Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Benimoto" data-source="post: 4043548" data-attributes="member: 40093"><p>I'm not wild about firesquare, but I think that changing to a 1-1-1 model instead of a 1-2-1-2, will save about 30 seconds of recounting every session when somebody messes up. That's 30 more seconds of fun!</p><p></p><p>One thing about the 1-2-1-2 rule that D&D 3.5 had is that it made things with a 10-foot radius weak in the corners. For example, they had to fix the reach diagrams so that things with a 10-foot reach didn't have an area in the corner that wasn't covered. This is because otherwise, you could come along diagonally at a monster with 10-foot reach and end up adjacent to it without ever provoking an AoO.</p><p></p><p>The other weakness is that with the radius rules the way they were in 3.5, spells like antilife shell got silly. The general idea was that nothing could come within 10 feet of someone with that spell active. But, since it was a 10 foot radius centered on one of the external corners of the caster's square, it was only 5 feet wide along two sides, and one corner wasn't even covered at all.</p><p></p><p>So from a common sense perspective, some things should be a geometrically better fit to how they were envisioned in 4th edition. A small minority, sure, but some things.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Benimoto, post: 4043548, member: 40093"] I'm not wild about firesquare, but I think that changing to a 1-1-1 model instead of a 1-2-1-2, will save about 30 seconds of recounting every session when somebody messes up. That's 30 more seconds of fun! One thing about the 1-2-1-2 rule that D&D 3.5 had is that it made things with a 10-foot radius weak in the corners. For example, they had to fix the reach diagrams so that things with a 10-foot reach didn't have an area in the corner that wasn't covered. This is because otherwise, you could come along diagonally at a monster with 10-foot reach and end up adjacent to it without ever provoking an AoO. The other weakness is that with the radius rules the way they were in 3.5, spells like antilife shell got silly. The general idea was that nothing could come within 10 feet of someone with that spell active. But, since it was a 10 foot radius centered on one of the external corners of the caster's square, it was only 5 feet wide along two sides, and one corner wasn't even covered at all. So from a common sense perspective, some things should be a geometrically better fit to how they were envisioned in 4th edition. A small minority, sure, but some things. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?
Top