Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arkhandus" data-source="post: 4044515" data-attributes="member: 13966">Ia!&nbsp; Ia!&nbsp; Cthulhu ftagn! <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> Doesn't matter much to me, since I'm not buying into 4E.&nbsp; But I do prefer the 1-square-is-1-square method.&nbsp; It's just simplest and comes the most naturally; people are less likely to mess up when figuring out their movement, they'll get it figured out quicker, and I as DM don't have to manually calculate every dang critter's and PC's movement in exacting detail to be sure that it was right.&nbsp; So combat runs quicker and more smoothly.And I handle the firecube problem by just ignoring WotC's silly wrong concept of how spell areas should be based on grid corners and how every square is affected if even just a little bit of the spell's area passes through the edge of the square.&nbsp; I use simple common sense to figure it out and not WotC's funny version of mathematics.I'm all for abstraction in D&amp;D, but not for throwing semi-realism completely out the window.&nbsp; It's not hard to ignore a minor oddity in diagonal movement, but it's more unusual to think of fireballs and cones of cold and other things behaving like massive collections of cubes.&nbsp; And similarly frustrating for WotC to treat every creature and object as though it has the body type and proportions of a Gelatinous Cube.I like the Movement Point idea, though.&nbsp; It's not as slow to figure out as the 3.5 method, and more realistic than the alternatives, so it's not as much trouble.And really, I just preferred the gridless movement me and my friends used in 2nd Edition.&nbsp; We'd tell the DM how many feet we'd move, in what direction, or we'd tell him how close we wanted to get to monster X or object Z, and our characters would move appropriately.&nbsp; The map grid was only a means of showing general positions and where each wall was.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arkhandus, post: 4044515, member: 13966"] Ia! Ia! Cthulhu ftagn! :lol: Doesn't matter much to me, since I'm not buying into 4E. But I do prefer the 1-square-is-1-square method. It's just simplest and comes the most naturally; people are less likely to mess up when figuring out their movement, they'll get it figured out quicker, and I as DM don't have to manually calculate [I]every dang critter's and PC's movement[/I] in exacting detail to be sure that it was right. So combat runs quicker and more smoothly. And I handle the firecube problem by just ignoring WotC's silly wrong concept of how spell areas should be based on grid corners and how every square is affected if even just a little bit of the spell's area passes through the edge of the square. I use simple common sense to figure it out and not WotC's funny version of mathematics. I'm all for abstraction in D&D, but not for throwing semi-realism completely out the window. It's not hard to ignore a minor oddity in diagonal movement, but it's more unusual to think of fireballs and cones of cold and other things behaving like massive collections of cubes. And similarly frustrating for WotC to treat every creature and object as though it has the body type and proportions of a Gelatinous Cube. I like the Movement Point idea, though. It's not as slow to figure out as the 3.5 method, and more realistic than the alternatives, so it's not as much trouble. And really, I just preferred the gridless movement me and my friends used in 2nd Edition. We'd tell the DM how many feet we'd move, in what direction, or we'd tell him how close we wanted to get to monster X or object Z, and our characters would move appropriately. The map grid was only a means of showing general positions and where each wall was. [/QUOTE]

Verification