Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dragonblade" data-source="post: 5687836" data-attributes="member: 2804">Right. I like minis too, but sometimes we want to run narrative style mini-free combat. Easily done in Pathfinder, but next to impossible in 4e because the power system is so intricately tied to mini-based movement.This is where Pathfinder beats 4e, IMO. I think the system shouldn't require any tape measure or anything like that. That brings you even more into the tactical skirmish world and I think D&D should move away from that, not embrace it. However, I do think the system should have the flexibility to handle both. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />As far as counting squares, we found that going back to Pathfinder's double-counting of every other diagonal to be an irritating chore that adds nothing to the game. 4e really had it right, here. Realism is not as important as making combat run smoother and quicker. I'd offer diagonal double-counting as an optional sidebar. Or poll the gaming community, see which one is more popular and then offer the other as a sidebar. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification