|
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.
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...
Except, it isn't since everyone follows the rule.
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.
It's the same rule used by most games (chess, monopoly, descent, etc) - the alternating 1-2 might confuse kids, but 1-1 won't. It's just a normal game behavior.
Now, it might confuse _adults_, I'll grant you. I'm willing to accept confusing a few adults once or twice in exchange for faster gameplay and making the game easier for new players.
Me, I figure the Far Realms is when you get to switch to playing on bubble wrap instead of squares...
On the first point I disagree. If someone runs 20 squares up then they the person behind them will need to run 20 squares to catch up. If they ran diagonally 20 squares the person behind them would still need to run 20 squares to catch up. There are problems with the differences in zig-zagging in those cases, but moving diagonally shouldn't make you faster running over long distances. No matter which way you run however you will be the same distance away (in squares).
Taken literally though, yes, the 1 square diagonal movement effectively distorts the battle map geometry more that the previous rule. However, I feel that in the small situations that the battlemap deals with that this will just end up adding very little movement during battles.
I would like kids to be able to learn math too, but that hasn't worked with distances for a while as, in 3rd edition, the hypotenuse was
h = 1.5*(x + y - a) + a rounded down ( unless I made a mistake here )
h is the hypotenuse, x is the distance along the x-axis, y is the distance along the y-axis, and where a was the absolute value of x - y.
which still is quite away from being
h*h = x*x + y*y. ( again, unless I missed something earlier )
And if counting "1-2-1-2" is hard for kids, then they need to do it. They gotta learn to think abstractly somehow.
I don't think the 1-3-4-6 is the problem here, rather it is the times when you move diagonally then move straight then diagonally again causing you to sometimes forget if you were on 1 or 2 when you start diagonally again. Then you start double checking your distances which eats up a significant amount of time (not much, but enough for me to notice).
|
|
I meant right triangle, and I said before that the original 3.0e was an estimation of the distance, which is closer than saying
"a-squared plus b-squared equals hypotenuse c-squared, where c equals a, and c=b."
So now the hypotenuse of an isosceles right triangle is equal to the lengths of either of the legs. Seems kinda misleading.
I understand what you're saying with chess, but it's not the same. Chess doesn't pretend to directly mimic a battlefield.
(not much, but enough for me to notice).
Oh, I'm sure everyone notices when you forget whether you're on 1 or 2.
|
|
I'll tell you what: if there's another edition, I'm predicting that there will be a lot of grumbling about what a hassle this issue is. If I was an argumentative player, every time I thought I could prove that this unreal geometry hampered me I'd make a big stink about it.
THEN, in the NEXT EDITION, they'll go back to the "1-2-1-2" schema, or do something revolutionary like use hexagons.
(not much, but enough for me to notice).Oh, I'm sure everyone notices when you forget whether you're on 1 or 2.
Actually when I ask the people around me they shrug their shoulders and say, "I wasn't really paying attention." Often just to speed the game up I count it as a two to make sure I'm not moving too much and so that I don't start from the beginning.
I'll tell you what: if there's another edition, I'm predicting that there will be a lot of grumbling about what a hassle this issue is. If I was an argumentative player, every time I thought I could prove that this unreal geometry hampered me I'd make a big stink about it.
THEN, in the NEXT EDITION, they'll go back to the "1-2-1-2" schema, or do something revolutionary like use hexagons.
Or they might get rid of the grid battlemap because it was so inaccurate and have everyone's movement and ranges be in inches on the table instead. :)
Actually when I ask the people around me they shrug their shoulders and say, "I wasn't really paying attention." Often just to speed the game up I count it as a two to make sure I'm not moving too much and so that I don't start from the beginning.(not much, but enough for me to notice).Oh, I'm sure everyone notices when you forget whether you're on 1 or 2.
Proof that irony just does not work online....
Proof that irony just does not work online....Actually when I ask the people around me they shrug their shoulders and say, "I wasn't really paying attention." Often just to speed the game up I count it as a two to make sure I'm not moving too much and so that I don't start from the beginning.(not much, but enough for me to notice).Oh, I'm sure everyone notices when you forget whether you're on 1 or 2.
In a recent game where I was having to do full hasted double moves, in patches of darkness (half speed), through caverns with spots of hindered terrain... with lots of staggered diagonals to avoid things and water...I stopped even really counting squares.
Eyeball. Plunk. Meh, close enough.
Proof that irony just does not work online....Actually when I ask the people around me they shrug their shoulders and say, "I wasn't really paying attention." Often just to speed the game up I count it as a two to make sure I'm not moving too much and so that I don't start from the beginning.(not much, but enough for me to notice).Oh, I'm sure everyone notices when you forget whether you're on 1 or 2.
... Or that that I'm just dense. I miss things like that a lot sadly.
My mind has has hardness 8 and 15 hit points per inch of thickness!
|
|
Chess doesn't pretend to directly mimic a battlefield.And as we all know, batlefields are made up of squares. ;P
1-1-1 is just easier, like not using facing or giving weapons bonusses against certain types of armor. I've been using it as a house rule for years and it never felt unrealistic.
I don't get the kids argument. If that bothers you, just about everything should. I mean, how are they supposed to grasp the concept of gravity if D&D lets you fall from a 100 feet high cliff in full plate armor, then stand up and walk away. :)
Anyways, you can always house rule it back.
It just does, okay? The falling guy gets really hurt. I get that.
It's not gonna confuse a kid trying to learn geometry in school.
Chess doesn't pretend to directly mimic a battlefield.
This is an intriguing point, because many commanders try to mimic chess ON the battlefield -- old school, that is.
** Please note: my above comment is not meant to offend anybody.
** I regret if you disagree with my viewpoint, but whole heartedly
** accept that is it your right to do so.
**
** The above comments are my own and in no way should reflect upon
** the beliefs or attitudes of Paizo.com or my fellow paizonians.
**
** Peace out! :-)
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.
Won't somebody please think of the children!
|
|
My point is that D&D emphasizes playability over realism. I don't see how the educational value of any of its rules matters.
But hey, it's your game, so if you want 1-2-1, go for it!
If the educational value of the rules don't matter, I just don't know what to say. I think I'll stick with 3.5, and 1-2-1.
If the educational value of the rules don't matter, I just don't know what to say. I think I'll stick with 3.5, and 1-2-1.My point is that D&D emphasizes playability over realism. I don't see how the educational value of any of its rules matters.
But hey, it's your game, so if you want 1-2-1, go for it!
Dungeon and Dragons should be designed to build problem solving skills (which may or may not be realism.) Imagine, if when you started a new job and had to go to training first, they had you *role play* your job first -- with minis, using DnD rules. Work would be so much funner!
Say you try to Fireball your boss, and when his anti-magic shield stopped the attack, you would then know to never try that in real life. It is so obvious.
** Please note: my above comment is not meant to offend anybody.
** I regret if you disagree with my viewpoint, but whole heartedly
** accept that is it your right to do so.
**
** The above comments are my own and in no way reflect upon
** the beliefs or attitudes of Paizo.com, or my fellow paizonians.
**
** Peace out! :-)
I thought we were supposed to play nice.
I didn't get the memo. If we were, I'd likely have gotten bounced from the forum a week ago. Since I generally reserve my opprobrium to the arguments people make, I guess I've been safe so far.
As to your point, I was downright flabbergasted that someone actually made a "for the children" argument against 4e. If your logical fallacy earns its own Wikipedia page, it's probably time to find a different tack.
As far as I can tell, appealing to the children as a reason not to play 4e is hyperbole, even if you don't realize it when you say it. Calling it out as such may not be nice, but nor is it a personal attack.
I wouldn't say that either the argument or rebuttal have anything to do with actually playing the game.
Edit: My bad, apparently hyperbole is the wrong term, and logical fallacy is the right one. And it has its own wiki.
|
|
I thought we were supposed to play nice.I didn't get the memo. If we were, I'd likely have gotten bounced from the forum a week ago. Since I generally reserve my opprobrium to the arguments people make, I guess I've been safe so far.
As to your point, I was downright flabbergasted that someone actually made a "for the children" argument against 4e. If your logical fallacy earns its own Wikipedia page, it's probably time to find a different tack.
I see your point, and I'm looking at the wiki thread. I rescind the "play nice" quip.
Historically, I've seen numerous editorials and threadposts about "how D&D is good for kids." How it teaches problem-solving abilities, among other things. I'm sorry, but I don't believe in this instance that, having been lauded as such a positive activity for kids, it can suddenly be that teaching children bad geometry is a bad thing to be avoided is a "logic fallacy." The previously lauded positive effects are being eroded. That is a bad thing.
It's been lauded by people for teaching children words like "initiative" and "redoubt." Now it teaches bad geometry.
I think the logic fallacy counterargument doesn't apply due to that precedent.
I also don't like it. It's a good approximation that works if you use a battlemat.
I think the game should not assume that the world is built on a square grid. If you don't want to use a grid, you wouldn't have it at all. Either you don't use miniatures at all (and 30 feet will be 30 feet) or you use a tape measure (or a grid you can rotate), and 6 inches will be 6 inches (or 6 squares will be 6 squares).
And then there's hexes...
But why should you be faster if you go in one direction than in another?
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...
"We have to get to Sandpoint as fast as we can! How long will it take?"
"Are we due north of it or northeast?""Why"
"If we're northeast, we're running diagonally, and thus be faster"
"What?"
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.
It's not that far off, anyway. It's sqrt(1^2+1^2), or sqrt(2), which is 1.4141something. 1.5 is pretty good.
To illustrate how fast things get wrong: A character with a speetd of 30 feet - sorry, sorry, 6 squares, of course (I want to repeat that 4e isn't any more battlemat centered than 3e was). If you get to move your 30 feet straight, you get to move 30 feet (6 squares).
Now, if you move them diagonally, there's two options
If you use the 1.5 rule, you get to move 4 squares diagonally (1,3,4,6), that's 20 up and 20 to the side, which translates into 28,28 feet. A bit less, but still pretty close.
If you let them move 6 squares diagonally, they go 30 up and 30 to the side, which translates into 42,43 feet. You get an extra 12 feet - The 41.41% extra.
For a game that is not supposed to be a boardgame for small children, I think that's a lot.
It's the same rule used by most games (chess, monopoly, descent, etc) - the alternating 1-2 might confuse kids, but 1-1 won't. It's just a normal game behavior.
That's really not a great list of examples:
Chess: Distance doesn't matter at all there. You could even argue that chess does in fact use the 1-2-1 rule: Striking pawns and kings can go one square diagonally, which, by the 1-2-1 rule is to be counted as 1 square. Bishops and Queens can go as far as they like, so they get there with 1-2-1.Monopoly: There's diagonals there? I have two sets of monopoly, and neither has them. I think even the more exotic versions like Star Wars have the same board layout.
Descent: It probably uses the one-for-one rule, but the important thing is that it's a board game.
D&D is not a board game. It's a roleplaying game with an optional battlemat component, where you use a square (or even hex) grid to illustrate things if you want. You could even do away with the mat altogether and and use a tape measure. Or nothing at all and let it run in your head.
I think the rules should be consistent with all those options to illustrate things, because, they're not the game. They're a help for the game.
I think that the little helpers should influence the game, especially not if they're official. They want to introduce it to their Skirmish game? Fine.
And from my - what is it now, 7 years? something like that - 3e experience, I must say that I never saw the 1-2-1 rule as a big hindrance. Maybe in the first 15 minutes of the first session, but it's nothing near a game stopper.
And before you say so, we have one guy that's not quite... up on speed on the rules, and absent-minded a lot of the time. And he seems to have some problems with the numbers some time.
The 1-2-1 counting game is no problem for him.
"We have to get to Sandpoint as fast as we can! How long will it take?"
"Are we due north of it or northeast?"
"Why"
"If we're northeast, we're running diagonally, and thus be faster"
"What?"
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?"
---
Why isn't this a problem with 3.5 then? I can take one 5-foot step per round. If I went diagonally then I was going faster than if I when vertically or horizontally.
I'm pretty sure I'd hate playing D&D with a tape measure - that makes it way too much like a wargame.
I'm most in favor of two solutions:
1) Describe things narratively with no map at all
2) Use 1-1-1-1 so that the math and game don't break the immersion of play and the story as often.
