General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I only have a few observations about this session.
First, we finally talked our roommate, Vonnie, into playing D&D with us again, after she fell into the yawning chasm of MMORPGs a couple of years ago. She plays endless hours of City of Heroes, City of Villains, Age of Conan, and now World of Warcraft.
While helping her download the Character Building and start building, she volunteered, "Oh, this is just like WoW." Completely unprompted, uncoached, un-anythinged. "Just like WoW." Well okay.
She ended up building a swordmage and enjoying herself. (Though, due to a mix-up in our starting and ending time, she had to quit a little early for a "WoW raid," whatever that means.)
The second observation is that my hatred of 1-1-1 movement, if anything, is glowing hotter. Twice during the session I moved to place myself closest to an enemy. Looking at the map, ignoring the grid and just making spatial judgment, there's absolutely no doubt that I'm in the position I want.
But then you count the squares, and I'm not. ARGH!
Any time savings from not having to count diagonals differently is absolutely wasted in having to count from final intended position to enemy positions. Forget about judging distances on the map. In situations in which it matters, you must count: from X1 to X2; from X2 to Y; from X2 to Z; oops, X2 is closer to Z, so let's start over; from X1 to X3, from X3 to Y; from X3 to Z, oh, okay, there we go.
Stupid, stupid, stupid rules change. It would have been far better to go to hexes.
Anyway, slightly less fun this time (call it 6 out of 10), but I don't really think it was 4E's fault that the fun level diminished. (Except for the 1-1-1 thing, which frustrates most of us.) We had a player sitting in for an absent player, and though a nice guy, he decided to play the gnome bard like a hyperactive weasel from an old cartoon. He's also a little, ah, overly assertive when it comes to telling other people what to do, out of character.
The DM, though he had us cracking up with his (excellent) impression of an emo goth ranger girl (apparently a minor villain), also (of course) broke through the fourth wall by continuing with it throughout the encounter.
We leveled up to 2nd. I took Yield Ground and Distant Advantage for my ranger.
It's gonna be a month until the third session.
__________________ Jeff Wilder, San Francisco Bay Area If your sig is longer than your posts, your sig is too
long. Nobody reads it, they just get annoyed by it. And if you bore me, you lose your soul to me. - Belly
We don't use 1-1-1-1 diagonal movement. It's stupid. We changed it to 1-2-1-2 immediately (before the first game session even). It's also used for measuring range for ranged/area/burst attacks. Only blasts stay as they are (for simplicity's sake).
Bye
Thanee
__________________
“In our world, immortality is not for the living. The legend lives on!”
In Memoriam Dave Arneson († April 7th, 2009) & Gary Gygax († March 4th, 2008).
Wondering what the Dungeon Tiles are like? Take a look here (up to DU5 Sinister Woods).
By the way, when creating a char in Wow you chose: race > class > hair style, colors, etc. and that's it.
Training is different from chosing powers, you have no choice on Wow.
Now talents, that you start spending at level 10, is more close to what creating a D&D char would be... but being a Wow player I'm glad 4E is really not creating a char in Wow :P
__________________ And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
I can see nearest very quickly in 4e - not by counting but by looking at rows & columns. Most of the time the only either the the row or the column really matters due to the mucked up diagonals. It's a "skill" I might have picked up in 20 years of Bloodbowl.
I agree it's strange when the nearest enemy is farther away than the next nearest though this mostly amuses me rather than irritating me.
If you all hate the diagonals why not change them?
If you all hate the diagonals why not change them?
(1) We don't all hate them, though the best attitude toward them is "indifferent."
(2) There are rules implications, which Thanee touched on above.
(3) The whole point is to give 4E a fair test, as 4E. No house-rules, in other words.
__________________ Jeff Wilder, San Francisco Bay Area If your sig is longer than your posts, your sig is too
long. Nobody reads it, they just get annoyed by it. And if you bore me, you lose your soul to me. - Belly
I can see nearest very quickly in 4e - not by counting but by looking at rows & columns. Most of the time the only either the the row or the column really matters due to the mucked up diagonals. It's a "skill" I might have picked up in 20 years of Bloodbowl.
I agree it's strange when the nearest enemy is farther away than the next nearest though this mostly amuses me rather than irritating me.
If you all hate the diagonals why not change them?
He's a player, not the DM, so he might need to do some convincing. And if the majority prefers it the 1-1-1 way, well, I guess Jeff will have to accept that vote.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
I can understand the frustration with the squares. It does seem somewhat non intuitive, especially when the rest of the game is pretty intuitive.
I guess at this point though it doesn't bother me anymore. I think after you use the system for a while your eyes just train themselves to see things in squares. :P
I think rather then squares or hexes the most accurate would be just inches. You wouldn't have the easy to count grid space, but it would be more accurate I guess.
I think rather then squares or hexes the most accurate would be just inches. You wouldn't have the easy to count grid space, but it would be more accurate I guess.
Exactly what we do in games. Works quickly and well.
Has anyone ever tried just using hexes with the RAW? Other than the oft-mentioned difficulty with mapmaking, and a 6-on-1 limit vs an 8-on-1 limit, what's to keep you from just making the switch?
I can understand the frustration with the squares.
I don't. Despite it having been explained to me, it's just so right-brain I can't empathize with it at all. It's such an insignificant, superficial thing to care about. People don't move in straight lines - minis should?
