? As for 5e using gridless.... I find the situation amusing.

My ideal option is a game that works at the best.

Even in WHFR even without a grid you use tactics.

Slysher said:

Not quite. We're role players for sure, but the abstract system gives us more tactical headaches than it adds to the role playing. In fact I can't see anything it adds to role playing that grids don't. Mind you I am referring to using grids as a measurement tool to find the ranges, not playing combat as a table top strategy game.

But you're right, people should only really worry about one thing, when deciding what system to use... fun.

Gallows said:

I agree that the gridless system can become complex if you have a lot of different engagements all moving around at the same time.

BUT

We never have the table space to use a grid system in my games. I tried a few times, but some characters at long or extreme ranges would always be "out " of the map. So for our tabletop the abstract system is perfect.

I guess in complex scenes, you need to wing it to use the abstract system without getting a headache. If a player wants to take three rounds to move slowly from extreme to long, let the player do the bookeeping. And if someone forgets a manœuvre once in a while and moves a bit too fast... who cares ?

It works for us because I can have scenes spread out in extreme range in any direction without needing a huge table, I can have tactical intricacies without needing to really look at the figures that often.

The combats we play are all description, the action goes on in our heads first and foremost. The figures are only there as a reference, as memo. A tool to avoid confusion. When things get muddled with regard to manœuvres and relative distances, I will just wing it using common sense and our mental representation of the scene as reference. Since players can always take fatigue to move faster, being über precise with move manœuvres isn't really critical.

Jericho said:

I use a normal sized battlemap. 26x26 squares I think. Extreme range is up to 29 squares, so sometimes people may be out of bounds. For that I'll just use the astract system, since everything outside (save a few archers) have no impact on the fight. I have a small extra table just for the battle mat. It does take up more space and with all the stuff already on the table it's a real issue for WFRP 3rd ed. But I think it's worth the extra space. The small chessex battle mat is great

The One Ring has an even more abstract combat system and I actually find that to make much more sense as an abstract system that the one in WFRP3. I think WFRP falls a bit between two chairs, a bit tactical and a bit abstract. In TOR, the system is truly abstract and that may be worth a look, as it could be changed to work very well with WFRP.

This is an interesting discussion.

I think in the end, a good system should acomodate both needs, it should have official rules for a tactical combat, but that should also be optional.

On the other hand, I remember GMing games like Trinity, Vampire, Wraith (storyteller system), and not having trouble, even though we never used a grid system there.

I do understand that lots of people take pleasure in the tactical combat steps in their RPG, and even though in my case it does not really matter much, FFG should think of adding in a suplement rules for a grid, tactical combat, all optional of course.

Mestre dos Magos said:

Yep a great debate and a lot of different interresting views on combat. My main reason is I find a more measures system works best with all the cards and all the detail of the combat system. It's like a very detailed combat system with a very abstract movement/positioning system.

The One Rings system looks pretty interresting, but I don't know. I think I may just very much like those standups, moving them about, tipping them over when they die etc. It's just very visual.

The Chessex mat seems a nice size. I had a bigger one, but we would use it as a nappe. (Tablecloth). I just didn't like the beige look.

Our tablecloth now is the old Reikland map from SoB, was it ? Very old and worn, magical.

I'll throw on that a few atmospheric pictures related to the scene at hand and a few location cards, and voilà !

That's our setup.