Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7023133" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>No, they're jargon, which makes a difference when you're reading the book for entertainment or atmosphere, but not when you're reading it as a reference manual (which is how the 4e core rule books tended to be written) - of course as jargon goes, the 5' square as used in 2e C&T, 3.x/PF, 4e, & the 5e tactical module, can also be simply a unit of measure equal to 5' - not a hard number to work with whether you're multiplying by 5 to get feet, or dividing by 5 to get squares. </p><p>But, yes, IMHO, squares & cubes are very intuitive & easy to visualize when you don't have the luxury of a play surface. 4e's treatment of AEs as squares rather than blasts & circles & spreads & cylinders &c, was a significant simplification that way. And it's counting of distance was also very simple. </p><p></p><p>[sblock]For instance, say you want to hit an enemy atop a 20' wall that's 45' away with a spell that has a 50' range. Using feet, you break out the Pythagorean theorem, and sqrt(400 + 2025) = 49.25 ooh, just within range! good thing we didn't just eyeball it. OTOH, if you pull out the concept of counting in 5' squares, you simplify it. You don't /need/ a grid, you just work with the numbers 4 and 9 instead of 20 and 45. For instance, in the 3.5 square-counting convention, you count every-other diagonal (such as moving 'up' ) as 10' instead of 5', so as you count distance towards the top of that 20' wall, you have to count 4 diagonal squares 'up,' adding 10' to the distance so our 3.5 estimate of range would be 55' (by the RAW). You do give up a little precision for that simplification. 5e, you could go with feet, or you could adapt the optional grid rules, which work just like 3.5s, except the first diagonal counts as 10', not the second (which doesn't matter in this case, but would if it were a 15' or 25' wall). 4e just counts diagonals as one square, a further simplification, so when you look at range & elevation, the total distance is simply the greater of the two: in this case, 45'. (Oh, and if it were 1e, there'd be one burning question we'd need to know, first: is that wall out in a field, or in a cavern, because a spell with a "50' range" is really a spell with a 5" range, to scale, and that scale would be different in each case.) </p><p></p><p>Then there's areas. 4e over-simplified all areas into square/cube approximations (both burst and blast net you such areas - really, it could have been simplified into just 'area,' but there are some minor difference that I guess they thought were worth preserving). The sanity-blasting effects of Pi=4 on certain sorts of gamers probably shouldn't be made of light of, but, even net of the cost of their therapy, I think 4e gained a good deal in the simplicity department with that move. Say you want blast a band of Kobolds that are conveniently lined up well within range of a spell that affects a 10' radius. Ideally, you'd center the spell on the center of the line, and catch every kobold to 10' on either side. Unfortunately, for purposes of making this example difficult, there's also an ally you don't want to catch in the spell within 10' of that ideal target point, so you have to back it off to hit 5' behind them. Now, how many kobolds do you catch on the chord 5' from the center of a 20' diameter sphere? Simple: sqrt(100 - 75) = 8.66, or, at least, how many stand side-by-side in a line that length. But, 3.5 simplifies it for you using squares (and doesn't have small creatures occupy smaller squares) and official RAW templates of various radii, in the case of a 10' radius, centered (and 'centered' means on a corner, not a square in 3.5) 5' behind a line of kobolds affects 2 squares - only two kobolds. 4e also simplifies it using squares, but moreso, by making 10' radius spell in to a burst 1 (a 15' square) (a result of centering on squares rather than corners, again, for the sake of simplicity). A 15' square centered 5' behind a line of kobolds, of course, affects exactly as many as one centered on them, 3.</p><p></p><p>Of course, that doesn't make any edition of D&D /good/ for running TotM. If they didn't use scale inches or squares they used in-world feet, all demanding excessive precision when not working with a play surface. No, for TotM, you want a system like 13A, where ranges and areas are expressed in handy, proximate terms like 'Close.' That spell you're trying to blast kobolds with might affect 1d4 close enemies, for instance - no calculation or visualization of cubes required. Just ask the DM if the Kobolds are 'close,' roll that d4 and blast 'em. [/sblock]</p><p> </p><p> Oh, I played Champions! enough to have a healthy appreciation for hexes. The square vs hex debate's an old one. Not an important one, IMHO, but some folks have a strong preference. :shrug:</p><p></p><p> 1e had non-combat resolutions that could involve d% or d6 rolls, instead of d20, so there's that. Actually, I think it more often used d% for OOC, the Thief's special abilities, for instance. 3e had contested checks (that's technically two d20 rolls) and 'complex skill checks' (which was just repeating the same roll several times to complete the task). 4e added Skill Challenges and group checks. 5e retained contested and group checks. No question that Skill Challenges were (eventually) the most signficant and full-party-involving of those more-than-a-single-d20-roll examples, of course.