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 to get to Sandpoint as fast as we can! How long will it take?"
"Are we due north of it or northeast?"
"Why"
"If we're northeast, we're running diagonally, and thus be faster"
"What?"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?"
---
Why isn't this a problem with 3.5 then? I can take one 5-foot step per round. If I went diagonally then I was going faster than if I when vertically or horizontally.
Yeah, but that's not a combat map.
|
|
I'm pretty sure I'd hate playing D&D with a tape measure - that makes it way too much like a wargame.
I'm most in favor of two solutions:
1) Describe things narratively with no map at all
2) Use 1-1-1-1 so that the math and game don't break the immersion of play and the story as often.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.
I don't know if it's a logic fallacy or not. I just wish the rulebook had a disclaimer or something that the geometry is jacked up wrongwise.
I think "rulebook" carries this mystique of authority and authenticity that frankly shouldn't be based on incorrect geometry.Maybe it's just me, but this really bugs me.
I'm leery of 1-1-1-1 because I've been playing an online pbp, and the guy Aubrey dungeonmastering sets up these beautiful tactical fights. It's like a damn chess game. I'm scared something beautiful might die.
I'm pretty sure I'd hate playing D&D with a tape measure - that makes it way too much like a wargame.
I'm most in favor of two solutions:
1) Describe things narratively with no map at all
2) Use 1-1-1-1 so that the math and game don't break the immersion of play and the story as often.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.
I prefer a little rigor in the quality and representation of abstract "worlds" in my gaming. Especially for very mathematical concepts, like movement through space and time. Our western culture has a 2,000 year history in the development of geometry. And, I like to have a dash of this theory in my game play.
I like this rigor for several reasons, but mostly because it allows me to roleplay better, because then the game world I inhabit more accurately mimics the world in which I am accustomed to living and walking around in. This makes it easier for me to visualize my tactics when I am attacking the BBEG, and doesn't confuse me when a rope ladder 4 squares long, won't reach 4 squares along the diagonal.
Now, I don't want to go overboard with this dash-of-rigor, because math is hard and makes my brain hurt. Only dorks are good at math, and I don't want to sit around the gaming table with a bunch of dorks.
But, in conclusion, for me 1-1-1-1 just won't scale. I will have to pull out my hex map, and/or not use this system for my game play.
The ladder thing is beautiful! I knew there had to be a munchkin loophole in there somewhere. ;)
I don't know Heath, most ladders go up and down not diagnol, so I don't think the ladder holds any real purpose to the issue at hand. Being that they go up and down it is easy to measure distance, it would be exactly the same as if the character was moving straight forward or backward. So don't let the ladder thing stop you now. Besides ladders have rungs which really aren't anything but big holes when you think about it, so therefore the ladder theory is nothing but full of holes.
The ladder thing is beautiful! I knew there had to be a munchkin loophole in there somewhere. ;)I don't know Heath, most ladders go up and down not diagnol, so I don't think the ladder holds any real purpose to the issue at hand. Being that they go up and down it is easy to measure distance, it would be exactly the same as if the character was moving straight forward or backward. So don't let the ladder thing stop you now. Besides ladders have rungs which really aren't anything but big holes when you think about it, so therefore the ladder theory is nothing but full of holes.
You are wise (or a wiseguy), but imagine you have a wooden ladder, and you are going to use it to bridge a chasm. That is, you want to lay it flat and walk across it.
If both sides of the chasm are the same height, and the width is 3 squares (I just made that distance up for this example), and your ladder is 4 squares. Well then it seems like you have a very good plan, with a good chance of success.
But, what if the heights of each side of the chasm differ. Lets say the far side is 3 squares higher than the side you now stand on. Will your ladder 4 squares in length still work?
This does not kill the game immersion, it amplifies it. My opinion is, for the better.
Senior Software Developer
|
** Please note: my above comment is not meant to offend anybody.
** I regret if you disagree with my viewpoint, but whole heartedly
** accept that is it your right to do so.
**
** The above comments are my own and in no way reflect upon
** the beliefs or attitudes of Paizo.com, or my fellow paizonians.
**
** Peace out! :-)
Tensor, I love ya, but please don't do this on every single post. I think we got the joke the first time. :-)
I prefer a little rigor in the quality and representation of abstract "worlds" in my gaming. Especially for very mathematical concepts, like movement through space and time. Our western culture has a 2,000 year history in the development of geometry. And, I like to have a dash of this theory in my game play.