Hell, every square is five feet. And because you can't enter another person's square, it means that everyone has a five foot bubble around them instead of being right up next to each other. Why doesn't that hurt the suspension of disbelief, that there's five feet between two guys grappling?
Why? Because it's not supposed to be realistic. It's just a framework to hang the rules on, it's not supposed to simulate anything except the barest notion of distances and positioning.
If you can accept and explain away the 5' bubble issue, then you should be able to accept and explain away diagonals and square fireballs - because the grid is not how it looks, it's just a primitive reference model.
Squares, hexes, a grid formed out of little bunnies - I don't care.
Has anyone ever tried just using hexes with the RAW? Other than the oft-mentioned difficulty with mapmaking, and a 6-on-1 limit vs an 8-on-1 limit, what's to keep you from just making the switch?
The last time this thread came up and the last time that Jeff complained about it, the Hexes were brought up.
Essentially it works fine. The only troubling part is dealing with monsters that are large, huge, etc; figuring out how many hexes they take up can be tricky.
However, someone complained that the same diagonal problem exists - it's just at right angles instead of diagonals.
The last time this thread came up and the last time that Jeff complained about it, the Hexes were brought up.
Essentially it works fine. The only troubling part is dealing with monsters that are large, huge, etc; figuring out how many hexes they take up can be tricky.
However, someone complained that the same diagonal problem exists - it's just at right angles instead of diagonals.
Sizing is easy: Unearthed Arcana (3.5) did it for you. (Hex Grid :: d20srd.org). Alternately, just use DDM minis (or appropriate sized bases) and you're good.
The latter irritates me enough to forswear hexes for anything but the largest of wilderness battles.
I don't. Despite it being explained to me, it's just so right-brain I can't empathize with it at all. It's such an insignificant, superficial thing to care about.
Hell, every square is five feet. And because you can't enter another person's square, it means that everyone has a five foot bubble around them instead of being right up next to each other. Why doesn't that hurt the suspension of disbelief, that there's five feet between two guys grappling?
Why? Because it's not supposed to be realistic. It's just a framework to hang the rules on, it's not supposed to simulate anything except the barest notion of distances and positioning.
Squares, hexes, a grid formed out of little bunnies - I don't care.
I, too, am hoping someone can elaborate on the difficulty with the squares because, like Rechan, I just don't get that complaint at all. I don't doubt its an issue for the original poster, but it is a complaint that I just don't understand.
Twice during the session I moved to place myself closest to an enemy. Looking at the map, ignoring the grid and just making spatial judgment, there's absolutely no doubt that I'm in the position I want.
But then you count the squares, and I'm not. ARGH!
Any time savings from not having to count diagonals differently is absolutely wasted in having to count from final intended position to enemy positions. Forget about judging distances on the map. In situations in which it matters, you must count: from X1 to X2; from X2 to Y; from X2 to Z; oops, X2 is closer to Z, so let's start over; from X1 to X3, from X3 to Y; from X3 to Z, oh, okay, there we go.
You need to train yourself not to count in a straight line from X1 to X2. All you need to look at is the two straight axes that form the rectangle between X1 and X2. The greater "side" equals your distance.
Example:
XXXXXbXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXaXXXXXX
The horizontal distance is 3 squares. The verticle distance is 4 squares. The distance between A and B is 4 squares.
It becomes easier once you get used to looking at it this way. Then you aren't even comparing longest, you can easily see which lateral dimension is longer and only count that one.
I'm with other's on this; while mathmatically the 1,2,1 makes sense, it's just more intuitive to see every square as 1 and not think furhter on the subject. I don't ever have to wonder whether or not reach hits here, or a blast hits there. It's really just about keeping it simple; and I never thought the 1,2,1 was all that simple.
However, if you've trained your self to see the grid that way, I can understand the headache about unlearning. Simple answer, do as Yoda says, "Unlearn what you have learned."
__________________ "..Death greets me warm; Now I will just say goodbye.."
It becomes easier once you get used to looking at it this way. Then you aren't even comparing longest, you can easily see which lateral dimension is longer and only count that one.
Yup. The only difficulty could be difficult terrain or corners, but those don't get easier with 1.5 diagonals.
The big advantage I've found to 1-1 movement is because its just counting columns or rows, i can count from across the table.
That said, closest to X does get a bit more tricky. You might ask to have effects like that follow direct spatial measurements while regular movement goes by the 1-1 thing.
__________________ All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains
I think rather then squares or hexes the most accurate would be just inches. You wouldn't have the easy to count grid space, but it would be more accurate I guess.
So give each player a piece of string cut to exactly how many squares they can move? Templates for bursts and blasts and such (like those fun wire ones)? And then just toss the grid out and play an open area? Cover would be interesting, probably mostly in the DM's hands to adjudicate. Anyhow, didn't mean to sidetrack the discussion but it reminds me a lot of what we did in basic D&D when we used platic army men, weebles and legos to figure stuff out.
Yup. The only difficulty could be difficult terrain or corners, but those don't get easier with 1.5 diagonals.
And we usually are counting movement sqaure by square so the issue of difficult terrain and corners isn't as much an issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malraux
That said, closest to X does get a bit more tricky. You might ask to have effects like that follow direct spatial measurements while regular movement goes by the 1-1 thing.
We've gotten pretty good at eyeballing and quick confirmation when the answer isn't obvious.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
