Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 5820424" data-attributes="member: 31734">We used to play without maps; then we played with maps and without grids; and then we played in 5ft squares where diagonals were 1.5 times, and we tried hexes (both local and macro), and of course now we're in 5ft squares where the diagonal = the axis.&nbsp; In a group of all computer scientists, half of us with master's degrees and minors in math, we far prefer the easiest, i.e., latest, option.&nbsp; Not measuring things and leaving it up to the DM's whim, or a &quot;gentleman's agreement&quot;, is simply not workable.&nbsp; Because of the frequency of use of the gaming maps, anything that elongates calculations even a little bit is not as good an option.&nbsp; I can recall arguments and calculations of distances and how this or that spell should hit this guy and not that guy, and that the location of the spell is right here and not 6.5 inches to the northwest, and oh, why can't we just assume that the frickin' magic user can place his spell such that no party members will get hit?&nbsp; I was sick and tired of retcons due to miscalculations and recalculations.Thus, I advocate the simplest possible approach and I think the current 4E mapping system is fine.&nbsp; Actually, though, a unit-less approach in just calling things &quot;squares&quot; would similarly be fine.&nbsp; However, what must be presented in more detail is the third dimension.&nbsp; Right now, there's an assumption of voxels, and I'd like to see 3D movement/combat explained better.&nbsp; This includes water and walls and not just flying through the air.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Infiniti2000, post: 5820424, member: 31734"] We used to play without maps; then we played with maps and without grids; and then we played in 5ft squares where diagonals were 1.5 times, and we tried hexes (both local and macro), and of course now we're in 5ft squares where the diagonal = the axis. In a group of all computer scientists, half of us with master's degrees and minors in math, we far prefer the easiest, i.e., latest, option. Not measuring things and leaving it up to the DM's whim, or a "gentleman's agreement", is simply not workable. Because of the frequency of use of the gaming maps, anything that elongates calculations even a little bit is not as good an option. I can recall arguments and calculations of distances and how this or that spell should hit this guy and not that guy, and that the location of the spell is right here and not 6.5 inches to the northwest, and oh, why can't we just assume that the frickin' magic user can place his spell such that no party members will get hit? I was sick and tired of retcons due to miscalculations and recalculations. Thus, I advocate the simplest possible approach and I think the current 4E mapping system is fine. Actually, though, a unit-less approach in just calling things "squares" would similarly be fine. [I]However, what must be presented in more detail is the third dimension. [/I]Right now, there's an assumption of voxels, and I'd like to see 3D movement/combat explained better. This includes water and walls and not just flying through the air. [/QUOTE]

Verification