Back to Crafty Games Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 21, 2013, 10:40:09 AM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Welcome to the Crafty Games Forums!

Note to New Members: To combat spam, we have instituted new rules: you must post 5 replies to existing threads before you can create new threads.

+  Crafty Games Forum
|-+  Products
| |-+  Fantasy Craft
| | |-+  Brand new to FC & SC--battlemap needed?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Brand new to FC & SC--battlemap needed?  (Read 369 times)
Charlie D
Guest
« on: October 07, 2011, 01:16:10 PM »

I like making home-brew worlds and I've struggled along with 4E or Pathfinder for a few years now. Both systems are great but the magic Christmas tree effect has sapped all my energy Grin and combat in both systems is involved. I am very happy to have finally bought Fantasy Craft!

From reviews I read, I got the impression that the game requires a battlemap but the rules state it isn't "required". I think the review on Gnome Stew (I do like that site a lot) said the mat was required.

All I see in the rules that really screams the need for a map might be flanking. I'm thinking about just arranging three cards with the three ranges on each and have the party and monsters placed there. Can flank if you outnumber the enemy or with an Acrobatics check. Does anyone play without a battlemap?

Also, I didn't realize FC got rid of iterative attacks and AoO or OA and the need for lots of magic items. I really feel like these two points should be trumpeted a lot more; many people are looking for non-battlemap, less complicated combat, and reduced need for magic item D20 fantasy. I had no idea FC had all these things in from the reviews I've read.

After I've played a game or two (in Nov) I'll do a review and be sure to mention these points. I might have bought FC months ago if I'd known!

Thanks, Crafty!
« Last Edit: October 07, 2011, 01:25:00 PM by Charlie D » Logged
Krensky
Control
******
Posts: 6416


WWTWD?


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2011, 01:45:18 PM »

I run FC in person without a map, just using fiat/handwaving to cover flanking, adjacency, and reach issues. Then again, I played 3.X like this. Typically flanking is handled by by the players asking if they can, and me deciding if they're close enough to do so in one or two moves. Adjacency is rarely an issue, except for the Fencing chain based tank in my one game using the Work the Line and Engarde! combo, but that pretty much resolves itself.

It can be helpful, and I use maps and grids in my PbP game, but it's not needed. How helpful is largely determined by how much the players want to make use of options that make use of adjacency, flanking, or reach.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2011, 01:53:07 PM by Krensky » Logged

We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. - Werner von Braun
Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.
There's no upside in screwing with things you can't explain. - Captain Roy Montgomery
Coyote0273
Operative
****
Posts: 421



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2011, 03:36:16 PM »

I usually use a battle map for my games, only because we have one available and its easy to draw out the maps so people can see where everyone is, what the terrain is like and such. It's really just easier to make sure everyone is on the same page about everything.

That being said, I've also run it without battle maps, and never had any real problem. Sometimes that's quicker and easier, and things move much faster and more fluidly.

Having a map helps, and the game is designed so that it is fully compatible with battle maps and tiles and such, but its nowhere near required. If your players prefer no map, by all means. Just means a little more math in your head.
Logged
Goodlun
Operative
****
Posts: 478


Yeah thats me with my Judo Gi and an AK-47


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2011, 04:34:56 PM »

I tend to use battle maps mostly for dramatic encounters or where the tactical feel of the encounter is a big part of it.
Typically for fighting mooks or standard charters it may not be the worth the effort to set it up.  Of course this all really depends on your group as well.  I tend to play with war gamers so they tend to like to have a map.
Logged
ludomastro
Control
******
Posts: 1068



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2011, 08:27:05 PM »

I've done both.  Definitely depends on the group.  The tactical thinkers "need" the map while those more focused on bid story just don't "seem" to care.
Logged

Charlie D
Guest
« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2011, 10:28:12 PM »

Thanks for all the responses. I'm tending toward using a battlemap for dramatic encounters mostly. I think a mix is good.

I also go wargame sometimes and just a HeroClix ruler and measure stuff. Without grids it actually seems less wargamey, I suppose because people aren't counting squares.

So I'll mix it up.

Really looking forward to my first game.
Logged
Sletchman
Control
******
Posts: 3962


Gentleman Scholar.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2011, 09:59:27 PM »

I think the reason that some reviews have mentioned needing a battlemap is because a bit of game is in squares.  The Range entry has "Reach 2", not "10ft Reach" - mechanically identical, but the first references squares and without a battlemap doesn't make a lot of sense at first pass.  There are plenty of other examples like that, where squares are referenced rather then distances, so the game can certainly seem like it needs a battlemap.

Personally, I don't use one forced to by one of my players complaining - and I certainly haven't had problems.
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!