about Evil with a capital E.
Stuff like the Dorian Grey portrait were down-right cheesy, too.
Dorian Gray
Not my fault he can't spell his name right.
I don't think editions have to be that different to fracture the gamer base, I believe Pathfinder has to some extent fractured what was left of the 3.5 player base.
Of course, every difference will fracture the target audience. But it's all about scope.
I don't think Pathfinder caused a rift nearly as big as 3e/4e.
Except most of those roles are effectively the same thing - a close-up fighter trading blows with the enemy.
Hey, every role is the same: An adventurer doing adventures!
Hey, I can do that in 4E too!
Only not as well.
Except most of those roles are effectively the same thing - a close-up fighter trading blows with the enemy.
Even though they all have different strengths and weaknesses.
Like I said before, using the same mechanic is great for a classless system where you can make your character unique mechanically by your choices; using unique mechanics is the strength of a class system.
It's a question of taste, and I find 4e just isn't for mine.
Hey, I can do that in 4E too!Only not as well.
Not as well as what? Pathfinder? They are different combat systems.
Like I said before, using the same mechanic is great for a classless system where you can make your character unique mechanically by your choices; using unique mechanics is the strength of a class system.
There are unique mechanics, or at least defining mechanics between class roles and defining divisions of those mechanics between classes.
In fact, if I wanted to be facetious, I could point out that since every combat class can effectively do the same thing the Fighter is doing that you listed, there is a lack of unique mechanics. You picked one of the LEAST unique classes to try and make your point.
It's good to have world with quite a few higher level NPCs around. How would you explain that the eeeevil guys tuned to challenge your average lvl 12 group (lvl 8 warriors as foot soldiers for example) didn't take over whole land if king's guard is staffed by lvl 5 warriors and the army has lvl 3 fighters as lieutnants and lvl 2 warriors? And how exactly did the eeeevil guys get their hands on such exceptional troops in the first place, when everyone is lvl 1-3? Another thing is how did the heroes get their training? lvl 3 warrior certainly won't be able to relay the knowledge of the vital strike feat for example. Do they simply hear the proverbial *ding* and are up one lvl? And who crafts their magical gear in the fir...
I think you already get the point ;)
Reporting as ordered!
Reporting as ordered!
Please adjuticate the redrawing of the XXth parrallel and demilitarization of the zones between pathfinder and 4E. An armistice has been called and it needs to be enforced.
Please adjuticate the redrawing of the XXth parrallel and demilitarization of the zones between pathfinder and 4E. An armistice has been called and it needs to be enforced.
I'm just a simple soldier, son. I go where the fight is, and right now, that's here (hard to believe I was worried about having to find a new gig).
Lock and load!
But a good RPG book is a "real book" in that it is fun to just read.
Way the truth forever. Some of the books on my shelves are there for me to check wording or intent or to look up weird spells. Some of them, like, for instance, Unknown Armies, are there for me to read because they're just damn fun.
@Triga, the OP. Congrats on your choice and welcome to the boards. I hope you have fun with Pathfinder, since that's what this is all about!
Not the hokey pokey?
Way the truth forever. Some of the books on my shelves are there for me to check wording or intent or to look up weird spells. Some of them, like, for instance, Unknown Armies, are there for me to read because they're just damn fun.
But a good RPG book is a "real book" in that it is fun to just read.
Consider HoL. Not even meant to be played.
Now I'm off to a matinee showing of Bambi!
|
Role play is when you lose sight of the here and now. It is that magic moment when you are your character.I have found that a strong focus on simulation helps me get that sort of moment. I became very worried about 4e when I read that the designers were purposely moving away from simulation.
For me, I think the rules need to simulate the genre to help me get into character.
I could have a ruleset that acurrately simulates how things would play out in real life and it would totally break my sense of immersion in a game of James Bond roleplaying where I expect my character to be able to seduce beautiful women with a glance, always win big at casinos and down mook guards with a single open handed chop to the back of the neck.
