I'm a big gearhead and tinkerer, though I've posted little proof of it here (especially lately), and so the chances of my running a game exactly as written are only slightly better than my chances of winning the upcoming US presidential election. Bear in mind here that I'm not even a US citizen. (Though by the time the election rolls around, I will meet the minimum age of 35... how'd that happen? 
) While I will undoubtedly eventually do mass rewrites on the powers and so on, for now I settle for two significant, but quickly and easily expressed, changes.
As far as the 1-1-1-1 versus 1-2-1-2 debate - and to reiterate, while direct responses to the following point are welcome, I'd rather the larger debate didn't spill into this thread any more than can be helped - I do have one argument I'd like to address. A couple of people have been waving around things like the Rogue's "slide an enemy two squares" power as though the inability to make full use of this diagonally were a knockdown objection to 1-2-1-2, and I don't see the problem at all.
Using the by-the-book, 1-1-1-1 system, a "slide two squares" power can put the enemy anywhere within a 5-square by 5-square area centered on its starting location, given open terrain (and the effect of more restricted terrain on my argument is minimal).[1] That means that by the book, you have 24 choices for where the enemy ends up (that includes leaving it where it is, but excludes putting it in your own square, which I assume won't be allowed). By my rule, on the assumption that you can move the enemy through your own square (you flip it over your head or something) but not have it end up in your own square, 20 of those 24 options are still open; the only ones you lose are the four corners. Yeah, I suppose it makes the exploit in question slightly less powerful, but I'm not seeing that the difference involves any meaningful loss. Especially considering that, in terms of power level, there's a certain amount of diminishing returns with the number of options. The difference between one way of using a power and two is big; the difference between 20 and 24, much less so.
(Even if you can't move it through your own square, that only costs you one option [VERY LATE EDIT: and that only if you're not on a diagonal from it], that of moving it directly opposite you from where it started; so in that case you'd have 19 options [in some cases and 20 in others], not [always] 20. That still doesn't seem like a big deal.)
Admittedly, I make some assumptions above about how involuntary sliding will work in the first place. But I think they're very reasonable assumptions. Of course, if you know, not just speculate, anything specific about what the final rules will say on this point, I'm all ears.
As for saves, I think the change, while it may add a bit of complexity back in and slightly magnify the punishing aspects of having poor scores in Constitution or Wisdom in some situations, also gives back a bit of individuality to characters and a bit of importance to scores that some characters may be tempted to ignore. These effects seem beneficial to me. I can see people going either way on the tradeoff, but for me at least, the side I've suggested here looks to be the more attractive of the two.
[1] Some people seem to assume you won't be able to slide it only one square, or slide it, say, one square diagonally and then one square horizontally; but I don't see why either of these would be the case.
) While I will undoubtedly eventually do mass rewrites on the powers and so on, for now I settle for two significant, but quickly and easily expressed, changes.- 1-2-1-2 diagonal movement, if I even use a grid. Since I find it intuitive and seem to be good at explaining it to people, I don't anticipate much slowdown or confusion resulting, and I really can't stand the (much more noticeable) distortion of basic math and physics involved in 1-1-1-1. Having said all that, I'd rather this thread weren't used to re-open the general debate on that; there are other threads for that. But I will make one point about it below, which I welcome responses to.
- A change to saving throws. Right now, saves are pretty static; by default you make them on a 10 or better regardless of any other aspect of your character, and very few things seem to modify this. I'm thinking about changing both aspects of this paradigm. First, raise the DC a little, I'm thinking to 12. Second, redefine what a save is in the first place. A save is an ability check - I'm still thinking about whether that should be in the 3E sense of a check modified only by your ability modifier, or the 4E sense where half your class level plays into it too, but heavily leaning toward the first. Escaping constriction might be a Strength save. Seeing through an illusion? Intelligence. Toughing out a poison? Constitution. Willpower stuff would be split between Wisdom and Charisma in some manner yet to be determined. I don't think it would be a bad thing if Dexterity wasn't very involved in saves, since the score continues to have at least some of the disproportionate importance in other areas that it did in 3E, including a large role in determining whether you get into a situation where you need to make saves in the first place.
As far as the 1-1-1-1 versus 1-2-1-2 debate - and to reiterate, while direct responses to the following point are welcome, I'd rather the larger debate didn't spill into this thread any more than can be helped - I do have one argument I'd like to address. A couple of people have been waving around things like the Rogue's "slide an enemy two squares" power as though the inability to make full use of this diagonally were a knockdown objection to 1-2-1-2, and I don't see the problem at all.
Using the by-the-book, 1-1-1-1 system, a "slide two squares" power can put the enemy anywhere within a 5-square by 5-square area centered on its starting location, given open terrain (and the effect of more restricted terrain on my argument is minimal).[1] That means that by the book, you have 24 choices for where the enemy ends up (that includes leaving it where it is, but excludes putting it in your own square, which I assume won't be allowed). By my rule, on the assumption that you can move the enemy through your own square (you flip it over your head or something) but not have it end up in your own square, 20 of those 24 options are still open; the only ones you lose are the four corners. Yeah, I suppose it makes the exploit in question slightly less powerful, but I'm not seeing that the difference involves any meaningful loss. Especially considering that, in terms of power level, there's a certain amount of diminishing returns with the number of options. The difference between one way of using a power and two is big; the difference between 20 and 24, much less so.
(Even if you can't move it through your own square, that only costs you one option [VERY LATE EDIT: and that only if you're not on a diagonal from it], that of moving it directly opposite you from where it started; so in that case you'd have 19 options [in some cases and 20 in others], not [always] 20. That still doesn't seem like a big deal.)
Admittedly, I make some assumptions above about how involuntary sliding will work in the first place. But I think they're very reasonable assumptions. Of course, if you know, not just speculate, anything specific about what the final rules will say on this point, I'm all ears.
As for saves, I think the change, while it may add a bit of complexity back in and slightly magnify the punishing aspects of having poor scores in Constitution or Wisdom in some situations, also gives back a bit of individuality to characters and a bit of importance to scores that some characters may be tempted to ignore. These effects seem beneficial to me. I can see people going either way on the tradeoff, but for me at least, the side I've suggested here looks to be the more attractive of the two.
[1] Some people seem to assume you won't be able to slide it only one square, or slide it, say, one square diagonally and then one square horizontally; but I don't see why either of these would be the case.
Last edited:
