Recent Posts
I prefer 1-2-1, simply because I prefer to have my wizards cast fireball.
If you've ever waited two minutes while the mage tried to figure out "center it on this intersection, or this intersection, or what if I tried to include this guy, or maybe this guy" you'll appreciate the measurement changes in 4e. It also eliminates the "I fireball 15' off the ground" tactic so you can tailor your radius, which I always thought was kind of cheap. That makes positioning more important, and 4e has lots of cool tricks for moving allies and enemies around, so there's some interesting synergy there.
Besides, it always kind of bugged me that a fireball should always explode in exactly the same way. With square areas of effect, I can kind of imagine fireballs are mostly spherical, but they're uneven and ovoid and lumpy and imprecise. Those rare occasions where there are people in opposite corners just happen to be the times the fireball's a little more powerful than usual.
It's pretty easy to visualize a spherical effect still hitting people in a square on the board - the folks in the corners are hit by just enough to matter, whereas the people on the edges aren't quite.
More importantly, my experience was that you stopped explicitly thinking 'Oh, this fireball is this clunky shape (ie, cause it's not a sphere, it's a series of squares lumped together) that we plunk down and... nudge one square to the left... okay, it hits *checks* X,Y,Z' and more 'I fireball over there and it hits X,Y,Z' without making everyone else at the table break from their immersion/action. Or wait.
I don't have a problem with the Aoe changes though.
That's intuitively an easy switch. But I CANNOT wrap my head around the idea that I can move 1.5 times as far if I move diagonally as if I move straight ahead.
THey're making the game more storytelling oriented, but...WHAT IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT STYLE OF PLAY?
I LIKE it when the players derail my plot, unless they do it through their own clash of egoes and make each other feel uncomfortable.
I LIKE it when every so often, the unexpected happens. Not because someone spent an action point.
Yes, returning to life is a dime a dozen, but that's the game. That's the way it's played. This feels like you can't get killed. At all.
This feels like you can't get killed. At all.
*blink* Have you actually played it? It's pretty easy to kill people... heck, I made a 4E monster for someone at 2pm yesterday and by 5pm it had killed someone... in someone else's game ;)
The danger level is just a lot more customizable, and it's much easier to avoid death by playing well.
Damn hard to avoid being bloodied or knocked unconscious, however.
This feels like you can't get killed. At all.*blink* Have you actually played it? It's pretty easy to kill people... heck, I made a 4E monster for someone at 2pm yesterday and by 5pm it had killed someone... in someone else's game ;)
The danger level is just a lot more customizable, and it's much easier to avoid death by playing well.
Damn hard to avoid being bloodied or knocked unconscious, however.
Yes I have. The only reason that we didn't kill the dragon in the playtest was bad die rolls. Everything else went our way. One or two people in an encounter like that is acceptable losses. We didn't finish the encounter, but if the law of averages factored out, we would have killed it in two more rounds. One to two people would be dead, but it's a playtest. And that encounter was wired to favor the dragon.
I don't like games that feel like a video game, and that's what this felt like. It felt like I was pressing a button and the character was repeating her little "Tide of Iron, Tide of Iron, Tide of Iron" mantra over and over again.
The lack of character generation options and point buy as standard would make sense, but I play a game like this already, it's called Hero System, and they have 99 percent backwards/forwards compatibility.
I have a 20 year game. We upgraded from 2 to 3. But there's no compatibility going forward, so there's going to be a big fight in my group.
And let me tell you, the opinions are just as savage there as they are here.
You can convert from 3rd to 4th as well as converting from 2nd to 3rd, as far as I can tell... which is to say, great for some characters, total ass for others.
Best route is still pretty much to figure out what the character was about and go for that, rather than a point to point conversion.
I've already pretty much converted one of my 3.x games conceptually... the characters map out easily and end up looking a lot better. I just kinda need a PHB or a lot more work to get any further. Ah well.
Played Champions/Hero for a couple years. Now there's a wargame/video game ;) It is amusing that the single most common insult levelled at any RPG, including D&D, is that it's not an RPG.
We played 1-1-1-1 for a while when 3.0 came out and then houseruled to 1-2-1-2, which we've kept. It's a pain. It's more than a pain if three dimensions are involved.
But with 1-1-1-1 we were really bothered by the fact that, if the grid happens to fall that way, you can run around an enemy without losing any movement at all. An enemy diagonal of you blocks you; you'll have to slow down to get round him. An enemy orthagonal of you does not block you at all; you can run right around him, and if the distance involved is large, out of his threat range, without slowing down.
