Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4046451" data-attributes="member: 22779">We're talking about moving perhaps two, maybe three extra squares.&nbsp; That's it.&nbsp; People are acting like this is going to make a massive difference to movement in the game.&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; 2 squares?&nbsp; 2 whole squares is going to cause the collapse of the 3e combat system?&nbsp; I'm thinking perhaps people may be over reacting just a touch on this.&nbsp; The only effect this has is that PC's will be able to move 2 squares more.&nbsp; And, only when they move diagonally.&nbsp; In straight lines, this rule has zero effect.This isn't an exploitable bug, anymore than having barbarian speed is an exploitable bug.&nbsp; On 30 feet of movement, and the last podcast said they were basing PC movement on 6 squares, the absolute most difference this could make is 10 feet.&nbsp; I'm having a large amount of difficulty seeing how this could possibly make much of a difference.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4046451, member: 22779"] We're talking about moving perhaps two, maybe three extra squares. That's it. People are acting like this is going to make a massive difference to movement in the game. Really? 2 squares? 2 whole squares is going to cause the collapse of the 3e combat system? I'm thinking perhaps people may be over reacting just a touch on this. The only effect this has is that PC's will be able to move 2 squares more. And, only when they move diagonally. In straight lines, this rule has zero effect. This isn't an exploitable bug, anymore than having barbarian speed is an exploitable bug. On 30 feet of movement, and the last podcast said they were basing PC movement on 6 squares, the absolute most difference this could make is 10 feet. I'm having a large amount of difficulty seeing how this could possibly make much of a difference. [/QUOTE]

Verification