|
Post by robosnake on Mar 16, 2016 22:45:19 GMT
So, theater of the mind is the best, but one of the big challenges is area of effect for spellcasters. I took a look at the guidelines that the DMG gives (I think it's the DMG - I don't have my copy handy to check) for how many people are hit by a given area of effect from a spell. I took the average number of targets hit for each common area of effect, and then made these into random dice-rolls to represent the ebb and flow of battle without a battle mat, assuming the spellcaster is maneuvering to hit as many people as possible, but that they are all scrambling out of the way of any incoming spells. Anyway, I posted a table of area of effect dice-rolls for number of targets hit to use in theater of the mind combat - here it is: doughagler.wordpress.com/2016/01/23/dd-5e-area-of-effect/Comments are welcome. I've used this table in my game already, and as long as the players understand this is how we're determining the number of targets hit by a spell, they seem happy with it. It isn't going to satisfy those who really want to use a battle grid and minis, but theater of the mind style combat won't satisfy them to begin with. I like that table. Checked the numbers via napkin math, as the numbers aren't complex and I agree completely with your target and die choices. The dice addition is an interesting one, but one that I really like. The randomness makes things a bit more intriguing, while giving a slight edge to the player if they were to decide to go the random route. (i.e. 30' cone = 3 targets = 1d6 which averages 3.5) If I were to use this system I would definitely push towards the players using the dice rather than the set number of targets. The only potential downside is an addition roll needed while resolving spells. True, though since AoE spells normally don't require any d20 roll, you are just rolling the "how many do I hit?" die instead. And then the DM just grabs that many d20s and rolls all the saves at once. I think it's easier to make this work if a DM is already used to using theater of the mind style combats, and I am as I have run a lot of other games, most of which don't assume you have a battle map at all. And yeah, it slightly favors rolling the dice, while having the chance of being disappointed with a low roll or excited with a high one. I haven't used the system that much, so I'm not sure if the two extremes balance out for players. Might also depend on the gaming group.
|
|
|
Post by robosnake on Mar 17, 2016 15:45:46 GMT
So, theater of the mind is the best, but one of the big challenges is area of effect for spellcasters. I took a look at the guidelines that the DMG gives (I think it's the DMG - I don't have my copy handy to check) for how many people are hit by a given area of effect from a spell. I took the average number of targets hit for each common area of effect, and then made these into random dice-rolls to represent the ebb and flow of battle without a battle mat, assuming the spellcaster is maneuvering to hit as many people as possible, but that they are all scrambling out of the way of any incoming spells. Anyway, I posted a table of area of effect dice-rolls for number of targets hit to use in theater of the mind combat - here it is: doughagler.wordpress.com/2016/01/23/dd-5e-area-of-effect/Comments are welcome. I've used this table in my game already, and as long as the players understand this is how we're determining the number of targets hit by a spell, they seem happy with it. It isn't going to satisfy those who really want to use a battle grid and minis, but theater of the mind style combat won't satisfy them to begin with. I like that table. Checked the numbers via napkin math, as the numbers aren't complex and I agree completely with your target and die choices. The dice addition is an interesting one, but one that I really like. The randomness makes things a bit more intriguing, while giving a slight edge to the player if they were to decide to go the random route. (i.e. 30' cone = 3 targets = 1d6 which averages 3.5) If I were to use this system I would definitely push towards the players using the dice rather than the set number of targets. The only potential downside is an addition roll needed while resolving spells. I also had another thought about my dice-rolls for AoE based on the DMG's guidelines - sometimes you are casting a spell and you want to make sure you hit a particular target as a priority. For example, say you're fireballing a group of goblins, but one of them is a Goblin Boss, and you want to make sure you hit him with the rest of them. In that case, where you need to hit one target in particular, maybe make the roll at a -1 to represent that you are erring on the side of hitting a specific target, rather than doing whatever it takes to hit as many as possible. I haven't had this come up yet, but when it does, I'll try the -1 and see how it turns out.
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on Mar 18, 2016 3:28:38 GMT
Yeah, and given that the table/concept is meant to be with theater of the mind a few extra dice rolls aren't too bad. So I would say that with the -1 could come a +1 given a reasonable scenario where the players have caught the group unawares and bunched up, or have been specifically pushing them together, etc. I'd hate to overcomplicate the method, but given that movement is a fairly binary, yes or no, in theater of the mind. Fleshing out AoE spells a little more wouldn't hurt the overall flow of things.
|
|
|
Post by swordnut on Mar 22, 2016 16:07:36 GMT
Im always a fan of theatre of the mind, because the player gets to ask questions like "can I get these guys if I do this thing?" which allows me to say yes to cool things, no to things that will break the combat and to be able to tweak the pace of the game on a moment by moment basis.
Combat is chaos, and players should be encouraged to add to that chaos. If you have a map, then they will assume if it isn't on the map, it isnt in the game. But what if they ask if they can kick over a bench? What if they want to swing from the rafters? What if they want to see if they can take a fella hostage and get their back to a wall. Map says no. TotM says yes
|
|
|
Post by dm_mainprize on Mar 22, 2016 18:06:33 GMT
Im always a fan of theatre of the mind, because the player gets to ask questions like "can I get these guys if I do this thing?" which allows me to say yes to cool things, no to things that will break the combat and to be able to tweak the pace of the game on a moment by moment basis. Combat is chaos, and players should be encouraged to add to that chaos. If you have a map, then they will assume if it isn't on the map, it isnt in the game. But what if they ask if they can kick over a bench? What if they want to swing from the rafters? What if they want to see if they can take a fella hostage and get their back to a wall. Map says no. TotM says yes I DM over skype and have used roll20 and also rigged up a second camera to shoot down at a battle mat. It was good, but we have since moved to TotM. I really enjoy it a lot more and can totally agree with everything you said.
|
|
|
Post by swordnut on Mar 22, 2016 23:43:37 GMT
Having said that, I have also resorted to 1:1 scale maps by bringing a bag of weapons to the game and doing some quick coaching.