For me, 4e's rules do perhaps simulate a slightly different genre than 3.5 (though both are fairly high fantasy) but neither break my sense of immersion. 3.5 for me is slightly grittier and at 1st and perhaps 2nd level is downright deadly (reminding me more of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay than D&D) - there is a reason I tended to start my 3.5 games at 3rd level (perhaps 2nd) and never 1st.
|
4e books aren't really meant to be read, they're more liker reference or textbooks. Which annoys the hell out of me, because good christ I HAVE SO MANY REFERENCE/TEXTBOOKS AS IT IS. I DO NOT WANT THEM FOR MY LEISURE TIME.I'm not the sort of person to read through RPG sourcebooks for leisure reading; I have real books for that. I like that the 4e books are meant for play. When I need to look something up, those books let me do it with ease (though I'm usually using the Compendium anyway).
If anything, I'd be willing to bet that the Essentials line will present the material in a much more readable fashion. I think that would be a good way to show off the material to new players.
We all agree that this is true of the writing style/layout of 4e. This was by design. However, Prof is right, 4e doesn't inspire, it merely tells you how to play. I would be pleased to see that the Essentials line take the tack you suggest Scott.
S.
Disclaimer: I don't play or run 4E, but a friend of mine owns the first three rulebooks and I've thoroughly read them through a few times.
I truly hope the new boxed sets remedy what I perceive to be the biggest flaw in 4E: the lack of coherent and explicit rules for building monsters and NPCs. Now, I know many people feel the absolute "freedom" with stat blocks and powers is liberating, but I'd feel "paralyzed". Which number should this power recharge on? Can I give this 3rd level brute a power that stuns (save ends)? Or should the effect only last until the end of its next turn? Can it affect multiple PCs or not? Is it "more okay" if I make the critter a 5th level Solo? Should it also recharge when it's bloodied? What if it also does Thunder damage... is it still "legal"? And so on. And I don't feel like I should be "eyeballing" it every time I'm creating a new monster or NPC. If anything I feel more and more confused by powers to the point it'd take me probably two or three times more than statting them in 3E/PF.
This is their chance to appeal to GMs like me. I don't know yet whether I'll be picking up the boxed sets or not, but I'll readily admit that if WoTC will release more robust and systematic monster/NPC creation rules, I might be willing to give 4E a try.
|
|
4e is great in that its settings are dealt with in just a players guide, GM guide and an adventure.I think that's one of its worst features.
For me, Campaign Settings are Turnkey worlds catering to more or less every level of detail conceivable: You go with just the broad strokes (i.e. just the basic Campaign Setting book), or delve right in with books about organisations, areas, deities, special interests (like warfare, magic...) races, history....
Just doing one book (or set of books) in a fire-and-forget way doesn't do it for me. I realise not everyone wants that deep level of detail, but I also realise that many do.
+1. This has to be a miracle... I'm actually agreeing with Kae on something! :O
|
|
If I had my way my group would be playing Rifts, Rolemaster or GURPS Horseclans as well as PFRPG.
Wow. And I thought I was the only person in the world who actually played GURPS Horseclans...
The game I like the most, i.e. GURPS, only uses a D6, and the game has a multitude of choices in regards to spells, weapons, damage, skills, powers, etc.
Perversely, if it used 3d10 instead of 3d6, and adjusted the baseline to 15 instead of 10, it might 'flow' better and not have as large of jumps between the effectiveness of an 11, 12 and 13 in a skill or attribute. With 3d6, the leap between 'kinda good' and 'can't miss' creeps up *really* fast, for weapon attack rolls and defense rolls (oy, those defense rolls! Rounds and rounds of praying for a critical hit, so that you could actually land a blow!), and a little +1 bonus can have a effects that seem out of proportion, depending on where the base number was. There was an old Steffan O'Sullivan article in Roleplayer many years back, '3d10, an idea whose time is past' or something to that effect.