I'm a very mathematical person. In fact, if you'd asked certain people it was one of my most defining features - I'm the guy in the group who can't help but figure out probabilities, responds to silly math questions without thinking, Physics was one of my favorite courses, I couldn't play Craps until I'd stared at the table and figured out the exact chance of winning for every position, etc...
I've found it a big improvement. I didn't expect it to - it doesn't seem logical at all. It _really_ made a big difference over time. The added disturbance of looking at something early on and going 'Huh, that diagonal person is closer, that's odd' or 'Hey, is that square tower round or square?' were quickly forgotten and rapidly replaced with 'Wow, the mage does his fireballs so much faster than before, with no template, and no one argues about what might be hit' and 'Hey, the hasted barbarian moved over half the map without having to slow things down counting, cool!'
That's actually the biggest reason I just want people to try it. If you try it for at least two day's worth of gaming, and you aren't specifically trying to sabotage the experience... hey, that sucks, it doesn't work for you, at least you're making an educated decision on the matter.
I know one person who switched recently and does prefer 1-2-1-2 himself... but it made the rest of his gaming group so much happier, and he found that it bothered him _less_ to use 1-1-1-1 than it did when the other people used to miscount and slow the game down with area effects and such.
I think we got the joke the first time. :-)
10 - 4
|
|
I prefer a little rigor in the quality and representation of abstract "worlds" in my gaming. Especially for very mathematical concepts, like movement through space and time. Our western culture has a 2,000 year history in the development of geometry. And, I like to have a dash of this theory in my game play.I'm a very mathematical person. In fact, if you'd asked certain people it was one of my most defining features - I'm the guy in the group who can't help but figure out probabilities, responds to silly math questions without thinking, Physics was one of my favorite courses, I couldn't play Craps until I'd stared at the table and figured out the exact chance of winning for every position, etc...
I've found it a big improvement. I didn't expect it to - it doesn't seem logical at all. It _really_ made a big difference over time. The added disturbance of looking at something early on and going 'Huh, that diagonal person is closer, that's odd' or 'Hey, is that square tower round or square?' were quickly forgotten and rapidly replaced with 'Wow, the mage does his fireballs so much faster than before, with no template, and no one argues about what might be hit' and 'Hey, the hasted barbarian moved over half the map without having to slow things down counting, cool!'
That's actually the biggest reason I just want people to try it. If you try it for at least two day's worth of gaming, and you aren't specifically trying to sabotage the experience... hey, that sucks, it doesn't work for you, at least you're making an educated decision on the matter.
I know one person who switched recently and does prefer 1-2-1-2 himself... but it made the rest of his gaming group so much happier, and he found that it bothered him _less_ to use 1-1-1-1 than it did when the other people used to miscount and slow the game down with area effects and such.
Yeah, maybe I'll try it then.
I just don't think being ticked about teaching kids bad geometry is hyperbole.
I have toddlers. I don't have firearms in my house. I think it's "bad for the children." I don't want to argue with anybody about gun control; I'm not anti-guns. I just think in my instance it's a bad idea.
I also don't think this is a "think about the children" logic fallacy. I think there must be examples where "thinking about the children" are not logic fallacies.
... That's actually the biggest reason I just want people to try it. ...
No !
I could never do that. :-)
It's okay to not want to teach your kids improper geometry... but I personally would be more bothered about teaching them that a person can be hit by a dozen arrows and not only survive but be fine a minute later, or that a colossal creature can... do anything at all... without its mass becoming an issue, or that you can easily jump a gap of, say, twenty feet...
I suspect if you put two objects down on a 20x20 map, one on diagonal, one not and go 'Now, you and I both know that this object is farther away than this object, but in the game they're the same number of squares apart. The game just counts all squares the same to make it easier and faster, so we have more fun'... I can't imagine a kid would object and at least due diligence was done.
|
|
It's okay to not want to teach your kids improper geometry... but I personally would be more bothered about teaching them that a person can be hit by a dozen arrows and not only survive but be fine a minute later, or that a colossal creature can... do anything at all... without its mass becoming an issue, or that you can easily jump a gap of, say, twenty feet...
