Community

Horatio Hornblower wrote:

Really guys, is counting 1,2,1,2 that hard?

It can be.

While it's simple to move straight diagonal, mix in standard movement with diagonal movement and throw down some squares with difficult terrain and it gets extremely difficult. Then you're thinking "Was this a 1 move or a 2 move?"

Maybe we should go back to hex grids.

I've always liked hex grids, because they handle cones, burst spells and movement with ease. Though i doubt the designers will give up square grids. For whatever reason, they like them.

Archtyrant Terevoth wrote:

I've always liked hex grids, because they handle cones, burst spells and movement with ease. Though i doubt the designers will give up square grids. For whatever reason, they like them.

Hex grids are great for movement, but don't fit rectangular buildings and dungeons very well. If you drop a hex grid over a square grid you have to have rules on what to do with partial hexes. So they will stay with squares to keep it simple.

• melee
  
• close [area]
  
• ranged
  
• [far] area
  

Haldrik: On the battlefield, both a damage-dealing function [= attack type] and a support-giving function cohere to a simple structure. Each role uses a tactic that targets either an area or a single creature - either in melee or in range.

• Defender targets an area - in melee.
  
• Controller targets an area - in range.
  
• Stiker targets a single creature - in melee.
  
• Troubleshooter-Leader targets a single creature - in range.
  

Elsewhere I wrote:

I feel Striker and Defender classes should have 'melee' touch attacks and 'close' area attacks, respectively (but not 'ranged' or far 'area' attacks).

Oppositely, Controller and IMO Troubleshooter-Leader classes should have far 'area' attacks and 'ranged' attacks, respectively (but not 'melee' or 'close' area attacks).


Defender and Striker are both melee combatants, but the Defender should attack multiple creatures simultaneously in the area within melee range, while the Striker does heavy damage to one creature in melee range.

IMO, Controller and Troubleshooter-Leader are both ranged combatants, but the Controller should attack multiple creatures simultaneously in an area in the distance, while the Troubleshooter-Leader should do heavy damage to one creature in the distance.


Because Defender and Striker must function in melee, they must have higher hitpoints, AC, evasive mobility, stealth, etc. Controller and Troubleshooter-Leader should fight from a distance dont need these things as much.

Heres a list of spells that I feel belong to each role.

• Defender: 'close' area attack (multiple targets in melee range), like Burning Hands, Fire Shield.
  
• Striker: 'melee' attack (single target in melee range), like Harm, Shocking Grasp.
  
• Controller: far 'area' attack (multiple targets in far range), like Fireball, Magic Missile (only against multiple targets), Mass Inflict Wounds.
  
• Troubleshooter-Leader: 'ranged' attack (single target in far range), like Disintegrate, Scorching Ray, Call Lighting, Hold Person, Magic Missile (only against single target).
  

Probably, the Controller [and Troubleshooter-Leader] shouldnt have any touch attacks but rather various ways to escape melee combat if it ever occurs. (But [they] can still use certain area attacks at a melee opponent even tho it risks an Opp Attack). In any case, the Controller [or Troubleshooter-Leader] should never be in a situation where a melee combat might occur. It doesnt make sense to have spells that a Controller [or Troubleshooter-Leader] must do everything in their power to *not use*.

The problem with the traditional Cleric is that the Cleric is a Defender AND a Striker AND a Controller AND a Troubleshooter-Leader. Clarifying the role as Troubleshooter that makes single-target 'ranged' attacks brings a clarity that such a fundamental design concept must have if it is to structure the rest of the D&D game.

Haldrik: The above offers a different way of thinking about the Leader role: a Troubleshooter. But after much rumination, Im convinced its the only definition of the role that will remain useful in the long run, as D&D 4e begins to expand and evolve.

Archtyrant Terevoth wrote:

I've always liked hex grids, because they handle cones, burst spells and movement with ease. Though i doubt the designers will give up square grids. For whatever reason, they like them.

I'm not a fan of hex grids in an enclosed environment. Here's some pros & cons of replacing the square grid (assuming 1-2 movement) with hex grids:

Pros

• Ease of handling area effects with natural, rounded edges like cones & bursts.
  
• Distance in hex units is always equal no matter which way you travel.
  

• Hexes do not lend themselves to natural room designs, leading to partial hex issues.
  
• Monsters larger than one hex (but smaller than seven) have strange space/facing issues.
  
• Freedom of movement is restricted to 6 instead of 8 directions.
  
• "Perpendicular" movement is non-intuitive to may people.