I recently played a couple of sessions over Skype as a PC with How We Roll Podcast. Even though I had to fit around the camera and recording equipment, waving the sword around really helped me with my combat descriptions.
If I could pass on one tip to folks, rather than wave words around at the table it is this;
Have a physical representation of your weapon/shield, be that a photo or drawing or mini. Think to yourself "how do I use all of this as a defence? Even the pommel of the sword or the string of the bow? Think "how do I use all of this for attack? Even the crossguard of the sword, the shaft of the warhammer (we did a whole episode on that) or the edge of the shield?
|
|
|
Post by swordnut on Mar 22, 2016 23:47:10 GMT
Final point about maps: at the table, I want the players looking up at each other, thinking about the group. About scaring the foe away, or how much the mage is panicking, not looking down, thinking about 5' steps and AoE templates.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Mar 23, 2016 17:29:41 GMT
Final point about maps: at the table, I want the players looking up at each other, thinking about the group. About scaring the foe away, or how much the mage is panicking, not looking down, thinking about 5' steps and AoE templates. This. All of it. This is why I will not be going back to a minis/grid style. Players engage with the table, the story, and each other differently with TotM.
|
|
|
Post by robosnake on Mar 25, 2016 16:36:19 GMT
I think I'm going to keep using both with my two D&D groups. Partly because sometimes the players miss the grid - they want specific ideas of how to use cover and concealment, how they can stay out of range of certain attacks, think more specifically and tactically, etc. I wish I had the time and the skill to create really cool set-pieces and terrains for our games - I sometimes feel that we're paying entirely too much attention to my wet-erase scribbleson my Chessex mat. And then other times, I want something quicker and more evocative, with us looking at each other and reacting more in-character, and use theater of the mind.
My last session was at a player's house, and he had a large dry-erase board, and we sort of played on that. It was actually really helpful - his son sketched the twists and turns of our cavern exploration, most of which I was improvising, and it was easy to sketch out a physical situation without going to the full battle mat. I liked that erasing was so easy, and it helped keep the one player focused because he likes to sketch while he thinks and he's apparently very visual.
Mostly it's just good not to feel hampered. All of these techniques work in their own way, and as a DM I try to pick the one that makes the most sense.
|
|
|
Post by onyxangel24 on Mar 25, 2016 16:40:05 GMT
You should always pick the one that makes trhe most sense to at least you. Of course, Finding one that works for you is the tricky part I think,.
|
|
|
Post by DM Mitch on Mar 25, 2016 17:03:16 GMT
I think I'm going to keep using both with my two D&D groups. Partly because sometimes the players miss the grid As a DM I love TotM much more. As a player I love the grid more (depending on what character type Im playing) Megalith the Barbarian for example, is built in a way that the grid aids him in being able to do some really cool things in combat, that without the grid he wouldn't get a chance to do, at least not as often. Thats why, I too use both. With both everyone is happy, and also everyone gets to experience both, the good and the bad of each.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Apr 1, 2016 4:48:17 GMT
We are gearing up for a new campaign in my weekly group, and making the switch back to D&D. The issue of whether or not to use a grid and minis came up. Here is a direct quote from one of my players:
"Yeah, I wouldn't like that. Takes away from imaginative role play and restricts you to stupid positioning."
*sniff* I'm so proud. *sniff*
|
|
|
Post by paulhodgson777 on Apr 1, 2016 6:12:06 GMT
I really like the robosnake's spell chart, I switched over completely to the table in the DMG. We also play using TotM and players like to carefully place fireball (for example) so that it only hits enemies and never the players, and I always wanted to somehow implement a system where spells could potentially cause some friendly fire.
I will definitely use the random dice roll method to determine targets, and if the roll is higher than the amount of enemies and a friendly PC is nearby, they will also take some damage, maybe making half as the friend shouts a warning or something.
|
|
|
Post by paulhodgson777 on Apr 1, 2016 6:16:31 GMT
Did you guys see this article on Angry DM... theangrygm.com/fighting-spirit/It takes a while for him to get to the point, but basically it's an argument of players and monsters being fully functional until they hit zero hp, then they're suddenly down and dying. It doesn't really make sense. But also it sucks to get worse in combat because of a "death spiral" effect, but that does force parties to sometimes retreat in the face of danger. He comes up with some cool systems, and there are even better alternatives in the comments. I'll definitely be trying some of those, but probably looking for the simplest option.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Apr 1, 2016 12:37:21 GMT
Did you guys see this article on Angry DM... theangrygm.com/fighting-spirit/It takes a while for him to get to the point, but basically it's an argument of players and monsters being fully functional until they hit zero hp, then they're suddenly down and dying. It doesn't really make sense. But also it sucks to get worse in combat because of a "death spiral" effect, but that does force parties to sometimes retreat in the face of danger. He comes up with some cool systems, and there are even better alternatives in the comments. I'll definitely be trying some of those, but probably looking for the simplest option. Yes, it's a truly excellent analysis of a systemic problem that has existed in D&D since 1st edition. I plan on implementing/play testing his solution in our upcoming campaign.
|
|