Search results

It is the DM's world, and he draws the dungeon and aligns the grid as he sees fit (once, of course. he can't change it back) ainatan's DM has to be a lame one, if he would allow him to rotate the grid however he wants. And his party would be have to get a new DM if he changes the grid each time...

Oh... missed that. Heck, I'll just house-rule it back to sanity.

Are you even reading the other guys in this thread? The rule is: -Every step you take in any direction, even diagonals, is worth 1 square of movement. Not: -The diagonals of the squares are just as long as their sides It is about MOVEMENT SPEED! Not about SPACE! I even believe we wont have...

For the love of God!!!! there's NO FACING IN d20 system!!!!! Not in 3e and not in 4e!!!!!!

You can't move 10 feet on a diagonal in 4th edition either, you move 2 SQUARES, that are about 14 feet. Theres NO WAY to move 10 feet diagonaly in a 5' grid.

If I were thw wizard, that is, a player. I couldn't decide how the grid is placed. Its the DM's call. I still don't like the 1:1:1:1: rule. I'll go with hexes or 1.5 diagonals. I am, like you, against 1:1:1:1, but your reasoning is ruining our case.

The rules in 4e don't talk about feet. They talk about squares. When they say that you can move 6 squares diagonaly to reach a monster they are not saying that the monster is 30ft appart. He probabbly is 44 ft appart, but in the tactical rules, you are allowed to move "faster" diagonaly to make...

The guy that propposed this rule already stated that a 5' step ia always posible in any direction. AND when you attack diagonaly, the other guy is noy 5ft away. He is not 3 distance points away he is about 2.5' away from you (he is on the center of the square, not at farthest corner)

The problem is not "who wins" with this system. It is about believability. The fights scene would look pretty wierd with all PCs and monsters moving in zig-zag diagonal paths, avoiding AoO's and dodging Firecubes.

This is proof!!!! This IS the strongest supporting example I've seen. This'll be my "anti-diagonal-1=1" flag! I'd love to sig this

Now the area of effect of my 20ft radius Fireball will be SQUARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's nonsense I prefer any of the 3.x methods (Eventhough I like almost everything from 4th, btw)

This is Natural 18 Wisdom. We (the DMs) are the ones who tell the story. We are not computers that help everything resolve, we're not calculators. We tell a story. When that story involves our players, we have to be fair and play by the rules. If not, we decide what happens. We decide that...

Is it worth taking some cavalier levels later on? (I'm a Level 5 Knight right now)

I think I know the awaswer: Maybe it is so that you don't get a friggin awsome +5 weapon each time you beat something powerful at high levels.

There's no problem with 10x10 ft. horses because you have to remember that creatures in the battle grid are not standing there waiting motionless for their turn to attack; they are dodging, turning arround, swinging and feinting all the time. They sort of need that area to do all this things...

I like this! 3 feats to get TWF, but I keep my shield bonus and don't need 15 DEX! I will rock on horseback AND on foot!

Hey there! I'm building a Human Knight for a 3.5 Campaign and I was wondering what feats (other than the mounted combat ones) would be better for this character. I intend to play a sword and board guy (longsword plus heavy shield) Any suggestions? I was thinking abbout cleave (and power attack)

I think it should be automatic to Clerics and Wizards (maybe Rogues) It really depends on Background and it would be cool if we could pick "background traits" (like in Iron Heroes) with really minor abilities (they are NOT feats) and one of them (a very popular one) could be "literacy".

They should have broght Lockwood to re-design the new Green. The new one looks really, really bad.

You know? He actually looks more cartoony than his Simpsonized version avatar.