1 square Diagonal Movement: Reaction from Players

[Thyrwyn]

Many of the responses have focused on how easy/hard/necessary/annoying the rule was to use when moving "your" mini. This one, with which I disagree, got some notice:

Players will like it until they are hosed by a monster than runs around the fighter straight toward the mage without losing any movement.

I would argue that "players" (as in all of those playing the game) are a lot less likely to be hosed by any creature's movement because it is much easier to tell at a glance how far any creature (your own included) can move.

 

[Steely Dan]

1.) Just give them the 4E Pit Fiends special ability that allows him to make two attacks with a single standard action. That seemed to me as if it was the 4E approach to multiple attacks per round.


2.) The difficult question is now how to fix the balance for warriors again (and how to do so in a simple and straightforward manner). Maybe the Star Wars approach of adding 1/2 level to damage? (Is that enough?)

1.) Okay, I like that, but what about things like a vrock:

Full Attack: 2 claws +15 melee (2d6+6) and bite +13 melee (1d8+3) and 2 talons +13 melee (1d6+3)

Or Marilith:

Full Attackrimary longsword +25/+20/+15/+10 melee (2d6+9/19–20) and 5 longswords +25 melee (2d6+4/19–20) and tail slap +22 melee (4d6+4); or 6 slams +24 melee (1d8+9) and tail slap +22 melee (4d6+4)

Should they be able to make all those attacks as a standard action?




2.) That exactly what we've implemented, and 2 x Str bonus to damage when wielding a weapon two-handed, and 1 x Str bonus for off-hand damage, but check out these variants I've compiled to replace iterative attacks:


Variant I: Multiply base weapon damage by the number of attacks the character would have under the standard system (BAB +11 = base weapon damage x 3 etc).

Variant II: Add BAB bonus to damage (BAB +11 = add +11 to damage).

Variant III: Add BAB and iterative bonus to damage (BAB +11 = add +11, +6, and +1 to damage).

Variant IV: Trade a Move action for an additional attack (at full BAB), or to get full array of attacks in the case of monsters.

Variant V: Every character gets 3 actions a round: Standard, Move, and Swift. You may sacrifice a Move action for an Attack action (a sub-category of Standard so you still can’t cast/manifest 2 spells/powers a round). And you may sacrifice a Move or Standard action for an additional Swift action.

Variant VI:

-If your BAB is +1 or greater you may make 1 attack as standard action
-If your BAB is +6 or greater you may make 2 attacks as a full attack action, but you get a -2 penalty on all attacks
-If your BAB is +11 or higher you may make 3 attacks as a full attack action, but you get a -4 on all attacks, or you may make 2 attacks as a standard action but you get a -4 on all attacks.
-If your BAB is +16 or higher you can make 4 attacks as a full attack action, but you get a -6 on all attacks.

Remember, even if you BAB is +16 you can still choose the option to make 2 attacks as a full attack but at -2.

 

[HeinorNY]

"If it isn't broken don't fix it."

I know I read it somewhere, but I can't remember where.

 

[Delta]

I'd be perfectly happy with a system that uses just d6 and d20, for example.

I must admit, that's one of the nice things about white-box OD&D.

 

[Delta]

I would argue that "players" (as in all of those playing the game) are a lot less likely to be hosed by any creature's movement because it is much easier to tell at a glance how far any creature (your own included) can move.

The point isn't that they're surprised or anything like that. The point is under the old rules, one or two fighters can block a line of approach. Under the new rules, they can't.

 

[Keenath]

While diagonals may count 1 for movement, I think shapes will still use the same designs as always. In other words, a fireball won't be a square, it'll be a pixellated circle. I don't think anyone calculates fireballs on the fly anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

 

[Thyrwyn]

The point isn't that they're surprised or anything like that. The point is under the old rules, one or two fighters can block a line of approach. Under the new rules, they can't.

Allow me to rephrase: "In the old rules, in certain situations, one or two fighters could block a line of approach; in the new rules, in those same situations they can't."

Several points:
1) This is no more relevant than saying that "in the old rules, high level characters got iterative attacks, in the new rules the don't." New rules, new tactics. In the new rules, it will be much easier for every one to see where creatures can move and will be able to prepare and respond accordingly. I concede that they will have to prepare and respond differently.
2) Since we have not seen the new rules for (specifically) Fighters or (in general) AoOs, Shifting, reach weapons. . . or any of the other 99% of the applicable rules, I think it premature to say that 1 or 2 Fighters will be unable to block a line of approach. Given that we have been told that their role will involve doing just that, wouldn't it make more sense to wait and see?

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Their opinon wont matter much

I do not think they will care much, but I expect they would think the rule stupid. However, their opinions wont matter for 2 reasons.

1) I run the game, and squares make life easier for me when laying out interior areas.

2) We use lengths of string to determine diagonal movement / range. For movement, we either use the 1-2-1 system, if only moving 1 or 2 diagonals, otherwise we use either string, or the length of a mechanical pencil (which works out to 6 squares).

The squares mostly only matter for determining AoO, Flanking, and cover / line of sight.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Asmor]

Just give them the 4E Pit Fiends special ability that allows him to make two attacks with a single standard action. That seemed to me as if it was the 4E approach to multiple attacks per round.

The difficult question is now how to fix the balance for warriors again (and how to do so in a simple and straightforward manner). Maybe the Star Wars approach of adding 1/2 level to damage? (Is that enough?)

What if you let anyone make a full attack as a standard action, but if they do they don't get a standard action next round?

 

[Wiseblood]

I think 1-1-1 diagonal is just as undesireable as 1-2-1. However with the 1-1-1 mode You might just be able to believe that a rogue evaded that stuff in a five foot square. I greatly prefer hexes as a player and a DM.

When I look at hexes I can see where straight lines would lay. Being skilled at drawing I can put the lines where I want them. I can understand if this is a problem for some though. With regard to which squares exist and which ones do not (because of overlaying a straight line on the zigzag) is easy enough also, 1/2 or more counts as a hex.

When it comes to area of effect spells. I really hate the pixelated circles. When players lay a fireball like it was a piece in tetris (counting and re drawing is a PITA) I think in the future I'll just ask them to draw a circle where the FB went off much faster and tidier. and as long as no target is more than 40' any other everything will work out fine.