Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 5506721" data-attributes="member: 11300">I've tried to avoid this thread until now but heh, I can't help myself.I suppose most would classify me as a "simulationist"; I much prefer 1-2-1-2 and even after several years of playing 4e, 1-1-1-1 still annoys me. In regards to the hesitations, stumbles etc., these get drowned out by the feeling of moving 30 ft./6 squares as a limit of what can be traversed given a broad general set of conditions that help me represent the battlefield in my mind. Just because I enjoy a simulationist perspective doesn't mean I'm wanting to live every bump and stumble in a move action (we're not that anal and only some of us wear viking helmets when we play). <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />However, the fact that if my PC moves in a straight line to get to position A, or I can travel diagonally out and back in a greater distance and still get to position A just makes me feel like... I'm cheating the system or inherent physical assumptions or something. In terms of a move action, 1-2-1-2 handles this well enough by saying if you try to do the "get to point A out and in diagonally" you are going to at least tip your hat somewhat to Pythagorus as you go past.I appreciate that some players could not care a jot about this and for some ease of play is a much greater priority and may you all enjoy how you play.I disagree, in terms of movement this factor is at the top of the list (even if it is down the list overall - but not that far down overall). I agree because your brain won't let you cheat physics like the 1-1-1 rule will - your brain kicks in and says "no. that's moving too far, back it up a little".I think the one thing that most will agree on is that in the grand scheme of 4e combat, 1-1-1 does not have much impact on the overall outcome - even if for some of us it feels like cheating when we do it.As a simulationist, I have far bigger fish to fry in relation to 4e (and for some of these previous editions of D&D):* Hit points (you are either relatively uninjured or dead - your character can never be in between.)* Saves (everyone gets rid of a condition on 10+ on a d20; regardless of whether they have a good or poor natural ability to get over it - for me this is my biggest "simulationist gripe")* Why can I only do this mundane (if highly skilled) move once an encounter or once a day - it makes no sense. If it is situational, tell me the situation even if it is really situational (target granting combat advantage, is immobilized and I get a critical) rather than giving me a bland once an encounter/day. For magical instances, encounters and dailies can be a little more suitable but other times are just as bad.* The game mathematics is on a relative playing field rather than an absolute one.* Half-level increase to everything is suitable in some situations but definitely not in others. I would much prefer a system that can take these factors into account with a more refined granularity.* Healing surges are a good mechanic but they really should be renamed, just surges would have been fine without the distorting adjective.* Skill Challenges. I love the idea of skill challenges, but I would prefer a more rigourous system to be generally applied to "exploration" or "social" mode. By the time our group bent skill challenges to our style, it seemed like we were halfway back to where we were in 3e. * Some mundane powers that feel too "magical" and over the top. I'm not a wuxia fan, or more to the point I don't like finding rice inside my haggis. * The mathematics behind magic item pricing. I like exponentials as much as the next mathematician but that doesn't mean I'm going to get my old high school textbook and try and smoke it like the designers seemed to do. D&D has never done economics well - but this really was a few steps too far into whacky land.And as for the streamlining of the skill system as the OP presents, I completely disagree - 4e handles this aspect of character background OK. Simulationism is a very different kettle of fish in my opinion. And having said all of this, I still enjoy 4e even though I would love the simulationist pendulum to swing back a little on the next edition iteration.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification