|
5 years ago ::
Jan 18, 2008 - 1:44PM
#11
|
|
|
I can live with a change to charge, but the change to cover kind of trivializes it. Only +2 from cover makes cover a lot less valuable and makes the game quite a bit less tactical. Same with the ability to charge through allies. Seems people are going to care less about miniature positioning and just rush right in to attack.
Well, the lower bonuses may be due to players having lower bonuses to hit, which is why I'm holding off. Also, it could be a minis-only change... they really should have just released the PHB 
Charge is usually a round one thing, so for me it will be ok if people can charge into battle from wherever they are in the group. That way the fighter can still do his thing, even if someone low on initiative is sort of in the way. I realize that someone in the way would realistically mess up a charge, but it's not like people are actually 5 feet wide, so I can live with it.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 18, 2008 - 2:50PM
#12
|
|
|
The square fireballs are a little odd but, counting in mulitples of 1.5 is something I can live without.
Square spreads is exactly why I don't like it. I never found the 1-2 rule to be difficult at all at my table.
Also, a character can now run roughly 40% farther depending on what direction he runs in? Removing the 1-2 rule is the best argument for moving to hexes (as horrible as they are in a dungeon due to facing and partial hexes) that I've seen. It's just violates my sense of geometry to make "bishop moves" inherently superior.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 18, 2008 - 2:58PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
|
Well, the lower bonuses may be due to players having lower bonuses to hit, which is why I'm holding off.
Well, honestly it doesn't really matter how big the bonuses to hit are or the AC. On a d20 roll, a +4 bonus is a +4 bonus, regardless of the numbers. What I mean is that a +4 to AC turns a hit into a miss 4 times out of 20, or 20% of the time. A +2 to AC only works 10% of the time. This is regardless of what the ACs and the to hit bonus are, unless of course one side is so high that the difference is greater than a d20 roll. But doing that is just bad game design, so that case shouldn't come up unless you've got a level 15 guy bashing a level 2 guy.
Charge is usually a round one thing, so for me it will be ok if people can charge into battle from wherever they are in the group. That way the fighter can still do his thing, even if someone low on initiative is sort of in the way. I realize that someone in the way would realistically mess up a charge, but it's not like people are actually 5 feet wide, so I can live with it.
Yeah, I mean it's certainly deal-able, so long as 4E doesn't have ubercharge builds like 3E did. I mean most of the time a charge wasn't something you really cared about, unless it was with spirited charge, or shock trooper. It's not something I really worry about. But it seems a bit bad for a tactical game, since it added some tactics.
What does bother me more is that charges no longer need to be in straight lines. You just have to end your movement at the square closest to you that threatens the enemy.(mini rules p.28)
So basically you can turn corners, and do whatever you want on a charge. Charge has basically just become "move and attack". And for whatever reason it's actually better now than just standing there and fighting someone.
Now that's just weird. I guess maybe it was to give slight advantages to the people who acted first, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 18, 2008 - 3:02PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
|
It's just violates my sense of geometry to make "bishop moves" inherently superior.
How are they superior though? I mean the only important distance is the number of squares between you and your target.
You don't get any bonus points for running 40 feet in a round instead of 30. Relative mathematical distance is irrelevant to the game, so the rules basically ignore it. And I don't really see a problem, logical or otherwise with that.
People who go straight toward something get there first. People who take the long way around, get there slower. Granted heading straight toward something is now faster than normal, but who really cares?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 18, 2008 - 4:19PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2006
|
How are they superior though? I mean the only important distance is the number of squares between you and your target.
You don't get any bonus points for running 40 feet in a round instead of 30. Relative mathematical distance is irrelevant to the game, so the rules basically ignore it. And I don't really see a problem, logical or otherwise with that.
People who go straight toward something get there first. People who take the long way around, get there slower. Granted heading straight toward something is now faster than normal, but who really cares?
I, for one, care. I have been working on hex conversions for all my games that use minis. The slide on a hex is slightly more that 1.7 so I ignore the 0.3 and call it two. I have never had a problem with partial tiles. Keep in mind that a full square tile represents a 25 square foot area. I can easily imagine something smaller.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 18, 2008 - 5:14PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
|
I, for one, care.
Why? What does it matter as far as your game is concerned?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 19, 2008 - 12:35AM
#17
|
|
|
You don't get any bonus points for running 40 feet in a round instead of 30. Relative mathematical distance is irrelevant to the game, so the rules basically ignore it. And I don't really see a problem, logical or otherwise with that.
Internal to the structure and balance of the game, they make absolutely no difference. A square is a square, and the topology of the graph that battle takes place on is largely irrelevant.
We could make all battlefields wrap from edge to edge. We could make the number of squares you can move each turn a function of a d12 roll. We could make it so that all characters had to move like chess knights. We could replace the grid with Penrose tiles. From an internal, game balance perspective, it's all irrelevant.
But from -- and believed me, this is not an argument I make very often -- a realism standpoint, the ability to run 20'/second in one direction and 28'/second in another direction is somewhat of a suspension of disbelief breaker. It's silly, and it makes determining reasonable shapes for cone and spread area of effects generate stupid looking results. (Now all explosions are cubes? WTF?)
It just offends my sense of aesthetics and real-world geometry.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 19, 2008 - 12:55AM
#18
|
|
|
But from -- and believed me, this is not an argument I make very often -- a realism standpoint, the ability to run 20'/second in one direction and 28'/second in another direction is somewhat of a suspension of disbelief breaker. It's silly, and it makes determining reasonable shapes for cone and spread area of effects generate stupid looking results. (Now all explosions are cubes? WTF?)
It just offends my sense of aesthetics and real-world geometry.
Part of me agrees on many of the same grounds, but another part of me looks at some of the more problematic cases (we've actually stopped combat and re-oriented combat to run along the grids because there was too much diagonal) and says "good riddance."
Now, something to keep in mind is that while faster combat is a goal of 4e, it's an even bigger goal for Minis. Since Minis are very much intended to be a quick and dirty game (as opposed to Warhammer) it's an environment where they can play fast and loose with a lot of rules that would interfere in the ability to cram 1, 2, or 3 more matches into a round robin tournament.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 19, 2008 - 8:02AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Nov 18, 2007
|
How are they superior though? I mean the only important distance is the number of squares between you and your target.
One reason it makes a real difference is that you can no longer obstruct a path in an open battlefield. It costs the same number of moves to go diagonally around you as it does to go through your AoO zone.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 19, 2008 - 8:49AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2005
|
But from -- and believed me, this is not an argument I make very often -- a realism standpoint, the ability to run 20'/second in one direction and 28'/second in another direction is somewhat of a suspension of disbelief breaker. It's silly, and it makes determining reasonable shapes for cone and spread area of effects generate stupid looking results. (Now all explosions are cubes? WTF?)
It just offends my sense of aesthetics and real-world geometry.
I'm currently playing with a group of wargamers and they don't play D&D because of silly stuff from previous editions. One of the guys based his homebrew rules off of D20 with major modifications. There was a lot of complaining and rule changes to get it more real-world. They like fantasy with dragons and magic, but any rule dealing with real-world issues such as movement should be realistic. I agree with them.
I hope this diagonal movement simplification isn't in 4e. I'll never get them to play 4e with rules like that. Explosions are not cubes!
Really guys, is counting 1,2,1,2 that hard? BTW, that was your 6 square movement.
Maybe we should go back to hex grids.
|
|
|
