Cappadocius:
Well the way the combat was designed in 4e is very map-dependant. Like you have abilities that can push people, or move them in a way to set them up for attack by your allies, etc.<quote> Those powers don't depend on maps, they just depend on having a sense of their applicability, which doesn't necessarily take much information. Knowing an enemy has grabbed or has cornered a vulnerable ally is enough to make forced movement useful; suddenly the ally is free of the grab, or can easily move to a safe location.
<quote Cappadocius>It's an extremely visual system, and while 3.x suggests maps, 4e pretty much requires them.
I don't see how.
Cappadocius:
All measurements are not even in feet anymore but in squares.
I don't see how that requires maps, since it's simple enough to convert squares to feet.
Cappadocius:
The system is more similar to Final Fantasy Tactics (in terms of movement and spell areas) than a pen&paper rpg.
And? The combat system is well-designed, but that's only part of the system. It's still a full RPG. So I'm not sure what point you're making here.
Cappadocius:
That's why I'm having trouble with it. Sure you can describe, but it seems to me like it wouldn't be the best way to go about it.
That depends on what "best" means. It's faster and easier for me not to create and maintain maps, which increases the posting rate and survival of the game. I'm able to create any type of battlefield I want, without being limited by two-ish dimensionality, or available images, or my artistic ability. I'm able to accept and apply player ideas without feeling tied to a set of graphics.
On the downside, it's easier if the battlefield is relatively simple. Then again, I've seen GMs put a lot of time and attention into a battle scene only to have ninety percent of it not get used. They might as well have kept it simple.
Along those lines, the abilities that supposedly allow for tactical setups rarely, in my experience get used in ways that matter. More often than not the power with the cool rider just kills the enemy outright anyway, or simply doesn't wind up having much effect. When I've been at a table, players tend to spend inordinate amounts of time trying to make their "push 1" matter. Maybe they can, or maybe something arises out of happenstance, but the mere fact of a map doesn't seem to me to be the deciding factor.
If a player did want to focus on battlefield movement, I'd ask them to make it clear what they were trying to achieve with their push or slide, or whatever, and I'd basically let that happen. Want to position an enemy so your ally can charge them? Okay, no need to figure out the exact direction or whatever, let's just decide it works and go with it. In my experience there's usually a way to do what the player thinks their power can do, so instead of figuring out what that looks like on a map we can just say that it works.
Another downside: lots more room for misinterpretation. I handle this by simply not sweating it. If I thought the enemy was far enough away to avoid being charged and a PC charges it, oh well. Hopefully, I made the encounter fun anyway, and the player who got to charge is probably enjoying themselves.
Any other specific concerns or misgivings? Maybe you have a specific example that you're wondering how I'd handle?
This message was last edited by the user at 04:49, Thu 28 July 2016.