1.5 instead of 1-2-1?

[jeffh]

Do what you will, but I'm fairly certain that houseruling 1-2-1 back in will have ramifications to overall balance.

I'm not outright saying this is wrong, but I haven't seen any real evidence yet that it's right, either. Could you perhaps be more specific about what these alleged ramifications are? I assume they revolve around powers like Positioning Strike, but I fail to see how they are meaningfully impacted.

 

[Evanta]

Anyone with actual 4e experience able to judge whether hexes or offset squares would function without the problems 1-2-1-2 apparently will cause the system?

I play with descent. It's a 1-1-1 system 'RPG-lite', with heavy emphasis on tactical combat.
http://boardgamegeek.com/game/22361

Basically characters there have a base movement speed of 3-5, each turn you can choose to do 2 attacks, attack and move, or move twice your speed. You can expend a stat called fatigue to move further if neccessary.

It's all right seriously for 1-1-1, when the characters are moving only 3-5 squares a turn. But when they go full run and zig zag around all the obstacles and still reach at the same time as if they had run straight, it does affect the game a lot.

If you read the forums, it kinda broke the game, people who play to win will ignore the monsters and roadblocks and just run straight to the treasure first, which is counter-intuitive to what usually happens.

 

[Kaisoku]

In every single game I've played in, or run, we've always just sat at the table and talked it out. No minis or grid maps. Maybe I'm old school... but when joining a brand new group, they did the same.

When playing the game without a map, moving "around" things cost more movement than moving in a straight line. If I were to put a "method" on how we verbally do it, it's more like using a bit of string on a map to indicate where you are going. Quite simply, we don't count squares and rarely even feet.. we just say "my movement is X, can I get into position y" and the DM says "Yes/No/Attack of Opportunity/etc".

Every once in a while, we pull out the map or draw a quick grid to work out some heavy tactical stuff.


If we had to switch to 1 square diagonals, our verbiage would no longer match what the game rules dictate. There would be a disconnect between our "real world representation" and the abstraction. Firecubes and "round squares" would no longer match how we describe our characters moving around the physical virtual world.

This wouldn't be a problem, but now I hear that there's rammifications with certain Powers and Abilities that may cause a problem if you don't have a 1 square diagonal.


Maybe we can just play it that changing direction costs more movement, but otherwise a straight diagonal is like shifting the "grid" so that you are basically moving forward? So you can move 1-1-1 in a straight line in any direction, and it costs an extra 1 square whenever you turn?
Basically that would be how we've been playing it in our "fast and loose" descriptions...