I sometimes wish Mutants & Masterminds used 2d10 instead of 1d20, for a similar reason. 1d20 is so freaking swingy! 2d10 might curve better and make individual rounds of combat a bit less unpredictable, with every attack having an equal chance of being a spectacular hit or a spectacular miss or 'just right.'
|
|
I sometimes wish Mutants & Masterminds used 2d10 instead of 1d20, for a similar reason. 1d20 is so freaking swingy!
The Masterminds Manual provides optional rules for using 3d6, 3x d20 pick middle, and even card based resolution (players choose when to use the good cards and when to use the bad ones).
|
|
I guess most gurps fans see the large gap between 11-13 as a design feature and not as a flaw. Maybe you are more used to the linear dice structure of DnD than you think. :)
I started back in the days of Man to Man and even played The Fantasy Trip with Steffan (the dude who wrote the aforementioned article), so I'm at least as used to the 3d6 system as the d20. It wasn't until 4th edition that GURPS lost me (although we've played some 3rd edition GURPS Supers since then).
I just like a smoother stately progression. Both 1d20 and 3d6 have either no progression at all, or way too abrupt of one, for my tastes.
Role play is when you lose sight of the here and now. It is that magic moment when you are your character.I have found that a strong focus on simulation helps me get that sort of moment. I became very worried about 4e when I read that the designers were purposely moving away from simulation.For me, I think the rules need to simulate the genre to help me get into character.
I could have a ruleset that acurrately simulates how things would play out in real life and it would totally break my sense of immersion in a game of James Bond roleplaying where I expect my character to be able to seduce beautiful women with a glance, always win big at casinos and down mook guards with a single open handed chop to the back of the neck.
Over the top things are fine. But once you get firecubes (they call fireballs for some reason) or spatial anomalies where your speed is dependant on your direction (turn around 45 degrees and suddenly you're about 1.4 times as fast as before!), and stuff like that, the game gets close to the point (or past the point) where it stops to be a simulation and becomes a game.
Rules for rules sake are fine for chess and poker and the like, but not for RPGs.
I truly hope the new boxed sets remedy what I perceive to be the biggest flaw in 4E: the lack of coherent and explicit rules for building monsters and NPCs. Now, I know many people feel the absolute "freedom" with stat blocks and powers is liberating, but I'd feel "paralyzed".[...]
And I don't feel like I should be "eyeballing" it every time I'm creating a new monster or NPC. If anything I feel more and more confused by powers to the point it'd take me probably two or three times more than statting them in 3E/PF.
Actually, eyeballing can be great. And I think PF does it really well.
Some people don't realise (or they do realise it but resist it strongly) that while PF has great rules and guidelines for monster creation, the game never intends to force you to use them.
In fact, Paizo writers themselves sometimes take some liberties to create the critter they need if the standard monsters don't quite fit and no template accomplishes what they need.
You have a really huge range of possibilities - if you want to use them:
Take a monster out of the book and make simple, cosmetic changes. I did it to create a swamp giant. There is no swamp giant in the core rules. I just used cloud giants (they were the right power level for what I needed) and gave them some different abilities, and different looks (stuff like swamp-stride and a bit of camouflage in swampy regions). BAM! Instant monster!
That's an easy way to put stats to your vision.
You can also use simple templates, regular templates, class levels, generic advancement by CR (with the tables that give you a hint of how the numbers should change).
And while you should sit down and do the real math if you put that stuff into a published book, you can wing it easily if you just need a quick fix. No need to get the HP and saves "exactly right". Just use the critter from the book, the changes the advancement table says are right for the advancement you want (or vary them a bit), and you're done.
Fast as a hasted quickling on speed in a time-stop (well, not that fast, since nothing is that fast except that quickling, and, of course, Chuck Norris).
And it's not even that new in PF - it was just expanded upon. 3e had those capabilities, too!
It's your arrogance; you don't CARE whether you spelled someone's name correctly or not.
Don't get all worked up because of trivialities like that, Asgatrion!
+1. This has to be a miracle... I'm actually agreeing with Kae on something! :O
The Speaker in the Depths works in mysterious ways.
He probably started to set this up aeons* ago.
*the time period, not those fence-sitting outsiders of we-have-no-strong-feeling-one-way-or-the-other neutrality.
Over the top things are fine. But once you get firecubes (they call fireballs for some reason) or spatial anomalies where your speed is dependant on your direction (turn around 45 degrees and suddenly you're about 1.4 times as fast as before!), and stuff like that, the game gets close to the point (or past the point) where it stops to be a simulation and becomes a game.
This is a good thing. Having to do area-of-a-circle calculations in order to accurately gauge fireballs and computing the hypotenuse of a triangle just to move your imaginary elf across the mat would both be silly. And really, face it, your game of choice does the same thing 4e does, just to a slightly lesser degree. I could point out plenty of places in your game of choice where simulation falls by the wayside in favor of playability, but I don't because that's not really a productive or meaningful argument to have.
Over the top things are fine. But once you get firecubes (they call fireballs for some reason) or spatial anomalies where your speed is dependant on your direction (turn around 45 degrees and suddenly you're about 1.4 times as fast as before!), and stuff like that, the game gets close to the point (or past the point) where it stops to be a simulation and becomes a game.
This is a good thing. Having to do area-of-a-circle calculations in order to accurately gauge fireballs and computing the hypotenuse of a triangle just to move your imaginary elf across the mat would both be silly. And really, face it, your game of choice does the same thing 4e does, just to a slightly lesser degree. I could point out plenty of places in your game of choice where simulation falls by the wayside in favor of playability, but I don't because that's not really a productive or meaningful argument to have.
Fight on, brothers! You're making the world a better place!
This is a good thing. Having to do area-of-a-circle calculations in order to accurately gauge fireballs and computing the hypotenuse of a triangle just to move your imaginary elf across the mat would both be silly.
There's a difference between doing the math completely accurately and just not bothering with it because it's a game.
The 3e radius calculations are easy enough and result in a good approximation of spheres if you use a square-based battle grid (if you don't use a grid, you just go with the distance, and the square system works well for hexes without much in the way of rethinking).
Diagonals counting 1.5 is quite close to the actual value (square root of 2, or 1.4141something). Again, this rules only comes into play if you actually use squares - which are a tool the game offers you to simplify things, not the game itself. If you ignore the whole battlemat thing, you have your speed and walk that.
They're not the actual thing, but an approximation. Great for a simulation (simulations aren't the real thing, they're approximations - but they try to be as close to the real thing as possible with the means at their disposal) and the 1-2-1 counting is the easiest thing in the world. Even 12-year-olds manage it.
And that's the big difference: Pathfinder simulates. Not the actual thing, but the game strives to get as close as the rules will allow. Sometimes, it makes things a little more complicated (and there might be a few instances where that is overdone), and there are also a couple of opposite cases where things are made for a game and not for a situation, but nothing is perfect.
And that's why a lot of people won't bother with 4e: It feels like a game, and nothing but a game. Like a more complicated version of chess with dice and expensive plastic miniatures.
I'm just going to relax and get ready for my Pathfinder game tonight. Then get ready for the D&D game tomorrow.
|
|
Rules for rules sake are fine for chess and poker and the like, but not for RPGs.There's a difference between doing the math completely accurately and just not bothering with it because it's a game.
:)
My kinda talk.
My balls are still round, and gods willing, will continue to be so!
Both PF and 4e (more so in 4e I admit) have a aspects of their rules which are very difficult to use unless you have a battle-mat and badly-moulded-baldy-painted miniatures (assuming WotC ones). For me this is gamist, because it's a board-game sub-game of the RPG in essence (be honest). Some have had experiences where the use of a battle-mat meant the players were more creative during the fights. In my experience they were less likely to try interesting things and more likely to just do what there little action summary sheet said was a "valid" action. Pin point accuracy fireballs (or squares) judged such that the edge of the blast stops mere millimeters from an ally yet engulfs all the enemy?! Come on, really. How many real life soldiers can place a grenade with such accuracy I wonder (comments welcome from those who do such things)? Would you trust yourself to set off and explosive device knowing the blast radius was 5 m say and judging by eye that your friend is 5.1 m away so should be fine?
