I think he means that you could only run in a straight line, in 3e. Meaning that if you were on a track that went in an 0 shape, you couldn't turn.
"4E, as an anti-4E guy" (Session Two)
- Thread starter Jeff Wilder
- Start date
malraux
First Post
As Rechan said, you can only run in a straight line, no curves. You cannot pass over difficult terrain. You must be able to see the entire distance before you start. So running is really only possible in a flat outdoor environment, with little features. It comes up almost never.
Hussar
Legend
Rechan said:
Well, I suppose it depends on how long your track was. You couldn't dead run around the corners, but you certainly could on the straight aways.
But, in any case, I use run all the time in my games. The party was constantly running away from stuff, or running towards stuff quite often too. I suppose if you played in nothing but dungeon crawls or indoor environments with small rooms, you wouldn't see much running, but, I know I certainly did.
And that's where 1-2-1 breaks for me. When the change in rules was announced, I was playing, not DMing, so, I did a bit of an informal study on my group. Watched people moving, placing spell effects and whatnot. Every single session someone made mistakes. Including myself. Not every time, of course, but, it happened at least once a session (try to eyeball a 40 foot cone cast on the orthangonal).
So, to me, 1-2-1 isn't more accurate than 1-1-1, simply because it introduces too many mistakes at the table. It's fine if all anyone does is limited to about 30 feet or so. But, as soon as you start dealing with outdoor adventures, mounted combat, mounted flying combat, and large area spell effects, you just get too many mistakes for the added accuracy to matter.
I look at it like this. If 1-2-1 was as simple as people say it is, then why are there several template threads on Enworld and why is Steel Esquire still in business?
Nifft
Penguin Herder
Ugh, flying. I'd blocked that out because it was too painful, so we always just fudged it. Frankly, any non-trivial elevation difference made distance calculation annoying.
4e did flyers a great service by making everything cubes. Now you know that you have to be able to target both a critter's elevation and its offset in 2d space, but you can evaluate each dimension in isolation.
Cheers, -- N
Herremann the Wise
First Post
1-2-1 is simple for some but not for all - thus the template threads etc.
For large scale interactions, we generally draw a map or some sort of schematic and say "it will take the troop of orcs 8 rounds to get to the castle wall" or some sort of meta scale to speed things up. When we can go back to battlemap scale we do.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
Hussar
Legend
Yeah, but Herriman, I'm not even talking about that kind of ranges where it would take 8 rounds to arrive. Heck, a bow has a range of several hundred feet. How many spells have a range of Long? ((One of my players in a naval campaign gathered up the resources to get an Enlarged wand of Fireballs (which gives it a range of 1360 feet!) 
))
But, even in a reasonable outdoor encounter, you could have two sides starting 100 feet apart. That's not all that far really. Thirty-five yards? That's spitting distance. But, now we're into some serious calculations when range comes up. That's a whole lot of counting and recounting.
I will guarantee you that 1-1-1 is simple for all.
)) But, even in a reasonable outdoor encounter, you could have two sides starting 100 feet apart. That's not all that far really. Thirty-five yards? That's spitting distance. But, now we're into some serious calculations when range comes up. That's a whole lot of counting and recounting.
I will guarantee you that 1-1-1 is simple for all.
