I was a math/physics major, and the rounding isn't a big deal for me and my nerd friends.
Having said that, I think that the 1:1 movement is fine if you want to use it, and IF the 4E design was built around it you'll need to understand the complexity, depth, and range of the impacts to other things in 4E before you just jump to a different movement accounting system.
So I guess I have no real preference, until I start thinking about the role of obstacles, pits, etc. and Karinsdad's point about moving twice the distance in the same number of squares. The silliness factor does seem high...
I look at the first scenario - a and b right next to the obstacle X. It takes 4 movements to get from a to b.
Now imagine that a is a step down (not a depicted scenario, but like the second but with b still right above x)...I can get from a to b in four.
Then you move b up to get the second scenario, and it takes...four steps.
I still don't advocate changing 4e's rules, but looking at it step by step makes it seem quite silly.
I guess the silliness for me is a tactical one....4E seems to be much more heavily focused on combat maneuvers and stuff....and yet...
There is a tactical benefit to interposing the pillar between you and the foe in terms of movement, but only in certain arrangements that 'activate' the penalty of the obstacle.
Having said that, I think that the 1:1 movement is fine if you want to use it, and IF the 4E design was built around it you'll need to understand the complexity, depth, and range of the impacts to other things in 4E before you just jump to a different movement accounting system.
So I guess I have no real preference, until I start thinking about the role of obstacles, pits, etc. and Karinsdad's point about moving twice the distance in the same number of squares. The silliness factor does seem high...
I look at the first scenario - a and b right next to the obstacle X. It takes 4 movements to get from a to b.
Now imagine that a is a step down (not a depicted scenario, but like the second but with b still right above x)...I can get from a to b in four.
Then you move b up to get the second scenario, and it takes...four steps.
I still don't advocate changing 4e's rules, but looking at it step by step makes it seem quite silly.
I guess the silliness for me is a tactical one....4E seems to be much more heavily focused on combat maneuvers and stuff....and yet...
There is a tactical benefit to interposing the pillar between you and the foe in terms of movement, but only in certain arrangements that 'activate' the penalty of the obstacle.
Last edited:
2^0.5)] and that's fine. But to directly address the OP, don't knock it until you've tried it. Square fireballs may look silly but they let you scorch more orcs with slightly less mental effort, which for many, many groups is a benefit.
There should be a poll, 'cause it's all scientific and stuff.