Not sure why I'm repeating myself again about the same crap I haev issues with. I think it's therapeutic.
S.
I'm just going to relax and get ready for my Pathfinder game tonight. Then get ready for the D&D game tomorrow.
+1+2+3+4+5
|
|
How many real life soldiers can place a grenade with such accuracy I wonder (comments welcome from those who do such things)? Would you trust yourself to set off and explosive device knowing the blast radius was 5 m say and judging by eye that your friend is 5.1 m away so should be fine?
How much do I like said friend? :)
I play 4E. I like 4E, for the most part I like it better than 3E. There are some things I sometimes don't like about it. However, the two points you have mentioned are not among them and seem really trivial to me.
I don't think that area of effect spells that hit a 3 x 3 cube are intended to be cubical fireballs. I've just assumed they still burst in a circles/spheres/hemispheres, but since they would hit those squares regardless and thereby effect the enemies in those squares. It's just mechanically faster and easier to describe it as a cube for figuring out who it targets. As a dm, when I narrate the effect of a fireball I still describe it as circular burst of flame.
The 1, 2, 1 counting is easy enough, but the problem with it is in 4E there are lots of powers and abilities that let you force movement (through slides and the like). The 1, 2, 1 counting would make such abilities much more confusing and less useful. For instance if I had an ability that let me slide an enemy 2 squares (which is quite common), I could move him 2 squares straight back from me, but only 1 square diagonal from me (using 1, 2, 1 counting) that would make it much less useful, as it would reduce my options in terms of how I can manouver my enemy. I think the forced movement options of the 4E game, are one of the fun mechanical/tactical features of it, and free diagonal movement enhances this.
This is a good thing. Having to do area-of-a-circle calculations in order to accurately gauge fireballs and computing the hypotenuse of a triangle just to move your imaginary elf across the mat would both be silly.There's a difference between doing the math completely accurately and just not bothering with it because it's a game.
The 3e radius calculations are easy enough and result in a good approximation of spheres if you use a square-based battle grid (if you don't use a grid, you just go with the distance, and the square system works well for hexes without much in the way of rethinking).
Diagonals counting 1.5 is quite close to the actual value (square root of 2, or 1.4141something). Again, this rules only comes into play if you actually use squares - which are a tool the game offers you to simplify things, not the game itself. If you ignore the whole battlemat thing, you have your speed and walk that.
They're not the actual thing, but an approximation. Great for a simulation (simulations aren't the real thing, they're approximations - but they try to be as close to the real thing as possible with the means at their disposal) and the 1-2-1 counting is the easiest thing in the world. Even 12-year-olds manage it.
And that's the big difference: Pathfinder simulates. Not the actual thing, but the game strives to get as close as the rules will allow. Sometimes, it makes things a little more complicated (and there might be a few instances where that is overdone), and there are also a couple of opposite cases where things are made for a game and not for a situation, but nothing is perfect.
And that's why a lot of people won't bother with 4e: It feels like a game, and nothing but a game. Like a more complicated version of chess with dice and expensive plastic miniatures.
My balls are still round, and gods willing, will continue to be so!
That's... good to hear. Please leave it at that, because everything more will be too much information ;-P
Both PF and 4e (more so in 4e I admit) have a aspects of their rules which are very difficult to use unless you have a battle-mat and badly-moulded-baldy-painted miniatures (assuming WotC ones).
I don't say that the mat doesn't have its advantages, but I still maintain that it's not necessary (though I personally wouldn't do without for bigger fights - for me it's more about keeping track of everyone and everything than anything else.)
The big difference I see is that Pathfinder uses it as a tool. Very useful tool, and one that might not be too easy to do without, but still a tool. It's still understood that you use some abstractions to use that tool. The 1-2-1 diagonals rule is a prime example, as it does a pretty good job of dealing with diagonals: It's relatively accurate and still easy to use.
And it's a special case if you use squares. If you use hexes, there is no such thing as a diagonal, and if you use a tape measure or do it all in your head, you don't need this abstraction.
In my experience they were less likely to try interesting things and more likely to just do what there little action summary sheet said was a "valid" action.
I don't know. I think the people who can think out of the box will do so with or without a mat, and those who are overly restrained by the rules are just looking for things to channel their behaviour.
Sure, there is a middle ground there, but I personally didn't encounter it much.
Pin point accuracy fireballs (or squares) judged such that the edge of the blast stops mere millimeters from an ally yet engulfs all the enemy?! Come on, really.
I know that one. I know the standard explanation: It's magic. Especially since no attack roll is required to place the fireball. You just tell the magic where you want the scorched flesh.
That's why wizards, even the battle-tested spell-flingers, work despite their crappy attack bonuses.
Sure, this is, in part, an issue of the mat. But I think it's only a side effect of having a clear, objective set-up of the battlefield.
I remember playing games without the mat (both older edition AD&D and other RPGs, with the occasional 3e and PF thrown in the mix) where the number of enemies hit by a fireball was up to the GMs mood. Some allowed some sort of roll for it (caster power or straight int, for example), but others pulled a number out of their hat, one that fit into their schemes best.
But the mat is only part of this problem (if you call it such): Time is another. More precisely, the fact that time stands still between actions.
You can take your time and look at the battlefield, maybe even use a spell effect template and move it around until you maximise the number of enemies included while minimising the number of friendly targets (usually to 0).
Even if you only take a short moment to place the spell, you usually end up having used more than 6 seconds to place it - and unlike in the "real" world, the poor bastards don't get to move while you think, and start casting, and while the ball travels to its destination.
But I think we can all agree that in P&P games, using a round-based combat method is a necessary evil, because otherwise GMs would run amok after the first couple of encounters.
Would you trust yourself to set off and explosive device knowing the blast radius was 5 m say and judging by eye that your friend is 5.1 m away so should be fine?
Isn't there some sort of mobile rocket launcher whose blast radius is greater than its range?
|
|
How many real life soldiers can place a grenade with such accuracy I wonder (comments welcome from those who do such things)? Would you trust yourself to set off and explosive device knowing the blast radius was 5 m say and judging by eye that your friend is 5.1 m away so should be fine?How much do I like said friend? :)
I'll tell you after you set off the device.
The 1, 2, 1 counting is easy enough, but the problem with it is in 4E there are lots of powers and abilities that let you force movement (through slides and the like). The 1, 2, 1 counting would make such abilities much more confusing and less useful. For instance if I had an ability that let me slide an enemy 2 squares (which is quite common), I could move him 2 squares straight back from me, but only 1 square diagonal from me (using 1, 2, 1 counting) that would make it much less useful, as it would reduce my options in terms of how I can manouver my enemy. I think the forced movement options of the 4E game, are one of the fun mechanical/tactical features of it, and free diagonal movement enhances this.
I cast "rotate grid" followed by a quickened "push back 4 squares". You thought you were save, 5 squares away from the cliff, but because the grid rotated 45 degrees, it's within pushing range now!
I wonder if Order of the Stick has done that one yet. Seems right up their alley.
That's all fine and good, but I think everyone has been quite civil about stating the pros and cons of the system, and I think there is nothing wrong with a debate as long as people do it respectfully. One of the nice things about these discussions is that it gives chances for people on both sides to dispel some myths and misconceptions about 1 system or the other. Many people on these boards talk a lot about 4E and say they don't like this or that about it, but many of those people don't have any significant play experience with the game, and some of the things they say they dislike are just based on what they've heard from other people or what they've decided after a quick read of the rules. As someone who has played both systems extensively, I enjoy the opportunity to share my thoughts on the pros and cons of the different games and try to dispel some of the misconceptions. 3E/pathfinder is a little easier for most of us to discuss, since pretty much everyone here has played that system for several years.