This means that if you are defending something or someone, you want to arrange to be diagonal of your foes; and if you are attacking and going for the soft target in back, you want to arrange to be orthagonal of them.
The specter of players trying to manipulate the grain of the battlemat bothered us enough to houserule it.
I wish hexes helped, but (a) they make buildings really awkward, and (b) I can't think in three-dimensional hexes.
Mary
But with 1-1-1-1 we were really bothered by the fact that, if the grid happens to fall that way, you can run around an enemy without losing any movement at all. An enemy diagonal of you blocks you; you'll have to slow down to get round him. An enemy orthagonal of you does not block you at all; you can run right around him, and if the distance involved is large, out of his threat range, without slowing down.
Yeah, that's the absolutely top reason not to use 1-1-1-1. I'm hoping (and the fighter and paladin provide the reason for that hope, so far) that 4E has ways for people to defend other than purely 'stand between A and B such that A has to waste 2 extra move to get to B'
Pure curiosity: Did you do 1-1-1-1 with square area effects and reaches or did you use the 3.0 shapes from the DMG?
I play DDM quite a bit so the 1.5-1 change seems like a bigger deal there, especially if you are trying to squeeze every last bit of movement out of your 1 half dead archer.
What I wonder about though, in a world where diagonals count as 1 wouldn't a spherical fireball explosion become a cube? Now that is wierd, even for a game with magical elfs and floating flame eyeballs.
What I wonder about though, in a world where diagonals count as 1 wouldn't a spherical fireball explosion become a cube? Now that is wierd, even for a game with magical elfs and floating flame eyeballs.
Uh, yeah. That's been mentioned before on this thread:
I prefer 1-2-1, simply because I prefer to have my wizards cast fireball. No firecube for me. It's D&D and not, Star Trek: The Borg. I will not be assimilated.
If you've ever waited two minutes while the mage tried to figure out "center it on this intersection, or this intersection, or what if I tried to include this guy, or maybe this guy" you'll appreciate the measurement changes in 4e. It also eliminates the "I fireball 15' off the ground" tactic so you can tailor your radius, which I always thought was kind of cheap. That makes positioning more important, and 4e has lots of cool tricks for moving allies and enemies around, so there's some interesting synergy there.
Besides, it always kind of bugged me that a fireball should always explode in exactly the same way. With square areas of effect, I can kind of imagine fireballs are mostly spherical, but they're uneven and ovoid and lumpy and imprecise. Those rare occasions where there are people in opposite corners just happen to be the times the fireball's a little more powerful than usual.
It's pretty easy to visualize a spherical effect still hitting people in a square on the board - the folks in the corners are hit by just enough to matter, whereas the people on the edges aren't quite.
More importantly, my experience was that you stopped explicitly thinking 'Oh, this fireball is this clunky shape (ie, cause it's not a sphere, it's a series of squares lumped together) that we plunk down and... nudge one square to the left... okay, it hits *checks* X,Y,Z' and more 'I fireball over there and it hits X,Y,Z' without making everyone else at the table break from their immersion/action. Or wait.
What I wonder about though, in a world where diagonals count as 1 wouldn't a spherical fireball explosion become a cube? Now that is wierd, even for a game with magical elfs and floating flame eyeballs.
That's my number! :P
You're right. 4e has firecubes.
And no one can sell me the "with the cube, it's easier to determine who is in the radius and who is out", since it's the easiest thing to have templates for that - especially in a game that focuses even more than the previous edition on miniatures.
As for "with the sphere, you can try to place it so your enemies are in but your friends are out": That's right, you can. I call it tactics. Those wizards are supposed to be geniuses.
I'm pretty torn on the diagonal issue. I suspect it will be easier in some specific cases, and I have a few players who constantly gripe about having to count the diagonals (especially in difficult terrain, where they suddenly want to count 2,4,2,4 instead of 3,3,3,3). On the other hand I personally think in most cases there is a better solution. Mine (which I've mentioned a few times on these boards) is to give double the number of move points (6 squares becomes 12), and charge 2 for a straight move and 3 for a diagonal.
Where it becomes tricky is elevation. Moving up or down diagonally should have an additional cost, and what if you are moving diagonally up and diagonally on the grid? And there's the issue of is it harder to move upslope than downslope? How does that translate into flight, especially with maneuverability?
