Search results

More acceptance of the 1:1 diagonal... With all the movement effects (push, slide,etc) that have been alluded to for 4E, they kind of have to use 1:1. That way a model can be pushed/pulled in a diagonal. No, that's not the most convincing argument, and yes, there are ways to do it with more...

Slaadi have a place in 4E per W&M. There's also a drawing of the Mountain Giant reconcept in W&M. In the style of all the other mini concept art for 4E that is making its appearance in recent sets like Desert of Desolation and Dungeons of Dread. My money is that the Mountain Giant is in the MM...

I think 4E *is* Iron Heroes. WotC saw what Mearls dreamed up, while still sticking to most of the 3.5 conventions, and was impressed. Impressed enough that they hired him and handed him their baby. I love Iron Heroes. But I don't think its worth updating... 4E is the update. It served its...

:eek: Uh-oh :eek:

I'm starting to see merit in the 1:1 scheme, but part of my brain still refuses to accept it! Maybe it is the true test of whether I am 'in it for the game' as I say I am, or if I am actually a slave to simulation.

When taking damage of that type, they take that much more. So, Vulnerable 10 radiant means that the creature takes +10 damage from any attack of that type. Source: DDM 2.0 rules

Since I started this thread, I feel obliged to update my current thoughts. I championed the method of 1.5 diagonals, and I also saw merit in the '1st diagonal is 2, the rest are 1' houserule, but there is one important failing of both of these. I agree with Shoe that, at the beginning of a...

I didn't vote because my option wasn't there. My write in is: diagonals are 1.5 each.

A couple things: 1) DDM 2.0 has cones, but in the radio blog Shoe stated there are no cone effects in the PHB. I'm just pointing that out because I take that to mean that we won't see the new DDM cones in 4E, at least as first. 2) The DDM cones are part of my issue with the 1:1 diagonals...

non-magic Rangers = happiness and WIN! :)

Now this is genius! It strikes a fine balance, effectively enhancing play with a simpler system than 1-2-1-2, while still being reasonably close to geometry as we know it. DMShoe... if it's not too late, think about this one. (BTW, thanks for your posts and thoughts. I appreciate your...

This. This right here is what I just can't swallow. In my OP, I thought my concern was 'they're making it too easy, at an awful expense.' If you are playing D&D, being expected to count 1-2-1-2 or 1.5,3,4.5,6 really isn't a high expectation or too much to ask. My argument focused on the 'no, it...

Thanks for the responses guys. I certainly didn't expect so many people to be 'for' the new measuring. I do consider myself firmly in the 'it's a game, not a simulation' camp, I just didn't expect so many, 'yes, it really does speed up play' comments. Is it my preferred solution? No. But...

This has been stewing in my brain since the DDM2.0 rules release a few weeks ago, but after listening to the most recent podcast tonight, I feel compelled to speak up. As most now know, in DDM 2.0 diagonal movement only costs one square. It is billed as easier and faster. They also made a point...

I think the playtest reports show that the threat of PC death is very real. But (thankfully) it appears that the threat of random-death has been greatly diminished. If a PC dies in 4E, it's most likely because the player made more than one poor decision and passed up at least one opportunity to...

I love Scott Rouse! :D 4E... It's on like Donkey Kong!

I'm certain we'll se some of the old classics reimagined, but I'm in no rush for them. I hope they take their time getting them out because I don't want them rushed in any way.

Pardon me for not wading through 15 pages before making an injection... I have no problem with Irresistible Command, I just don't think it should be used by default. Certainly level 21 legion devil legionaries and level 22 war devils can dish out more damage over the course of a fight than a...

Michelle, Thanks for the response. The written word is a dangerous thing, and perhaps I took your statement about using your power to include Sigil more literally than I should have. Likewise, I fear the tone of my post was harsher than intended. Please accept my apology for both. I still hold...

Most likely a formatting error. Should be vs. DEF or Vs. Def (X). Just like 'sonic' damage was renamed to thunder, but the Angel of Vengence's Word of Truth states sonic damage.