The rule for difficult terrain doubling the cost of movement is very intuitive and clearly stated on p.145 of the Beta:
Double Movement Cost: When your movement is hampered in some way, your movement usually costs double. For example, each square of movement through difficult terrain counts as 2 squares, and each diagonal move through such terrain counts as 3 squares (just as two diagonal moves normally do).
Then we get the following clutter:
If movement cost is doubled twice, then each square counts as 4 squares (or as 6 squares if moving diagonally). If movement cost is doubled three times, then each square counts as 8 squares (12 if diagonal) and so on. This is an exception to the general rule that two doublings are equivalent to a tripling. (emphasis mine)
What good is this exception? I can't think of a situation that isn't better handled with the general rule. If my move is the usual six squares, doubling twice under the general rule allows me to move two squares, while the exception only lets me move one square.
I don't know what specific case this exception was supposed to address, so I'll put it as a question: Why bother? We could save word count by simply deleting the paragraph about multiple doublings, and at the same time simplify the rules.
The rule for difficult terrain doubling the cost of movement is very intuitive and clearly stated on p.145 of the Beta:
[[SNIP]]
I don't know what specific case this exception was supposed to address, so I'll put it as a question: Why bother? We could save word count by simply deleting the paragraph about multiple doublings, and at the same time simplify the rules.
I think the authors are worried about peole using the DAMAGE MULTIPLIER rule which states:
Multiplying
Sometimes a rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll. As long as you’re applying a single multiplier, multiply the number normally. When two or more multipliers apply to any abstract value (such as a modifier or a die roll), however, combine them into a single multiple, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. Thus, a double (×2) and a double (×2) applied to the same number results in a triple (×3, because 2 + 1 = 3)."
but even that goes on to stipulate that it shouldn't be used for other instances of multipliers in the game typically.
|
What good is this exception? I can't think of a situation that isn't better handled with the general rule.
The only one I can think of is diagonal movement. If quadrupled, each squared is 6. If tripled, the first diagonal is 5, the second diagonal is 4, and so on.
Not that I think that's why they specified the true double-double, but it is easier if it's just a flat 6.
Anyway, I've occasionally wondered the same thing. Just not sure it's worth changing.
I think the authors are worried about peole using the DAMAGE MULTIPLIER rule which states:
Multiplying
Sometimes a rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll. As long as you’re applying a single multiplier, multiply the number normally. When two or more multipliers apply to any abstract value (such as a modifier or a die roll), however, combine them into a single multiple, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. Thus, a double (×2) and a double (×2) applied to the same number results in a triple (×3, because 2 + 1 = 3)."but even that goes on to stipulate that it shouldn't be used for other instances of multipliers in the game typically.
Sounds like a great general rule to me. Why shouldn't it be used for all multipliers in the game typically?
What good is this exception? I can't think of a situation that isn't better handled with the general rule.The only one I can think of is diagonal movement. If quadrupled, each squared is 6. If tripled, the first diagonal is 5, the second diagonal is 4, and so on.
Actually the first diagonal is 4, the second is 5, and so on. True, it's a little complicated, but still better than the exception IMO.
Not that I think that's why they specified the true double-double, but it is easier if it's just a flat 6.Anyway, I've occasionally wondered the same thing. Just not sure it's worth changing.
My point is that it's not worth keeping. All I'm proposing is the deletion of text, not the addition of anything new.
|
|
Actually the first diagonal is 4, the second is 5, and so on.
That's what I said. My transcriber got it wrong, but he will be punished for it. Oh, yes, he will pay.
My point is that it's not worth keeping. All I'm proposing is the deletion of text, not the addition of anything new.
My point is that it doesn't matter if it's a deletion or an addition, it's a change, and I'm not sure that the rule itself -- though I agree that it seems useless -- is troublesome enough to make people learn a new one. (It was the trifling changes from 3E to 3.5 that took my group longest to learn, for example.) Combined with the possibility that there's a reason for the rule that we're just not seeing, and I shrug and say, "Ehn."
The POSSIBILITY there's a reason for this rule? OK.
I agree this should be changed, having "exceptions" is a pain... And I just don't see the burning need for the exception. This isn't about "backwards compatability", since it isn't in stat blocks, and there's already bigger changes 3.5->PRPG.
(I mean, why is it OK for ALL other cases to stack additively, EXCEPT movement? Assuming movement is justified/necessary, couldn't there be other cases also "needing" multiplicative stacking? There's just no rhyme or reason to it, it's a completely arbitrary sub-system)
I think it would make the game EASIER to learn, if at the top of the rules, we learn "fractions round down, and multiple multipliers stack additively, not multiplicatively". This isn't NEW, it's just unifying the 3.5 rules, and probably the majority of 3.5 players aren't currently even aware of the difference (in error, according to 3.5).
|
The POSSIBILITY there's a reason for this rule? OK.
I agree this should be changed, having "exceptions" is a pain... And I just don't see the burning need for the exception. This isn't about "backwards compatability", since it isn't in stat blocks, and there's already bigger changes 3.5->PRPG.
(I mean, why is it OK for ALL other cases to stack additively, EXCEPT movement? Assuming movement is justified/necessary, couldn't there be other cases also "needing" multiplicative stacking? There's just no rhyme or reason to it, it's a completely arbitrary sub-system)I think it would make the game EASIER to learn, if at the top of the rules, we learn "fractions round down, and multiple multipliers stack additively, not multiplicatively". This isn't NEW, it's just unifying the 3.5 rules, and probably the majority of 3.5 players aren't currently even aware of the difference (in error, according to 3.5).
I think I agree :)
I prefer a nice top down rules system, and I really really really really dislike exceptions. Unless there is a serious driving need, then I would ask to eliminate any and all exceptions to the general rules.
Everytime there is an exception, it essentially invalidates the general rule. In which case do not even bother with a general rule to begin with.