And then the fireball. Yes you can have a template, but to have a true sphere, the guy flying ten feet up should be further from the center than the guy in the ground. And then suddenly wizards will start targeting their fireballs on the ceiling to create a smaller radius on the floor. It does get complicated.
You could create a list of all possible variations of diagonal movement, and most instances are not too complex. But some of them are, and could be tremendously game-slowing. Just living with firecube is easier. I just need to suspend my disbelief by saying "the grid is representative, not exact." I'm just not sure yet how well I can convince myself.
And no one can sell me the "with the cube, it's easier to determine who is in the radius and who is out", since it's the easiest thing to have templates for that - especially in a game that focuses even more than the previous edition on miniatures.
Templates help, but as I watched the party's wizard attempt to align the fireball template over the board for a good minute and a half (knowing about where he wanted to place it), rotating the template at one point 45 degrees to see how that would work before the DM said "No", I think I rather not have to deal with that if possible.
If the speed gained from cubes outweighs their odd shape I will gladly use them.
Templates help, but as I watched the party's wizard attempt to align the fireball template over the board for a good minute and a half (knowing about where he wanted to place it), rotating the template at one point 45 degrees to see how that would work before the DM said "No", I think I rather not have to deal with that if possible.
If the speed gained from cubes outweighs their odd shape I will gladly use them.
The thing is, people can do that with a firecube as well. The wizard could just as easily spend a large amount of time trying to decide exactly where to place it. If you want to stop this, either simply give them a time limit (no matter how brilliant they are, in the heat of battle, there's not much time and it's hard to see perfectly accurately), or try something like this: have the player choose the centre square and then roll a d4 to determine which corner. That gets rid of the wizard trying to lay it out perfectly so that it gets the enemies but not the allies standing right beside the enemies. The downside there is it is an extra die roll, but overall it's time saved. I just find it difficult to believe that a square explosion will speed things up at all. It might if everyone stands in a straight line, but otherwise...
Anyway, I'm in the camp that prefers 1-2-1-2.
The thing is, people can do that with a firecube as well. The wizard could just as easily spend a large amount of time trying to decide exactly where to place it.
You might think that. But frequently at tables I'm at we have to wait for someone to pull out the Steel Squire template from their bag, and then the mage carefully tries to set it so they can include most of the enemies and exclude most of their allies along one of the offset edges of the template.
With a square, you can tell at a glance "I'm going to be able to get three enemies, or five and an ally". May not make the decision easier, but it at least lets the mage start thinking about the tradeoff before their turn in the initiative order. Right now, most don't bother without the template.
Anyway, I'm in the camp that prefers 1-2-1-2.
Have you tried 1-1-1-1? There's a not-insignificant portion of people who decided they prefer 1-1-1-1 to 1-2-1-2 after trying it a couple times.
Anyway, I'm in the camp that prefers 1-2-1-2.Have you tried 1-1-1-1? There's a not-insignificant portion of people who decided they prefer 1-1-1-1 to 1-2-1-2 after trying it a couple times.
I have tried 1-1-1-1 and quickly found problems like the one mentioned earlier in the thread with an opponent diagonal from you taking longer to run around than someone straight ahead, or what to do when you have an actual circular space inside a square room. I also have a very mathematical mind so it just feels wrong for me and I can't shrug off that feeling. 1-2-1-2 at least comes somewhat close.
Nothing important to add with that. Just happy that I found this article for some reason.
Like 1-2-1-2 for accuracy and 1-1-1 for simplicity. I think how comfortable I would be with either would depend on the group I was in at the time. In open areas I think I would like the accuracy since that doesn't forced many switches and in cramped areas (like dungeons) that cause players to change directions several times I think I would go with the simple method to speed things up (and I think the problems would be less likely to naturally reveal themselves in that environment).
I think the best solution is to switch to a hex-based battle mat, then a character with a movement of 6 "squares" gets to move 6 hexes (anyone play Heroscape? That's how movement works in that game, and it's simple and easy).
Hexs are nearly as bad. I know from wargaming that you want your panzers to move along the grain of the grid becuase if they turn against the grain the panzers slow down.
For anyone objecting to 1-1-1-1... have you actually played with it for a long period of time? Having played with both 1-1-1-1 and 1-2-1-2 for months (or years), I feel pretty confident in discussing the strengths and weaknesses of both. Most people who object most violently to 1-1-1-1 appear to be doing so from a standpoint of mathematical purity (having never played with it _at all_)... which is not exactly in the best interest of either gameplay or roleplaying.
