D&D has always been a grid game whether it's a 5' grid or a 10' one. Butr a lot of people complain that the current system makes combat a slog.
A relatively new concept is zones. Specific or exact distance doesn't matter. As long as it fits within the zone, and the enemy is within the zone, you can hit them.
My group took a diversion from D&D to play a game with zones, and I really liked it. It's further detaches reality from combat, but in exchange, combat is faster.
Now, I like taking a ruler on a virtual desktop and seeing if my spell can hit the enemy. It's part of the strategy and tactics that I enjoy.
And yes, I know that converting D&D to a zone system would be an expensive and huge departure for what we've been doing for a long time, and a lot of people would be unhappy
What are your thoughts? If WoTC was willing to invest the time and money into the conversion, would you support it?
I've never had an issue with the duration of combat, and if I did, I don't think "zones" would be my preferred solution. However, I do use tiers for aerial combat to designate a finite number of tactical altitudes.
When players are organized, combat either doesn't take very long, or it is sufficiently engaging to be worth spending time on. If the players aren't organized, then the best solution may be to help the players streamline their characters, which should improve quality of play across the board.
Storytelling is a big part of D&D, so the ideal should be deviating from a "physics simulation" only as far as necessary for smooth and consistant play.
If combat is a problem, then it can either be resolved as a microcosm of a larger conflict, or simplified entirely with a couple of dice rolls.
My DM has been using zones in our game for a couple years. I don’t know exactly what type of zones you used in the other game so I’m not sure what “conversion” you would require that is expensive but all depends on what you mean.
I think my DM uses a kind of hybrid zone system. Basically, for my table if you are in the same zone you are in melee range. If you are in adjacent zones you are most likely within one move to reach the target, so within 25-30 feet. So if I want to use a spell that has a range of 15’ I basically say I am moving within 15’ and casting a spell.
Some issues (and maybe the conversion you were mentioning) are features that have specific maneuvering like swashbuckler’s sneak attack. If you are in a zone and basically everyone there is in melee range how do you maneuver so you can be 1v1 to sneak attack and move without OA’s. But it’s just handled verbally with the DM. I say “can I move so that I can be 1v1 with this guy?” DM says yes. “Ok, I move up and attack” roll dice and “now I withdraw out of their melee range”
Or AOE’s. I tell the DM the spell and area and he decides how many are hit and we resolve damage. So it is less tactical and up to DM fiat how good an AOE or other effect is. But it works with some adjustments.
like I said, I think my DM’s version is kind of a hybrid zone/Theater of the Mind but fights are a bit faster than grid, which we use occasionally.
My DM has been using zones in our game for a couple years. I don’t know exactly what type of zones you used in the other game so I’m not sure what “conversion” you would require that is expensive but all depends on what you mean.
The expense from a conversation would be updating all of the ranges and area of effects to zones. For example, it would take some time to decide how many zones fireball could effect, or how many zones a lightning bolt could travel to hit a target.
I've never had an issue with the duration of combat, and if I did, I don't think "zones" would be my preferred solution. However, I do use tiers for aerial combat to designate a finite number of tactical altitudes.
When players are organized, combat either doesn't take very long, or it is sufficiently engaging to be worth spending time on. If the players aren't organized, then the best solution may be to help the players streamline their characters, which should improve quality of play across the board.
Storytelling is a big part of D&D, so the ideal should be deviating from a "physics simulation" only as far as necessary for smooth and consistent play.
If combat is a problem, then it can either be resolved as a microcosm of a larger conflict, or simplified entirely with a couple of dice rolls.
I've never had an issue with the duration of combat either, but I have heard a lot of people complain about combat being too long. I'm just trying to find out how many players would like the change to zones.
Personally, I wouldn't want combat simplified to a couple of dice rolls. IMO, that would be going too far in the other direction.
Zones make more sense when you're using primarily or solely ranged weaponry. When you're shooting at someone, whether they're 2ft closer or further away is irrelevant. At that point, worrying about how many feet away they are is kind of silly, long as they're not stupidly far off. When you're doing melee combat as major factor, fine distances become important and the grid system.works better. It really does matter if you're 5ft or 10ft.
I've only experienced zones with Star Trek Adventures, with their essentials kit. I have to say, if you do zones, they need to be defined. They only defined "Reach", and then didn't say what the others were. Saying something has a range of two zones doesn't really help if you don't know how big they are, even if just roughly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
have to say, if you do zones, they need to be defined. They only defined "Reach", and then didn't say what the others were. Saying something has a range of two zones doesn't really help if you don't know how big they are, even if just roughly.