I suspect if you put two objects down on a 20x20 map, one on diagonal, one not and go 'Now, you and I both know that this object is farther away than this object, but in the game they're the same number of squares apart. The game just counts all squares the same to make it easier and faster, so we have more fun'... I can't imagine a kid would object and at least due diligence was done.
I get that. It just seems like those examples are so ludicrous as to not be worrisome.
What worries me is that, when presented as such in a rulebook, the movement thing IS close enough to reality to seem believable.I had an argument with a woman one time that men don't actually have less ribs than women. If they'd just put a disclaimer in there, I'd be allright with it.
I'm still confused.
Braaaaainnsss.
The ladder thing is beautiful! I knew there had to be a munchkin loophole in there somewhere. ;)I don't know Heath, most ladders go up and down not diagnol, so I don't think the ladder holds any real purpose to the issue at hand. Being that they go up and down it is easy to measure distance, it would be exactly the same as if the character was moving straight forward or backward. So don't let the ladder thing stop you now. Besides ladders have rungs which really aren't anything but big holes when you think about it, so therefore the ladder theory is nothing but full of holes.You are wise (or a wiseguy), but imagine you have a wooden ladder, and you are going to use it to bridge a chasm. That is, you want to lay it flat and walk across it.
If both sides of the chasm are the same height, and the width is 3 squares (I just made that distance up for this example), and your ladder is 4 squares. Well then it seems like you have a very good plan, with a good chance of success.
But, what if the heights of each side of the chasm differ. Lets say the far side is 3 squares higher than the side you now stand on. Will your ladder 4 squares in length still work?
This does not kill the game immersion, it amplifies it. My opinion is for the better.
Actaully I was just trying to spur Heath on some more. I didn't think your idea was bad Tensor. Given the example above, I would determine the length across, plus add the height of difference to determine the overall length. Leastwise, that's what I did before all of this 1,2,1,2,1 thing came along. Perhaps the math would be inaccurate but overall it would work for me.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I really hate the idea of the square root of one equalling the square root of two.
It just irritates me.
Plus, it leads to interesting tactical choices that I don't like, such as charging creatures on the flanks to get to the leader more quickly. WHAT? How the heck does that function in map based combat?
Well, typically, you place your strongest fighters in the center, unless you have knowledge of the way the battlemap works out of character, so the PC's charge over, kill the guy on the flank, who's much weaker than the guy in the middle, then attack the leader.
WHAT?
Well, see, it's all about hit points. The guys on the outside have far less hit points, and the guy in the middle can either move to protect the leader on the flank, exposing him, or attack the defenses of the attackers. Either way, the leader is open.
This is no-win tactics. I don't like it.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I really hate the idea of the square root of one equaling the square root of two.
It just irritates me.
I agree -- it represents Ignorance. Some may say, it only gives the appearance of ignorance. But, appearances must be maintained (especially in the work place.)
Plus, it leads to interesting tactical choices that I don't like, such as charging creatures on the flanks to get to the leader more quickly. WHAT? How the heck does that function in map based combat?
Well, typically, you place your strongest fighters in the center, unless you have knowledge of the way the battlemap works out of character, so the PC's charge over, kill the guy on the flank, who's much weaker than the guy in the middle, then attack the leader.
WHAT?
Well, see, it's all about hit points. The guys on the outside have far less hit points, and the guy in the middle can either move to protect the leader on the flank, exposing him, or attack the defenses of the attackers. Either way, the leader is open.
This is no-win tactics. I don't like it.
This is a great point. You would think the computer simulations the game designers ran (to test all the variant tactical themes that arise in small-group skirmishes that are typical in DnD combat) would have uncovered this flaw, and they would have adjusted for it. Perhaps, supplemental mechanics are used we are not privy to yet.
Maybe the designers know some cool tricks, and they are just waiting to tell us (in a splat book), so we will be all surprised, and say, "oh, *you* guys! You are so tricky." :-)