Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4162042" data-attributes="member: 22779">Taking Celebrim's example of spot.Yes, you are right, by RAW it's virtually impossible for encounters to begin that far away.&nbsp; And, you're right in that it should not be that difficult to spot someone at the other end of a football field.So, yes, in this case, adding additional rules might be a good idea.&nbsp; Although, I'm not 100% convinced that they are needed.&nbsp; If your DM rules that you cannot see someone at the other end of a football field that isn't trying to hide, I'm more worried about the table than the rules.I guess I fall a little bit more in the middle.&nbsp; A rule that is good enough most of the time is good enough for me and I'll trust that the DM isn't a dick.&nbsp; I'd rather the rules emphasized to all players that not being a dick is more important than the rules as well.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />See, I had the 1-2-1 thing come up in the last session I played.&nbsp; We were running away from a big bad nasty.&nbsp; My gnome had a move of 20.&nbsp; So, running speed of 80.&nbsp; I had to count three times on the grid to make sure that I moved the right distance.&nbsp; And, I'm still not 100% sure that I did it right.&nbsp; With 1-1-1, I would count once and be 100% sure I was right.&nbsp; Is the fact that I might have moved an extra 10 or 20 feet over 1-2-1 worth the time at the table for me to make sure that I moved correctly?&nbsp; IMO, no, it's not.&nbsp; I'd rather sacrifice a (in my mind) tiny bit of realism (20 feet MAX) for speed and accuracy of play.SSquirrel makes an excellent point as well.&nbsp; Can you accurately, in your head, picture a 30 foot radius circle in 3e?&nbsp; How about a Huge (3x3) creature with a 15 foot reach?&nbsp; Is the gain in realism worth the loss in time and possible inaccuracy?&nbsp; Again, IMO, no, it's not.&nbsp; So, I'd rather have rules that work most of the time and not worry about the edges than have rules that have to be extended over and over again to cover the edges.&nbsp; 10 feet=-1 to spot is quick and easy and works most of the time.&nbsp; The few times it doesn't work is where the DM comes in.Now, to be fair, this can be taken too far the other way as well.&nbsp; Leaving everything up to the DM all the time is bad IMO.&nbsp; There is definitely a happy middle.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4162042, member: 22779"] Taking Celebrim's example of spot. Yes, you are right, by RAW it's virtually impossible for encounters to begin that far away. And, you're right in that it should not be that difficult to spot someone at the other end of a football field. So, yes, in this case, adding additional rules might be a good idea. Although, I'm not 100% convinced that they are needed. If your DM rules that you cannot see someone at the other end of a football field that isn't trying to hide, I'm more worried about the table than the rules. I guess I fall a little bit more in the middle. A rule that is good enough most of the time is good enough for me and I'll trust that the DM isn't a dick. I'd rather the rules emphasized to all players that not being a dick is more important than the rules as well. :) See, I had the 1-2-1 thing come up in the last session I played. We were running away from a big bad nasty. My gnome had a move of 20. So, running speed of 80. I had to count three times on the grid to make sure that I moved the right distance. And, I'm still not 100% sure that I did it right. With 1-1-1, I would count once and be 100% sure I was right. Is the fact that I might have moved an extra 10 or 20 feet over 1-2-1 worth the time at the table for me to make sure that I moved correctly? IMO, no, it's not. I'd rather sacrifice a (in my mind) tiny bit of realism (20 feet MAX) for speed and accuracy of play. SSquirrel makes an excellent point as well. Can you accurately, in your head, picture a 30 foot radius circle in 3e? How about a Huge (3x3) creature with a 15 foot reach? Is the gain in realism worth the loss in time and possible inaccuracy? Again, IMO, no, it's not. So, I'd rather have rules that work most of the time and not worry about the edges than have rules that have to be extended over and over again to cover the edges. 10 feet=-1 to spot is quick and easy and works most of the time. The few times it doesn't work is where the DM comes in. Now, to be fair, this can be taken too far the other way as well. Leaving everything up to the DM all the time is bad IMO. There is definitely a happy middle. [/QUOTE]

Verification