Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6259448" data-attributes="member: 22779">I have to admit that I take a pragmatic view on this sort of thing.&nbsp; How often is this actually going to matter?&nbsp; The only time this will come up is when a small character actually moves six squares instead of five.How often is this going to come up?&nbsp; Is it going to come up so often that the difference is notable, or is it more likely that groups are like Henry's above and forget the niggling details and get the rule wrong often enough that user error gives you more inaccuracy than the actual rule gains?aTo me, this is like the 1<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/1.gif"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":1:" title="One&nbsp; &nbsp; :1:" data-shortname=":1:" />1 counting in 4e.&nbsp; Yes, I know, absolutely, that it is less accurate to do it this way.&nbsp; Totally agree.&nbsp; But, the gains in accuracy for 1<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/2.gif"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":2:" title="Two&nbsp; &nbsp; :2:" data-shortname=":2:" />1 were, in my experience anyway, pretty much completely lost by the user errors.&nbsp; After they announced the 1<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/1.gif"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":1:" title="One&nbsp; &nbsp; :1:" data-shortname=":1:" />1 counting for 4e, I actually started keeping a record of how often we counted wrong using 1<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/2.gif"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":2:" title="Two&nbsp; &nbsp; :2:" data-shortname=":2:" />1 and it was pretty much every single round of combat.&nbsp; Certainly error occurred every single combat at the very least.&nbsp; The second someone ran, or moved their full movement even, or counted range or area of effect, we had errors.&nbsp; So, what's the point of having this great, accurate rule if it gets applied incorrectly so often?&nbsp; And I look at this the same way.&nbsp; Yes, I know that YOUR group is a paragon of calculation and never, ever makes a mistake when counting squares, but, I know that my group certainly isn't and making a single ruling would mean that while we lose a bit of accuracy, overall, it's not going to have any effect on the game for us.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6259448, member: 22779"] I have to admit that I take a pragmatic view on this sort of thing. How often is this actually going to matter? The only time this will come up is when a small character actually moves six squares instead of five. How often is this going to come up? Is it going to come up so often that the difference is notable, or is it more likely that groups are like Henry's above and forget the niggling details and get the rule wrong often enough that user error gives you more inaccuracy than the actual rule gains?a To me, this is like the 1:1:1 counting in 4e. Yes, I know, absolutely, that it is less accurate to do it this way. Totally agree. But, the gains in accuracy for 1:2:1 were, in my experience anyway, pretty much completely lost by the user errors. After they announced the 1:1:1 counting for 4e, I actually started keeping a record of how often we counted wrong using 1:2:1 and it was pretty much every single round of combat. Certainly error occurred every single combat at the very least. The second someone ran, or moved their full movement even, or counted range or area of effect, we had errors. So, what's the point of having this great, accurate rule if it gets applied incorrectly so often? And I look at this the same way. Yes, I know that YOUR group is a paragon of calculation and never, ever makes a mistake when counting squares, but, I know that my group certainly isn't and making a single ruling would mean that while we lose a bit of accuracy, overall, it's not going to have any effect on the game for us. [/QUOTE]

Verification