Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fissionessence" data-source="post: 4413231" data-attributes="member: 63357">I'm not happy with the 4E diagonals, but I also don't see myself changing it any time soon.A couple weeks ago my players were fighting a vampire, and toward the end he tried to retreat by spider climbing up a wall and across a ceiling. At one point, he was directly above the players 20 squares up (high ceiling), and the wizard magic missiled him. On the next round, he was still 20 squares up, but also no longer directly above the players, but instead several squares away. However, I realized that by using 4E diagonals, it didn't matter how far away he was horizontally; as long as he was no more than 20 squares high, and no more than 20 squares horizontally, he was still within range. Under 3.5 movement, it would have been much trickier to determine whether he would be within range or not, but it would have been much less silly also. I find that my players and I end up laughing a lot about some of the silly things free diagonals allows, but we still go along with it.Anyway, more in response to the OP's direct question: a while back I saw a thread like this one. The main issue that I saw brought up was that of wizards' area spells. One poster said that it didn't matter as long as monsters' powers were affected as well, but I don't think this is necessarily the case considering the wizard is a player who will be using (or not using) his area spells all the time . . . and depending on the area, he could be targeting much fewer squares under the changed movement rules.You might consider keeping the area measurements the same, but only changing the rules where relevant to actual movement; I'm not sure how that would work out.~ fissionessence</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fissionessence, post: 4413231, member: 63357"] I'm not happy with the 4E diagonals, but I also don't see myself changing it any time soon. A couple weeks ago my players were fighting a vampire, and toward the end he tried to retreat by spider climbing up a wall and across a ceiling. At one point, he was directly above the players 20 squares up (high ceiling), and the wizard magic missiled him. On the next round, he was still 20 squares up, but also no longer directly above the players, but instead several squares away. However, I realized that by using 4E diagonals, it didn't matter how far away he was horizontally; as long as he was no more than 20 squares high, and no more than 20 squares horizontally, he was still within range. Under 3.5 movement, it would have been much trickier to determine whether he would be within range or not, but it would have been much less silly also. I find that my players and I end up laughing a lot about some of the silly things free diagonals allows, but we still go along with it. Anyway, more in response to the OP's direct question: a while back I saw a thread like this one. The main issue that I saw brought up was that of wizards' area spells. One poster said that it didn't matter as long as monsters' powers were affected as well, but I don't think this is necessarily the case considering the wizard is a player who will be using (or not using) his area spells all the time . . . and depending on the area, he could be targeting much fewer squares under the changed movement rules. You might consider keeping the area measurements the same, but only changing the rules where relevant to actual movement; I'm not sure how that would work out. ~ fissionessence [/QUOTE]

Verification