House Rules: Using circular templates weaken classes?

[StarFyre]

moving

We haev done away with the squares and are going to a measuring tape movement method.

More accurate, and no more player questions for where they can move.

1 inch = the square on our tiled board = unit of measurement.

Yes, the board is still a grid, so it's easier for me to draw on it (if it's a dungeon) but movement can be anywhere within that.

Sanjay

 

[Thyrwyn]

deleted - math error - see below

 

[deathdonut]

Sadly, you're definately correct on this.

A square burst has 27.3% more area than the same circular burst. It gets worse if you try to translate cubes to spheres.

To fix this, there are a few options. For the mathematically pefect solution, you can multiply the radius by 1.128, but that gets really silly.

I recommend using some set templates and increasing the radius by a bit for the larger bursts. If you assume any part of the square is a hit, then burst 1 is the same regardless of whether it's a square or a circle. Same with burst 2. At burst 3, you can add 1 square to your radius for similar area. At Burst 7 you add a second square to your radius. The third square comes at burst 10.

It wont be perfect, but it will approximate what you're trying to do.

 

[Stalker0]

I’m very hesitant about weakening classes unless I want to discourage players from playing them. I don’t want to discourage anything atm.

Yet that's exactly what your doing, weakening movement effects and so discouraging that kind of play. 4e's combat is based on single diagonal movement, I say give it a good college try before you toss it.

 

[Puggins]

I plan to implement 2 house rules in 4th. First is 1-2-1-2, and second is making burst effects circular.
I want to take a holistic approach to these changes though. Using a circular template to cover squares will result in a loss of squares affected, thus weakening the overall effect of the spell.

I think burst one will result in the loss of 4 squares on the corners, and burst 2 is a loss of 12 squares. I’m very hesitant about weakening classes unless I want to discourage players from playing them. I don’t want to discourage anything atm.

Well, the first thing to consider is that your two houserules sorta contradict each other, which is what is making the bursts lose so many squares.

If the first diagonal costs only 1, then a Burst 1 should be a 3x3 square. The alternative that you're going to use- essentially a cross- is just as nonsensical as a firecube, so don't worry about the 3x3 area.

A Burst 2 would cut out only the four corners, making it a loss of 4 squares. Every other square can be reached by a move of 2. losing 4 squares out of 25 is really not enough of a loss to bring balance into play.

A burst 3 would lose 3 squares on each corner. 12 out of 49 squares is somewhat significant, but still not enough to make burst 3 THAT much weaker than it used to be.

A burst 4 and above is so huge that cutting it down a tad really doesn't affect its power by much if at all.

Personally, I wouldn't do this, but if it makes you more comfortable, I don't see the problem in using 1-2-1-2 and resolving area effects this way. It'll slow down the game a bit, but if that means you're having more fun, then it's a good trade-off. I, personally, WOULD try the RAW first, though.

 

[HeinorNY]

Casters will lose area of effect, but i really don't know if it would weaken them too much, since casters rarely fill their burst until the last square with monsters.

OBS: The burst are the circular lines. The colored line only indicate wich squares are affected by the burst. Don't forget that the burst doesn't need to cover 100% of a square to affect a creature in it. It needs to cover at least 50% or more (IIRC it was a 3.5 rule of thumb.)

 

[D_E]

yea, using burstslike the ones ainatan shows shouldn't weeken casters at all, since their primary purpose is to control teritory, and the bursts shown cover exactally the same area under the 1-2 metric as the firecubes cover under the 1-1 metric (in other words, it takes the same amount of time to move across the circular burst under 1-2 as it does the square burst under 1-1). There is some loss in the maximum possible number of targets, but casters should almost never be able to affect the maximum possible number of targets anyway.

 

[Thyrwyn]

double post

 

[Thyrwyn]

You are translating a square to a circle. Why are you choosing to use a circle that fits inside the square, rather than a circle which will encompass the square?

Consider Burst 1 (3x3 square): if you choose a circle which touches the square at the corners and rule that only squares which are completely inside the circle are affected, there is no change in the area of effect. Said circle has a radius of 2.12 squares; the distance to the farthest corners of a square 2 squares in any orthagonal direction is 2.55 squares.

Consider Burst 2 (5x5 square): if you choose a circle which touches the square at the corners and rule that only squares which are completely inside the circle are affected, 1 extra square is affected in each orthagonal direction. Said circle has a radius of 3.54 squares; the distance to the farthest corners of a square 3 squares in any orthagonal direction is 3.54 squares.

 

[Zinovia]

I am going to be running RAW first, then introducing house rules afterward.

Seriously, try the new rules at the table before you start monkeying with them - you never know what's going to grow on you until you've done it

The reason to house rule this right off the bat is that we have a large hex mat, and no square grid mats. Hence I want to convert to hexes because it saves me money on a new mat, our group is used to them, it eliminates the diagonal movement issue, and firehexes are better than firecubes. Actually I suppose the 3D equivalent would be a geodesic sphere.