No more cone shaped powers?

[dema]

I listening (half hearted) to the last podcast. There is comment at around 32:50 that there will be no cone type powers in the PHB.

Wow.

I preordered the 4 E gift box set from Amazon because I just need to read though them when they come out. This thing about no cone templates is insane. I guess lines and squares are easier to deal, with maybe?

 

[Frostmarrow]

Diagonal cones are so strange that you might as well ditch the whole concept. Since diagonal movement is the same distance as orthogonal movement makes it even weirder.

Cones can still be in the game if they work sort of like magic missile. Pick a number of targets to hit, within line of effect.

 

[Masquerade]

That's a shame, but the removal makes perfect sense.

Cones will be missed.

 

[Stogoe]

Diagonal cones are so strange that you might as well ditch the whole concept. Since diagonal movement is the same distance as orthogonal movement makes it even weirder.

Cones can still be in the game if they work sort of like magic missile. Pick a number of targets to hit, within line of effect.

I'd modify that somewhat to "Pick a number of adjacent targets to hit" or something so that your cone can't skip over people.

 

[delericho]

Diagonal cones are so strange that you might as well ditch the whole concept. Since diagonal movement is the same distance as orthogonal movement makes it even weirder.

Ironically, the diagonal cone was the single major complexity inherent in the 1-2-1-2 rule for diagonal movement (although the new version is simpler, the old version really couldn't be called complex with any accuracy).

That said, there are issues even with simple lines when working on a square grid (or any grid, for the hex-advocates). Imagine a Wizard wants to lightning bolt a character who is eight squares north and 3 squares west of him. Clearly, he should be able to do so (after all, there's a straight line between the two), but how do you determine which other squares are affected? (If the answer is "any square that the line touches", then the solution for all spell effects is trivial - just use round and conical area of effect templates, and apply the same rule.)

That's a shame, but the removal makes perfect sense.

It really doesn't. The Red Dragon's fiery breath is very naturally a cone shape. They absolutely have to have a really good mechanic for how this works, because if the game can't model the iconic creature in the game, then they have a real problem.

 

[Blue]

That's a shame, but the removal makes perfect sense.

Cones will be missed.

If they'll be missed, why does their removal make "perfect sense".

I like a lot of things about 4e, and this isn't some sort of deal-breaker, but it does strike me as needless simplification. Cones make perfect sense for a number of types of effects, like dragons breath or some spells, just as lines and circles also have their place.

Funny, I was willing to roll with it, until the comment that it makes perfect sense to remove them. I really hope removing them was a serious sit-down on the pros and cons then choosing to take them out.

 

[Steely Dan]

What will they be replaced with to simulate things like certain breath weapons and cones of cold etc?

 

[Zelc]

Perhaps the new cone effects are half-circlessquares or quarter-circlessquares instead?

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Well, this may be where I get off the 4E boat.

I think I prefer 3E's complexity to a dumbed-down edition.

Ken

 

[Mercule]

That's a shame, but the removal makes perfect sense.

It does? Why? Where I'm sitting, it looks pretty stupid.

If the reason has anything to do with the change in diagonals going from 1.5" to 1", then it should be taken more as an indictment of that (bad, IMO) change than anything else.

I had planned to immediately house rule the 1-2-1-2 diagonals back into the game (I'm honestly not even open to considering the 1" diagonals), but this sort of change really has me wondering what other, subtle changes will come of the over-simplification in 4E.