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7023133, member: 996"] No, they're jargon, which makes a difference when you're reading the book for entertainment or atmosphere, but not when you're reading it as a reference manual (which is how the 4e core rule books tended to be written) - of course as jargon goes, the 5' square as used in 2e C&T, 3.x/PF, 4e, & the 5e tactical module, can also be simply a unit of measure equal to 5' - not a hard number to work with whether you're multiplying by 5 to get feet, or dividing by 5 to get squares. But, yes, IMHO, squares & cubes are very intuitive & easy to visualize when you don't have the luxury of a play surface. 4e's treatment of AEs as squares rather than blasts & circles & spreads & cylinders &c, was a significant simplification that way. And it's counting of distance was also very simple. [sblock]For instance, say you want to hit an enemy atop a 20' wall that's 45' away with a spell that has a 50' range. Using feet, you break out the Pythagorean theorem, and sqrt(400 + 2025) = 49.25 ooh, just within range! good thing we didn't just eyeball it. OTOH, if you pull out the concept of counting in 5' squares, you simplify it. You don't /need/ a grid, you just work with the numbers 4 and 9 instead of 20 and 45. For instance, in the 3.5 square-counting convention, you count every-other diagonal (such as moving 'up' ) as 10' instead of 5', so as you count distance towards the top of that 20' wall, you have to count 4 diagonal squares 'up,' adding 10' to the distance so our 3.5 estimate of range would be 55' (by the RAW). You do give up a little precision for that simplification. 5e, you could go with feet, or you could adapt the optional grid rules, which work just like 3.5s, except the first diagonal counts as 10', not the second (which doesn't matter in this case, but would if it were a 15' or 25' wall). 4e just counts diagonals as one square, a further simplification, so when you look at range & elevation, the total distance is simply the greater of the two: in this case, 45'. (Oh, and if it were 1e, there'd be one burning question we'd need to know, first: is that wall out in a field, or in a cavern, because a spell with a "50' range" is really a spell with a 5" range, to scale, and that scale would be different in each case.) Then there's areas. 4e over-simplified all areas into square/cube approximations (both burst and blast net you such areas - really, it could have been simplified into just 'area,' but there are some minor difference that I guess they thought were worth preserving). The sanity-blasting effects of Pi=4 on certain sorts of gamers probably shouldn't be made of light of, but, even net of the cost of their therapy, I think 4e gained a good deal in the simplicity department with that move. Say you want blast a band of Kobolds that are conveniently lined up well within range of a spell that affects a 10' radius. Ideally, you'd center the spell on the center of the line, and catch every kobold to 10' on either side. Unfortunately, for purposes of making this example difficult, there's also an ally you don't want to catch in the spell within 10' of that ideal target point, so you have to back it off to hit 5' behind them. Now, how many kobolds do you catch on the chord 5' from the center of a 20' diameter sphere? Simple: sqrt(100 - 75) = 8.66, or, at least, how many stand side-by-side in a line that length. But, 3.5 simplifies it for you using squares (and doesn't have small creatures occupy smaller squares) and official RAW templates of various radii, in the case of a 10' radius, centered (and 'centered' means on a corner, not a square in 3.5) 5' behind a line of kobolds affects 2 squares - only two kobolds. 4e also simplifies it using squares, but moreso, by making 10' radius spell in to a burst 1 (a 15' square) (a result of centering on squares rather than corners, again, for the sake of simplicity). A 15' square centered 5' behind a line of kobolds, of course, affects exactly as many as one centered on them, 3. Of course, that doesn't make any edition of D&D /good/ for running TotM. If they didn't use scale inches or squares they used in-world feet, all demanding excessive precision when not working with a play surface. No, for TotM, you want a system like 13A, where ranges and areas are expressed in handy, proximate terms like 'Close.' That spell you're trying to blast kobolds with might affect 1d4 close enemies, for instance - no calculation or visualization of cubes required. Just ask the DM if the Kobolds are 'close,' roll that d4 and blast 'em. [/sblock] Oh, I played Champions! enough to have a healthy appreciation for hexes. The square vs hex debate's an old one. Not an important one, IMHO, but some folks have a strong preference. :shrug: 1e had non-combat resolutions that could involve d% or d6 rolls, instead of d20, so there's that. Actually, I think it more often used d% for OOC, the Thief's special abilities, for instance. 3e had contested checks (that's technically two d20 rolls) and 'complex skill checks' (which was just repeating the same roll several times to complete the task). 4e added Skill Challenges and group checks. 5e retained contested and group checks. No question that Skill Challenges were (eventually) the most signficant and full-party-involving of those more-than-a-single-d20-roll examples, of course. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition
Top