I'm just going to relax and get ready for my Pathfinder game tonight. Then get ready for the D&D game tomorrow.
|
|
Sure, this is, in part, an issue of the mat. But I think it's only a side effect of having a clear, objective set-up of the battlefield.
That's my main issue I guess. Battlefields aren't clear and they aren't objective. It's this side-effect that is part and parcel of the battle-mat that I take exception too. Melee classes counting squares to minimise AoO while maximising charges, wizards dropping fireball grenades left, right and center. For me if I want this level of board-game then I think (me, my thought) that 4e does it better ONLY because it was built from the ground up to be like this. 3.5e (3e less so) had these formal battle-mat system tacked on to the 1e/2e abstractions and for me they don't quite fit. Like trying to have your cake and eat it too.
My issues, I live with them everyday, but one day when we go back to 2nd ed. I'll get better...
:)
It is liberating to run a game without battlemats and minis from time to time. I've gotten used to using them and enjoy it now. I didn't used to use them, but it became a necessary with 3E (for the types of encounters I tend to run, which are usually pretty big as battles). It is definitely necessary with 4E (so it that's not your thing than you won't like the game). I'm looking forward to running Call of Cthulhu for the next few weeks and not having to lug around battle mats or minis.
The 1, 2, 1 counting is easy enough, but the problem with it is in 4E there are lots of powers and abilities that let you force movement (through slides and the like). The 1, 2, 1 counting would make such abilities much more confusing and less useful. For instance if I had an ability that let me slide an enemy 2 squares (which is quite common), I could move him 2 squares straight back from me, but only 1 square diagonal from me (using 1, 2, 1 counting) that would make it much less useful, as it would reduce my options in terms of how I can manouver my enemy. I think the forced movement options of the 4E game, are one of the fun mechanical/tactical features of it, and free diagonal movement enhances this.I cast "rotate grid" followed by a quickened "push back 4 squares". You thought you were save, 5 squares away from the cliff, but because the grid rotated 45 degrees, it's within pushing range now!
I wonder if Order of the Stick has done that one yet. Seems right up their alley.
|
|
I'll tell you after you set off the device.How many real life soldiers can place a grenade with such accuracy I wonder (comments welcome from those who do such things)? Would you trust yourself to set off and explosive device knowing the blast radius was 5 m say and judging by eye that your friend is 5.1 m away so should be fine?How much do I like said friend? :)
But on the topic of soldiers and grenades. From what I recall form basic(its been a number of years since i have been out, so take the below with a grain of salt) I believe you had to get all your throws inside of a 3m circle. You was allowed to miss X number I forget how many but not many. Obviously the test ones where dumby ones, with no explosives in them.
|
|
But on the topic of soldiers and grenades. From what I recall form basic(its been a number of years since i have been out, so take the below with a grain of salt) I believe you had to get all your throws inside of a 3m circle. You was allowed to miss X number I forget how many but not many. Obviously the test ones where dumby ones, with no explosives in them.I'll tell you after you set off the device.How many real life soldiers can place a grenade with such accuracy I wonder (comments welcome from those who do such things)? Would you trust yourself to set off and explosive device knowing the blast radius was 5 m say and judging by eye that your friend is 5.1 m away so should be fine?How much do I like said friend? :)
Did anyone ever miss the 3m circle? If they were 3e/4e wizards they never would, in fact you could reduce the circle to 1.524 m and they would hit every single time. I say the military should recuit more D&D wizards they would have less friendly fire problems that way...
Just saying,
S.
Hehe, I bought 10 4E books before I found Pathfinder. To be honest I'm here because of two webcomics. Chronicles of Loth reminded me how much versatility 4E had lost in comparison to 3.X (and that WotC seemingly doesn't intend to get anywhere near that again)
I looked through that Web Comic and couldn't find anything that shows 4E lost versatility compared to 3e/3.5e? (though I still definitely agree with that fact). Could you point this out where in the web comic it implies this?