Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 4852421" data-attributes="member: 5122">Is that important?&nbsp; That these are cases that are pretty rare in the actual play of the game?As opposed, say, to the problems with 4E, which (in just one session) produced at least two situations in which two minis which were actually physically closest on the battlemat were not closest under 4E's rules.&nbsp; Is that important?&nbsp; That these are cases that are pretty common in the actual play of the game?&nbsp; (At least for characters who have important class features based on &quot;who's closest.&quot;&nbsp; Like my ranger.)&nbsp; It's important to me.Who said anybody claimed that?&nbsp; What I said was that math isn't on 1-1-1's side, in any way, so I'm amazed that people continue to argue it.&nbsp; And you seem very willing to do that.Change that to &quot;almost always more accurate, and always erring on the margin within a character's listed speed,&quot; and we've reached agreement.That's the second-biggest flaw in your argument that 3.5 &quot;shorts&quot; squares.&nbsp; (The first being that the situations in which it occurs require special circumstances, by your own admission.)&nbsp; When 1-2-1 &quot;shorts a square,&quot; the actual scale distance traveled is still within the character's speed.&nbsp; 1-1-1's errors allow actual scale distance traveled well beyond the character's speed.1-1-1 breaks the visual model of scale distances, within the &quot;1 space equals 5 feet&quot; rule that exists in both games.&nbsp; (Contrary to the claims of some folks in this thread.)&nbsp; 1-2-1 doesn't.But you're absolutely right.&nbsp; It's a matter of taste.&nbsp; As I said well upthread, the main reason I enjoy using battlemats is that I like an accurate scale depiction of my PC's environment.&nbsp; The failure of 1-1-1 to provide that, in various common circumstances, is the basis for all of my objections to the rule.&nbsp; If that's less important to a player, and ease of play is more important to the player, that's fine with me.&nbsp; I just wish that's where the argument would stop, because it's the only good argument for 1-1-1.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Wilder, post: 4852421, member: 5122"] Is that important? That these are cases that are pretty rare in the actual play of the game? As opposed, say, to the problems with 4E, which (in just one session) produced at least two situations in which two minis which were actually physically closest on the battlemat were not closest under 4E's rules. Is that important? That these are cases that are pretty common in the actual play of the game? (At least for characters who have important class features based on "who's closest." Like my ranger.) It's important to me. Who said anybody claimed that? What I said was that math isn't on 1-1-1's side, in any way, so I'm amazed that people continue to argue it. And you seem very willing to do that. Change that to "almost always more accurate, and always erring on the margin [I]within a character's listed speed[/I]," and we've reached agreement. That's the second-biggest flaw in your argument that 3.5 "shorts" squares. (The first being that the situations in which it occurs require special circumstances, by your own admission.) When 1-2-1 "shorts a square," the actual scale distance traveled is still within the character's speed. 1-1-1's errors allow actual scale distance traveled [I]well beyond[/I] the character's speed. 1-1-1 breaks the visual model of scale distances, within the "1 space equals 5 feet" rule that exists in [I]both games[/I]. (Contrary to the claims of some folks in this thread.) 1-2-1 doesn't. But you're absolutely right. It's a matter of taste. As I said well upthread, the main reason I enjoy using battlemats is that I like an accurate scale depiction of my PC's environment. The failure of 1-1-1 to provide that, in various common circumstances, is the basis for all of my objections to the rule. If that's less important to a player, and ease of play is more important to the player, that's fine with me. I just wish that's where the argument would stop, because it's the only good argument for 1-1-1. [/QUOTE]

Verification