Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MerricB" data-source="post: 4044601" data-attributes="member: 3586">Just a couple of thoughts:I've had to explain the 1-2-1-2 rule on a fairly consistent basis to experienced players in my games. It's not quite as bad as the THAC0 rule of 2e, but I have noticed it. Regardless of thoughts of &quot;realism&quot;, when you actually, *really* get down to counting, you count squares as &quot;1, 2, 3...&quot; and exceptions to that rule can confuse people.Even me. And look, I'm really skilled mathematically, and I know the rule backwards (and I consider a diagonal 1.5, round down). Especially in my days as a DDM player, fast movement creatures would often cause me to lose count of how many diagonals they'd actually taken.I think the new rule will cause the most problem with creatures with speeds of about 10 squares or so, because you'll really notice their mobility then. 6 squares? Not so significant. 20 squares? They can get anywhere they want to!Cheers!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MerricB, post: 4044601, member: 3586"] Just a couple of thoughts: I've had to explain the 1-2-1-2 rule on a fairly consistent basis to experienced players in my games. It's not quite as bad as the THAC0 rule of 2e, but I have noticed it. Regardless of thoughts of "realism", when you actually, *really* get down to counting, you count squares as "1, 2, 3..." and exceptions to that rule can confuse people. Even me. And look, I'm really skilled mathematically, and I know the rule backwards (and I consider a diagonal 1.5, round down). Especially in my days as a DDM player, fast movement creatures would often cause me to lose count of how many diagonals they'd actually taken. I think the new rule will cause the most problem with creatures with speeds of about 10 squares or so, because you'll really notice their mobility then. 6 squares? Not so significant. 20 squares? They can get anywhere they want to! Cheers! [/QUOTE]

Verification