Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Benimoto" data-source="post: 4044001" data-attributes="member: 40093">Okay, now with images, here was always my problem with distances measured by the 3.5 method.<img src="http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q170/Benimoto/1-2-1-2.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />In the upper right, you see how reach should have worked, based on a logical interpretation of the 3.5 edition distance rule.&nbsp; Of course you can also see that by approaching the creature on the diagonal, you avoid any attacks of opportunity due to reach.&nbsp; So in the upper left, you see how 10-foot reach actually worked, based on the diagrams in the back of the DMG.&nbsp; You can also see how the creature with 10-foot reach can attack some creatures 15 feet away, but only along the diagonal.The lower two pictures show my problem with 10-foot radius spells like antilife shell and circle of protection, based on how I think they were supposed to work, and how they actually ended up working, based on the radius rules in 3.5.Cones in 3.5 also suffered from a problem.&nbsp; I don't feel like making any more pictures, but if you look at the diagrams of the 30-foot cone in the back of the 3.5 DMG, you'll see that the &quot;straight out&quot; cone covers more squares than the &quot;diagonal&quot; one.&nbsp; You'll also see that they got the 15-foot cone &quot;straight out&quot; cone wrong, and that based on a logical application of the rules it should cover 8 squares, as opposed to the 6 squares the diagonal one covers.I'm not saying that the new rules are better.&nbsp; I don't like firesquare either.&nbsp; I'm just saying that if you're arguing for keeping the 3.5 method based on its logic and consistency, here is some refuting evidence.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Benimoto, post: 4044001, member: 40093"] Okay, now with images, here was always my problem with distances measured by the 3.5 method. [IMG]http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q170/Benimoto/1-2-1-2.png[/IMG] In the upper right, you see how reach should have worked, based on a logical interpretation of the 3.5 edition distance rule. Of course you can also see that by approaching the creature on the diagonal, you avoid any attacks of opportunity due to reach. So in the upper left, you see how 10-foot reach actually worked, based on the diagrams in the back of the DMG. You can also see how the creature with 10-foot reach can attack some creatures 15 feet away, but only along the diagonal. The lower two pictures show my problem with 10-foot radius spells like antilife shell and circle of protection, based on how I think they were supposed to work, and how they actually ended up working, based on the radius rules in 3.5. Cones in 3.5 also suffered from a problem. I don't feel like making any more pictures, but if you look at the diagrams of the 30-foot cone in the back of the 3.5 DMG, you'll see that the "straight out" cone covers more squares than the "diagonal" one. You'll also see that they got the 15-foot cone "straight out" cone wrong, and that based on a logical application of the rules it should cover 8 squares, as opposed to the 6 squares the diagonal one covers. I'm not saying that the new rules are better. I don't like firesquare either. I'm just saying that if you're arguing for keeping the 3.5 method based on its logic and consistency, here is some refuting evidence. [/QUOTE]

Verification