Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quasqueton" data-source="post: 1783777" data-attributes="member: 3854">Well, I've used a battle grid for all my 24 years of gaming. (Back in AD&amp;D1, it was 3' squares---9 per 10' square.) I've never seen a real situation come up where someone actually considered/debated/mentioned working the angles on the battle grid. I mean, sure, a 20' square covers more area than a 20' circle, but I can't remember a real situation where it mattered. 9 times out of 10, there is only one target to the fireball, or all the victims would have been caught in the 20' circle anyway.As for cones, I've never had to figure the exact dimensions of the cone. Like the fireball, 9 times out of 10 it's placed on one target, or all the victims can easily be eyeballed to determine if they are in it or not.And as for movement, again 9 times out of 10, it just is a matter of I am here, the guy I want to charge is there, I just count the straightest route to him, taking diagonals where necessary. I've not seen anyone take diagonals as a way to &quot;slide&quot; around the battlefield.I've just never seen any of these hypothetical battlefield arrangements actually come up in real play. And although I've said, &quot;9 times out 10&quot; above, I don't remember a single 10th time.I've even mentioned at our games that if we ever have a situation that we can't definitely see if someone is in an area of effect (usually when talking about cones), we'll just roll percentile dice---01-50 in, 51-00 out. But this has never happened. Most folks using a cone effect move into a position to make sure they cover who they want to cover.&lt;shrug&gt; Just haven't ever seen it.Quasqueton</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quasqueton, post: 1783777, member: 3854"] Well, I've used a battle grid for all my 24 years of gaming. (Back in AD&D1, it was 3' squares---9 per 10' square.) I've never seen a real situation come up where someone actually considered/debated/mentioned working the angles on the battle grid. I mean, sure, a 20' square covers more area than a 20' circle, but I can't remember a real situation where it mattered. 9 times out of 10, there is only one target to the fireball, or all the victims would have been caught in the 20' circle anyway. As for cones, I've never had to figure the exact dimensions of the cone. Like the fireball, 9 times out of 10 it's placed on one target, or all the victims can easily be eyeballed to determine if they are in it or not. And as for movement, again 9 times out of 10, it just is a matter of I am here, the guy I want to charge is there, I just count the straightest route to him, taking diagonals where necessary. I've not seen anyone take diagonals as a way to "slide" around the battlefield. I've just never seen any of these hypothetical battlefield arrangements actually come up in real play. And although I've said, "9 times out 10" above, I don't remember a single 10th time. I've even mentioned at our games that if we ever have a situation that we can't definitely see if someone is in an area of effect (usually when talking about cones), we'll just roll percentile dice---01-50 in, 51-00 out. But this has never happened. Most folks using a cone effect move into a position to make sure they cover who they want to cover. <shrug> Just haven't ever seen it. Quasqueton [/QUOTE]

Verification