Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chris_Nightwing" data-source="post: 5962054" data-attributes="member: 882">The point I was trying to make, I guess, was that depending on how reach scales with creature size, you can end up with 5 ogres as the correct answer, and taken to a limit - as you have intuitively noticed, only two creatures can attack something significantly smaller than them.If you want to use non-Euclidean geometry for a hypothetical non-grid situation then you are quite, quite insane. Welcome to R'lyeh!Well, no, because a square grid is non-Euclidean. If you wanted you could have extended your left ogre's reach to the entire diagonal and then use that as the centre-to-centre distance off-grid. I was trying to be reasonable. If you wanted a non-grid miniatures system you would have to define reach as the distance between centres (or the distance between bases) in which case my analysis is correct, and you can pick an arbitrary reach per size increase that will give you a descending number of creatures able to attack as they grow larger. Hence 5 ogres.You will never be able to rectify the difference between grid combat (be it 3E or 4E diagonals) and an attempt at real representation. I prefer a hex grid anyway. I also really dislike that you can arrange four enormous creatures around a single small target and expect them not to get in the way of each other.If the default assumption is theatre of the mind combat, with a serious tactical grid option as a module, then make the tactical grid rules complex enough to account for silly things like this.</blockquote>

Verification