rgard
Adventurer
Elder-Basilisk said:Good luck with those circles in 4th edition. Hope you like your circles square.

Elder-Basilisk said:Good luck with those circles in 4th edition. Hope you like your circles square.
ainatan said:The first and most obvious problem I can think of when using the 1-1-1-1 diagonal rule:
Blue is the Wizard.
Green is the Fighter.
'X' is the monster, his speed is 30 ft. or 6 squares.
In 3.5 the monster, in order to attack the Wizard in the same round, needs to go through the Fighter.
![]()
Using 1-1-1-1 rules, it can go around the Fighter, probably provoking an 'opportunity attack',
![]()
Or he can just go really around the fighter, provoking no 'opportuniy attacks'!!!!
![]()
Man, it's gonna be hard to be a defender in this game...
What about flanking?
Fifth Element said:That's all one can ask. It would make a lot of threads here a lot shorter, though, if everyone did that.
ainatan said:Man, it's gonna be hard to be a defender in this game...
What about flanking?
delericho said:The range of a 3e fireball cast by a 5th level Wizard is 700 ft. (Yes, I know they've probably nerfed that in 4e. I'm using this by way of example.) That's 140 squares, of course.
A party is travelling along a road that runs North - South, and the DM has aligned his battlemat accordingly. In the distance, they see a band of Orcs, at just over 800 feet away.
Under the new rules, the Orcs are either well out of range of the fireball or well within range, depending on whether they are to the north of the party or to the north-west.
(In fact, per the new rules, the new 'diagonal' range of that fireball is 985 feet.)
These new rules are a spectacularly bad idea.
The only problem I see is that the wizard, despite his 18 Int, doesn't understand the basic geometry of the imaginary world he lives in well enough to know that he should be diagonally behind the fighter.ainatan said:The first and most obvious problem I can think of when using the 1-1-1-1 diagonal rule:
What about it?What about flanking?
Ruin Explorer said:I can see why they did it, and I'm not so offended by the square spell effects, but unless your players are dumb, and you're willing to play dumb, this will make a mockery of any kind of attempt to block movement or get in the way, and generally provoke a lot of idiocy. I know my players will work out strategies to utilise this quirk within approximately three minutes of finding out it exists, so unless it blows 4E up in a shower of fragments to remove it, I think I'll be going with 1.5 cost diagonals. My players are smart enough to abuse diagonals, they're smart enough to add the most simple fraction![]()
Khaim said:The only problem I see is that the wizard, despite his 18 Int, doesn't understand the basic geometry of the imaginary world he lives in well enough to know that he should be diagonally behind the fighter.
The question about flanking should not be there, It was another point I woudl make, and I forgot to delete itWhat about it?