I agree. In the game in which I played, we could see the relative size of the zones on the game map, but it still felt arbitrary/inconsistent.
Some, like YouTuber Professor Dungeon Master on DungeonCraft has his Ultimate Terrain which is basically a circle with three rings, like a bullseye. The center ring is melee range, the middle ring is ranged, the outer ring is off the map and you use your move to enter the middle ring. And he has rules for it.
Others, like my DM, puts up a picture that fits the environment (we are on VTT) and different zones are labeled. You can use your move to go from one zone to another adjacent zone, adjacent zones are within short range (30ish feet) so you can fire spells/ranges weapons into it. Other zones are longer range, so longer ranged weapons/spells only. So if you want to go from your zone to a zone two away (a zone between yours and the one you are going to) it takes two moves or a dash. Edit: sometimes it’s just one zone and the DM describes the area and it’s size. So if there are goblins around an alter they are sacrificing the villager on we would ask how far away they are DM says the distance and we know if they are in range of spells/weapons or how much movement we need to get into melee range
Since I largely play theater of the mind and use very simple maps for some spatial orientation, I'd be curious about zones since I sorta "zone" things in my head anyway rather than have a rigorous mental yardstick. That said, I'm curious what "zone play" would look like on a VTT or miniature battlemap. Does anyone have any good examples on YouTube or some such?
I mean really, if you look at a lot of spell workings and missile weapons, the game is pretty well lumped into zones already (5' 10' inside 30' 60' 120' 300'), zoning would just encourage players and DMs to "eyeball" ranges more often than not,. I suppose mobility builds and the speed and movement system would have to be rejiggered,
All this said, given the popularity of Zones, I imagine someone streaming out there has done something like a Zone system as a house rules set ... and that's really how it would fly into D&D, it becoming integrated into D&D anyway.
But some folks, including WotC may well thing grid based movement and range is "essential" to D&D like six stats, leveled progression, spell slots, etc. which were the baby to preserved in the bathwater or reintroduced in changing from 4e to 5e. A swtich to zones wouldn't turn me off nor would it get me overly excited either way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I have a love-hate relationship with grid combat. Part of me enjoys the tactical side of figuring out the optimal place to put my character. Part of me finds the entire thing unnecessarily granular.
Making maps is the bane of my DMing existence, however, and I try to avoid it as much as possible. I know my players will ask me things like how high the ceiling is and how large the window is and how many feet exactly is it from the door to the hallway corner I mentioned in passing. Those questions matter for a player and their abilities/spells, but as a storyteller, I really don't care to get that detailed. Having a zoned system would be kinda nice so I can feel like I don't have to pause the story to break out my tape measure. I've played zoned RPGs before and really liked how flexible combat narration was.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
D&D has always been a grid game whether it's a 5' grid or a 10' one. Butr a lot of people complain that the current system makes combat a slog.
A relatively new concept is zones. Specific or exact distance doesn't matter. As long as it fits within the zone, and the enemy is within the zone, you can hit them.
My group took a diversion from D&D to play a game with zones, and I really liked it. It's further detaches reality from combat, but in exchange, combat is faster.
Now, I like taking a ruler on a virtual desktop and seeing if my spell can hit the enemy. It's part of the strategy and tactics that I enjoy.
And yes, I know that converting D&D to a zone system would be an expensive and huge departure for what we've been doing for a long time, and a lot of people would be unhappy
What are your thoughts? If WoTC was willing to invest the time and money into the conversion, would you support it?
I've never had an issue with the duration of combat, and if I did, I don't think "zones" would be my preferred solution. However, I do use tiers for aerial combat to designate a finite number of tactical altitudes.
When players are organized, combat either doesn't take very long, or it is sufficiently engaging to be worth spending time on. If the players aren't organized, then the best solution may be to help the players streamline their characters, which should improve quality of play across the board.
Storytelling is a big part of D&D, so the ideal should be deviating from a "physics simulation" only as far as necessary for smooth and consistant play.
If combat is a problem, then it can either be resolved as a microcosm of a larger conflict, or simplified entirely with a couple of dice rolls.
My DM has been using zones in our game for a couple years. I don’t know exactly what type of zones you used in the other game so I’m not sure what “conversion” you would require that is expensive but all depends on what you mean.
I think my DM uses a kind of hybrid zone system. Basically, for my table if you are in the same zone you are in melee range. If you are in adjacent zones you are most likely within one move to reach the target, so within 25-30 feet. So if I want to use a spell that has a range of 15’ I basically say I am moving within 15’ and casting a spell.
Some issues (and maybe the conversion you were mentioning) are features that have specific maneuvering like swashbuckler’s sneak attack. If you are in a zone and basically everyone there is in melee range how do you maneuver so you can be 1v1 to sneak attack and move without OA’s. But it’s just handled verbally with the DM. I say “can I move so that I can be 1v1 with this guy?” DM says yes. “Ok, I move up and attack” roll dice and “now I withdraw out of their melee range”
Or AOE’s. I tell the DM the spell and area and he decides how many are hit and we resolve damage. So it is less tactical and up to DM fiat how good an AOE or other effect is. But it works with some adjustments.
like I said, I think my DM’s version is kind of a hybrid zone/Theater of the Mind but fights are a bit faster than grid, which we use occasionally.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The expense from a conversation would be updating all of the ranges and area of effects to zones. For example, it would take some time to decide how many zones fireball could effect, or how many zones a lightning bolt could travel to hit a target.
I've never had an issue with the duration of combat either, but I have heard a lot of people complain about combat being too long. I'm just trying to find out how many players would like the change to zones.
Personally, I wouldn't want combat simplified to a couple of dice rolls. IMO, that would be going too far in the other direction.
Zones make more sense when you're using primarily or solely ranged weaponry. When you're shooting at someone, whether they're 2ft closer or further away is irrelevant. At that point, worrying about how many feet away they are is kind of silly, long as they're not stupidly far off. When you're doing melee combat as major factor, fine distances become important and the grid system.works better. It really does matter if you're 5ft or 10ft.
I've only experienced zones with Star Trek Adventures, with their essentials kit. I have to say, if you do zones, they need to be defined. They only defined "Reach", and then didn't say what the others were. Saying something has a range of two zones doesn't really help if you don't know how big they are, even if just roughly.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I agree. In the game in which I played, we could see the relative size of the zones on the game map, but it still felt arbitrary/inconsistent.
It all depends on what you mean by zones.
Some, like YouTuber Professor Dungeon Master on DungeonCraft has his Ultimate Terrain which is basically a circle with three rings, like a bullseye. The center ring is melee range, the middle ring is ranged, the outer ring is off the map and you use your move to enter the middle ring. And he has rules for it.
Others, like my DM, puts up a picture that fits the environment (we are on VTT) and different zones are labeled. You can use your move to go from one zone to another adjacent zone, adjacent zones are within short range (30ish feet) so you can fire spells/ranges weapons into it. Other zones are longer range, so longer ranged weapons/spells only. So if you want to go from your zone to a zone two away (a zone between yours and the one you are going to) it takes two moves or a dash.
Edit: sometimes it’s just one zone and the DM describes the area and it’s size. So if there are goblins around an alter they are sacrificing the villager on we would ask how far away they are DM says the distance and we know if they are in range of spells/weapons or how much movement we need to get into melee range
rules can easily be adapted to fit.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Since I largely play theater of the mind and use very simple maps for some spatial orientation, I'd be curious about zones since I sorta "zone" things in my head anyway rather than have a rigorous mental yardstick. That said, I'm curious what "zone play" would look like on a VTT or miniature battlemap. Does anyone have any good examples on YouTube or some such?
I mean really, if you look at a lot of spell workings and missile weapons, the game is pretty well lumped into zones already (5' 10' inside 30' 60' 120' 300'), zoning would just encourage players and DMs to "eyeball" ranges more often than not,. I suppose mobility builds and the speed and movement system would have to be rejiggered,
All this said, given the popularity of Zones, I imagine someone streaming out there has done something like a Zone system as a house rules set ... and that's really how it would fly into D&D, it becoming integrated into D&D anyway.
But some folks, including WotC may well thing grid based movement and range is "essential" to D&D like six stats, leveled progression, spell slots, etc. which were the baby to preserved in the bathwater or reintroduced in changing from 4e to 5e. A swtich to zones wouldn't turn me off nor would it get me overly excited either way.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I have a love-hate relationship with grid combat. Part of me enjoys the tactical side of figuring out the optimal place to put my character. Part of me finds the entire thing unnecessarily granular.
Making maps is the bane of my DMing existence, however, and I try to avoid it as much as possible. I know my players will ask me things like how high the ceiling is and how large the window is and how many feet exactly is it from the door to the hallway corner I mentioned in passing. Those questions matter for a player and their abilities/spells, but as a storyteller, I really don't care to get that detailed. Having a zoned system would be kinda nice so I can feel like I don't have to pause the story to break out my tape measure. I've played zoned RPGs before and really liked how flexible combat narration was.