We have played with both (along with 2-1-2-1) for a bit of time. My players simply couldn't accept 1-1-1-1, and we were fine with the other two.
We ended up using 2-1-2-1 to keep the (overly powerful) 5 ft step in check.
Works for us.
For anyone objecting to 1-1-1-1... have you actually played with it for a long period of time? Having played with both 1-1-1-1 and 1-2-1-2 for months (or years), I feel pretty confident in discussing the strengths and weaknesses of both. Most people who object most violently to 1-1-1-1 appear to be doing so from a standpoint of mathematical purity (having never played with it _at all_)... which is not exactly in the best interest of either gameplay or roleplaying.We have played with both (along with 2-1-2-1) for a bit of time. My players simply couldn't accept 1-1-1-1, and we were fine with the other two.
We ended up using 2-1-2-1 to keep the (overly powerful) 5 ft step in check.
Works for us.
Just to verify, since one of the biggest gains is in AoE... did you alter AoE and reach accordingly, or just movement?
Actually, I'd be especially interested if you altered AoE and reach for 2-1, since then you can't attack diagonally at all with normal weapons... and... that's something.
Just to verify, since one of the biggest gains is in AoE... did you alter AoE and reach accordingly, or just movement?
Actually, I'd be especially interested if you altered AoE and reach for 2-1, since then you can't attack diagonally at all with normal weapons... and... that's something.
Reach is an exception to any movement scheme. A creature with a reach of 15 ft. can attack something 3 squares away in any direction, no matter how you move or do AOEs. (PHB 149)
Then again, if you apply this to the current discussion. Arms that reach 3 square diagonally, now actually reach ~21.2ft.
In my group, we've been using 1-1 for a while now and love it compared to 1-2. It just... works for us. And we're all engineering students as well.
I've never seen a city, town, or area use a grid. It is always, "How many miles is it this way or another way?"
Really?... So you never heard of the Term Blocks?... Like... Go 2 blocks then turn right.. then 3 more blocks.. Etc...
Manhatten is a Huge Grid..
That said... hard to go Diagonel in Manhatten ;-)
One of the fundamental rules of writing popular games seems to be "abtract the things that don't matter, specify the things that do."
The abstraction of diagonal movement is a perfect example of this- yes, we know diagonals should cost more, but the error introduced into the system is acceptable compared to the annoyance you're eliminating. Clearly the designers are trying to move away from a Third Reich-style war game. In other words, they're trying to make it LESS like a boardgame, not more.
I think 1 square constant cost diagonal movement is a bad idea for two reasons:
1)Now, if you run away, ALWAYS run away at a 45 degree angle. It's faster....somehow...
2)It's just bad to teach kids wrong geometry. I know the old way is a guestimation, but you're going to get kids confused on the whole length of a hypotenuse thing.
3)Weird geometry should be saved for special moments, like when R'lyeh rises or something.
Uhhh...I think you need to stick with simple math, Heathy. That's three reasons, not two.
;-)
Just to verify, since one of the biggest gains is in AoE... did you alter AoE and reach accordingly, or just movement?
Actually, I'd be especially interested if you altered AoE and reach for 2-1, since then you can't attack diagonally at all with normal weapons... and... that's something.
We did not alter AoE nor reach.
Without a doubt the whole dynamic of the game is changed when you allow diagonal movement to equal the same distance as vertical/ horizontal movement. When the DM draws up a room and places the creatures in their various positions there is in most cases reasons for where these creatures were placed. Now by allowing the PC's the ability to get to that creature in less time then in previous additions it without a doubt changes the whole ability of the creatures to react as they would of in the past for they have less time to do so. Now the only way that the creature in question can avoid this dilemma is by having the DM change the size of the room which then again goes back to my original point in which the whole dynamic of the game(size of the room)is changed. So therefore in short I am saying the math is very important for sure but so is the dynamic or feel of the game.
Without a doubt some will say that changing the room size is no big deal and just do it. Though in some cases(existing dungeons, lack of space etc.) this is not a viable solution and therefore you have to re-work the dungeon.
Anything can be done but this is one of my arguments for the status quo.
Now the only way that the creature in question can avoid this dilemma is by having the DM change the size of the room which then again goes back to my original point in which the whole dynamic of the game(size of the room)is changed. So therefore in short I am saying the math is very important for sure but so is the dynamic or feel of the game.
