House Rules: Using circular templates weaken classes?

[Final Attack]

I plan to implement 2 house rules in 4th. First is 1-2-1-2, and second is making burst effects circular.
I want to take a holistic approach to these changes though. Using a circular template to cover squares will result in a loss of squares affected, thus weakening the overall effect of the spell.

I think burst one will result in the loss of 4 squares on the corners, and burst 2 is a loss of 12 squares. I’m very hesitant about weakening classes unless I want to discourage players from playing them. I don’t want to discourage anything atm.

Maybe I’m making too much of a big deal out of visualisation Vs playability, but it does nag me.

I don’t like firecubes, and but I’m not really keen on weakening caster classes.

 

[DandD]

Instead of using grids, I'd rather suggest to use a measuring tape for letting your game avatars walking around, like in Warhammer, if you absolutely have to re-introduce the 1-2-1-2-step costs and are using miniatures in the first place. It's really easier this way, and goes much smoother if you want to use circular blast templates.

 

[Imban]

I plan to implement 2 house rules in 4th. First is 1-2-1-2, and second is making burst effects circular.
I want to take a holistic approach to these changes though. Using a circular template to cover squares will result in a loss of squares affected, thus weakening the overall effect of the spell.

I think burst one will result in the loss of 4 squares on the corners, and burst 2 is a loss of 12 squares. I’m very hesitant about weakening classes unless I want to discourage players from playing them. I don’t want to discourage anything atm.

Maybe I’m making too much of a big deal out of visualisation Vs playability, but it does nag me.

I don’t like firecubes, and but I’m not really keen on weakening caster classes.

It weakens anything that uses burst attacks, period. Which, uh, includes a lot of monsters. I don't think it should be a problem, though, as long as you change it and 1-2-1-2 movement together, so that it's not faster to step out of any and all rains and auras on a diagonal.

 

[FadedC]

My conjurer hated the 1-2-1-2 rule. It meant there was almost always a short cut to escape his stinking cloud, solid fog, evard's black tentacles etc. It really hurt him a lot.

Most classes though are not effected by it all that much.

 

[Voss]

Alternately, you could use hexes. They work pretty well with 4e.

 

[Harshax]

I plan to implement 2 house rules in 4th. First is 1-2-1-2, and second is making burst effects circular.

Why don't you just change squares to inches

That way you don't have to remember 1-2-1-2, and you'll also dispense with square cones, and balls.

 

[Lanefan]

Why don't you just change squares to inches

That way you don't have to remember 1-2-1-2, and you'll also dispense with square cones, and balls.

Agreed. If you use a grid for a play surface, don't let the lines box you in; use it for rough reference only.

Be careful, though: if you start talking about distance in inches, you might run aground on an old 0-1e type to whom "inch" means 10' indoors and 30' outdoors... Feet are easier.

Lanefan

 

[Final Attack]

*shudder* i don' think I want to start using rulers and measurements. The grid is good.

My point and concern is that assuming classes are balanced, making bursts circular reduces their effectiveness, they cover less area.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

I plan to implement 2 house rules in 4th. First is 1-2-1-2, and second is making burst effects circular.
I want to take a holistic approach to these changes though. Using a circular template to cover squares will result in a loss of squares affected, thus weakening the overall effect of the spell.

I think burst one will result in the loss of 4 squares on the corners, and burst 2 is a loss of 12 squares. I’m very hesitant about weakening classes unless I want to discourage players from playing them. I don’t want to discourage anything atm.

Maybe I’m making too much of a big deal out of visualisation Vs playability, but it does nag me.

I don’t like firecubes, and but I’m not really keen on weakening caster classes.

I am going to be running RAW first, then introducing house rules afterward.

Seriously, try the new rules at the table before you start monkeying with them - you never know what's going to grow on you until you've done it (people bitched LOUDLY before release about, say, 3E's cyclical initiative rules, and now everybody loves them).

 

[Imban]

I am going to be running RAW first, then introducing house rules afterward.

Seriously, try the new rules at the table before you start monkeying with them - you never know what's going to grow on you until you've done it (people bitched LOUDLY before release about, say, 3E's cyclical initiative rules, and now everybody loves them).

Cyclical initiative can go either way. I've played another RPG system where initiative is rolled every round, but it's also a system where acting towards the start of any given round matters a lot more than in D&D. Cyclical initiative would be terrible and bad for that. In D&D, you don't lose much and you gain a lot of speed.

Circular areas of effect, on the other hand, are literally exactly as quick to resolve for my group as square ones. So it's not going to grow on me, regardless of anything.

For about 90% of the powers that bother me, my house rules are just going to be clarifying how they work (or reworking the fluff so they make linear sense) and closing any loopholes which cause a power to have an utterly nonsensical result. I'm pretty sure Cleaving through walls isn't going to grow on me, either.