Diagonal Measuring

[Argyle King]

In case it wasn't clear, that was meant to be somewhat tongue in cheek.

But, if you want the accuracy of tape measures, why then ignore the accuracy when determining LOS and flanking?

And, let's not forget speed of play as well. If you are going to get into tape measures and the like, it does slow play down a lot, unless you are playing with people who are used to it. It's bad enough with hamfisted players bumping minis on a grid, add in tools and it's almost as bad as cats on the table.

I can't speak for others, but I don't ignore that accuracy when determining LOS, and it's really not any different to determine LOS. The main difference is that you don't use the three line rule since you're no longer using a grid, and that rule doesn't make sense anymore. Determine where the target is in relation to the attackers ability to see. If something is partially blocked, it has cover. If the attacker cannot see the target, the attack cannot see the target; just as it would be with a grid.

As for Flanking, the definition of that term is highly dependent upon what game I am playing. However, usually; for me, flanking means either being to the side of the target (giving them a small penalty to their defenses) or behind the target (giving them a significant penalty to their defenses... even if they are aware of the attack.) That does not change without a grid.

As for speed? I've actually seen an increase in speed as people have become more comfortable playing without the grid. After a few sessions, many of the people I play with had become capable of eyeballing a lot of things. Still, for ease of play, I did create a few shape templates for some of the more common area attack shapes and sizes.

Also, a good rule of finger is that the distance from the first line on your index finger to the tip of your finger is roughly an inch. Granted, this doesn't work for everyone as not everyone is built the same way, but it's a quick rule that I learned during wood shop many years ago. It can be applied to tabletop gaming for a quick close-enough measurement for when you don't want to break out sticks or ribbons or rulers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Again, I would hardly call OGRE/G.E.V. a highly accurate system for miniature combat. Loved the game, but, let's be honest, those LOS rules are abstract and about as accurate as measuring corner to corner.

Of course, to get more accuracy, you'd actually need to scale models. Which virtually none of the WOTC ones actually are. They're usually quite a bit too tall.

The point was not whether OGRE/G.E.V. was a bastion of accuracy, but rather that LoS is largely independent of the grid used (as illustrated by the gridless battlesuit-level game* in the line), AND the grid of choice is immaterial to the accuracy of using tape measurers for distance. On a hex map, a square pattern, a matrix of dots or just using terrain, 1" = 1" = 1" = 1".




* Edit: finally recalled the game's name- imaginatively, it was called Battlesuit.

Here's a link to it, and the second one is to a picture of it's map:
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3271/battlesuit
http://boardgamegeek.com/image/69346/battlesuit

 

[Jhaelen]

And, let's not forget speed of play as well. If you are going to get into tape measures and the like, it does slow play down a lot, unless you are playing with people who are used to it. It's bad enough with hamfisted players bumping minis on a grid, add in tools and it's almost as bad as cats on the table.

Indeed!

We played DDM 1.0 for a short while and it was awfully slow. Both the 1-2-1-2 rule and determining line of sight made the game all but unplayable for us. The 2.0 rules based on the initial 4e design looked much better but we never got around to use them any more.

I've been wondering if it might not perhaps be better to use a more abstract system, similar to the one used in the Warhammer 3 RPG, which afaik only cares about relative distances. Such systems seemed to work well in computer rpgs, too. Abstracting things like cover away into a bunch of modifiers (if needed) should accelerate gameplay quite a bit.

 

[Hussar]

I can't speak for others, but I don't ignore that accuracy when determining LOS, and it's really not any different to determine LOS. The main difference is that you don't use the three line rule since you're no longer using a grid, and that rule doesn't make sense anymore. Determine where the target is in relation to the attackers ability to see. If something is partially blocked, it has cover. If the attacker cannot see the target, the attack cannot see the target; just as it would be with a grid.

As for Flanking, the definition of that term is highly dependent upon what game I am playing. However, usually; for me, flanking means either being to the side of the target (giving them a small penalty to their defenses) or behind the target (giving them a significant penalty to their defenses... even if they are aware of the attack.) That does not change without a grid.

As for speed? I've actually seen an increase in speed as people have become more comfortable playing without the grid. After a few sessions, many of the people I play with had become capable of eyeballing a lot of things. Still, for ease of play, I did create a few shape templates for some of the more common area attack shapes and sizes.

Also, a good rule of finger is that the distance from the first line on your index finger to the tip of your finger is roughly an inch. Granted, this doesn't work for everyone as not everyone is built the same way, but it's a quick rule that I learned during wood shop many years ago. It can be applied to tabletop gaming for a quick close-enough measurement for when you don't want to break out sticks or ribbons or rulers.

So, you don't ignore accuracy when determining LOS, but, you have no problems with "it's close enough" when determining distances.

Again, why bother going with a system that increases accuracy if you're just going to ignore the accuracy gains by using rough measurements?

 

[billd91]

So, you don't ignore accuracy when determining LOS, but, you have no problems with "it's close enough" when determining distances.

Again, why bother going with a system that increases accuracy if you're just going to ignore the accuracy gains by using rough measurements?

Because it's usually a lot more important to determine if you have a LOS to something than to care if the range is off by 5 to 10 feet?

 

[Hussar]

Because it's usually a lot more important to determine if you have a LOS to something than to care if the range is off by 5 to 10 feet?

Ok, fair enough.

Then why the large amount of protestation about 1-1-1? If it doesn't matter if range is off by 5-10 feet, then 1-1-1 shouldn't be a problem for anyone.

And, let's be honest here, LOS is a lot more imporant in a game like Battlesuit or Battletech where nearly every weapon is a ranged one. In D&D, most combat is melee combat. LOS suddenly becomes a lot less important when the majority of fighting is done within the confines of what you can reach.

But, then determining whether something is 5 feet or 10 feet away from you becomes a LOT more important.

 

[Argyle King]

So, you don't ignore accuracy when determining LOS, but, you have no problems with "it's close enough" when determining distances.

Again, why bother going with a system that increases accuracy if you're just going to ignore the accuracy gains by using rough measurements?

The difference is so small over short distances to be generally below the granularity scale of most games I play; as such, it has no impact on play.


Edit: Also, I play with other people. Personally, I would prefer the accuracy in spite of the lack of impact. However, it is a quick compromise to keep the game moving and keep other members of the group happier.


I will also add that while melee is often a big part of D&D, ranged attacks are also important. Many spellcasters, bow rangers, and various other classes use primarily ranged attacks.