Without a doubt some will say that changing the room size is no big deal and just do it. Though in some cases(existing dungeons, lack of space etc.) this is not a viable solution and therefore you have to re-work the dungeon.
Interesting that you mention room size. One of the design notes books actually flat out says (if I am remembering correctly, always a dicey proposition) to try to stage encounters in big rooms, because the new mechanics work better there than in a more constricted space like a corridor. Not sure if this has a direct connection with 1-1-1, but the overall vibe they gave was "fight in big rooms, it works better/is more fun/etc." The fact that what you mention is also less of an issue in a big room seems like it might be one of the factors adding to that belief.
This feels like you can't get killed. At all.
I've pulled off 5 TPKs in 4E. I've NEVER TPKed in any edition in the previous 3 decades. I'd imagine my corpse count would be even higher if I was playing more frequently (about every other week since release). It's gotten so scary lately (last game I felt like I was playing whack-a-mole with the players) that almost everyone is eyeballing a cross-class into a healer, just because ...
That being said, the above proves nothing but that my experiences haven't been the same as yours.
I 100% of the time would rather have a party come inches away from dying then to actually die. As a DM you don't want to try to kill the party...just almost.
Also I've never once seen 1-1-1 come up as a problem ever. My question is: why the hell are you trying to examine physics and relativity in Dungeons and Dragons, and why is this such a problem when things like the 5-foot-step or the peasant railgun or the infinite horse movement are not?
Ok, 4e has some physics weirdness, but what edition doesn't? It feels like nitpicking.
This feels like you can't get killed. At all.I've pulled off 5 TPKs in 4E. I've NEVER TPKed in any edition in the previous 3 decades. I'd imagine my corpse count would be even higher if I was playing more frequently (about every other week since release). It's gotten so scary lately (last game I felt like I was playing whack-a-mole with the players) that almost everyone is eyeballing a cross-class into a healer, just because ...
Maybe you want to tone back on the power of the monsters you are using.
I prefer 1-2-1, simply because I prefer to have my wizards cast fireball. No firecube for me. It's D&D and not, Star Trek: The Borg. I will not be assimilated.So you don't play 3.5e or PF then? 3.0e still had circular fireballs, barely...
Pathfinder has circular fireballs. I'm pretty sure 3.5 did as well. Unless you mean that the circular shapes still adhere to a grid of squares, but that seems like kind of a nitpick...
Pathfinder has circular fireballs. I'm pretty sure 3.5 did as well. Unless you mean that the circular shapes still adhere to a grid of squares, but that seems like kind of a nitpick...I prefer 1-2-1, simply because I prefer to have my wizards cast fireball. No firecube for me. It's D&D and not, Star Trek: The Borg. I will not be assimilated.So you don't play 3.5e or PF then? 3.0e still had circular fireballs, barely...
Show the "grided" circle to a mathematician and then tell me I'm nit picking. :)
In fact the 5' radius circle looks rather like a square...
In my experience the PCs have to work a little harder to get at the baddies in 4E because they don't have easy access to game breaking magic like teleportation and flight. Sure you can teleport and fly in 4E, but the distances are fairly short, and you usually can't move the entire party along with you until really high levels. In previous editions, you had access to spells like fly and dimension door at relatively low levels, which made it easy to bypass many encounters and challenges or get past the riff raff and go straight for the boss baddie. When the going got tough you could often teleport back to your home base, rest up, buff up and then teleport right back to the middle of the dungeon to trounce your enemies. Certainly, there are ways for a dm to work around these problems, but I find that those sorts of issues have a much bigger impact on the game and how dms are required to design adventures and build encounters than diagonal movement does.
Without a doubt the whole dynamic of the game is changed when you allow diagonal movement to equal the same distance as vertical/ horizontal movement. When the DM draws up a room and places the creatures in their various positions there is in most cases reasons for where these creatures were placed. Now by allowing the PC's the ability to get to that creature in less time then in previous additions it without a doubt changes the whole ability of the creatures to react as they would of in the past for they have less time to do so. Now the only way that the creature in question can avoid this dilemma is by having the DM change the size of the room which then again goes back to my original point in which the whole dynamic of the game(size of the room)is changed. So therefore in short I am saying the math is very important for sure but so is the dynamic or feel of the game.
Without a doubt some will say that changing the room size is no big deal and just do it. Though in some cases(existing dungeons, lack of space etc.) this is not a viable solution and therefore you have to re-work the dungeon.
Anything can be done but this is one of my arguments for the status quo.