poor rational for "updating" Magic Missile?

[KarinsDad]

The point is, you're doing nothing but a kludge just to make your fireballs rounder in, what is essence, an abstraction of things. Are squares mathematically elegant for the 45' angles? No. But neither are hexes! Both are kludges for the natural world, but only one is a kludge for artificial constructs.

Specifically SIZED and ORIENTED artificial constructs. Squares are still a kludge for a wide variety of artifical constructs.


And, it's not just to make fireballs rounder. That's a pleasant side effect.

It's to make diagonal movement cleaner. Creatures do not fly across the room, just because they move diagonally. And creatures need extra movement to try to avoid the Defenders that 4E drops on the floor.

It's to allow weird shaped rooms of any size and any orientation next to each other. The DM can have diamonded shaped rooms next to square rooms next to circular rooms, in any orientation and it all just works.

It's to eliminate weird flanking problems like the diagonal flank versus the horizontal flank shift opportunity attack example that I mentioned earlier.


This is also why I mentioned that offset squares are better than even hexes or squares. They have many of the advantages of both hexes and squares and few of the disadvantages.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You cannot. I opened a character I'd previously built with the Magic Missile power, and the power on his sheet was changed to the new version. There is no longer even an option.

That is disappointing, but predictable. I, too wish they had had the foresight to let people choose which version of the spell they liked, but after all, this IS the official update. You should pretty much expect them to do this.

Yet another reason to keep buying books. All those discussions about preferred editions of games over the years that included retorts of "They can't come into your house and take your books, can they?" has just gotten a new line, "No, but they sure can edit them!"

 

[fba827]

"official reasons" aside, I like the fact that they did update MM.
I was finding it too bland and lacking, especially when compared to stuff like Hand of Radiance (Invoker at will) that came out later.
Now, I find MM to have its own niche, so I don't completely ignore it now.

 

[DracoSuave]

Specifically SIZED and ORIENTED artificial constructs. Squares are still a kludge for a wide variety of artifical constructs.

Anything common and sensible?

It's to make diagonal movement cleaner. Creatures do not fly across the room, just because they move diagonally. And creatures need extra movement to try to avoid the Defenders that 4E drops on the floor.

At the expense of perpendicular movement. Yes, going west by north west is easier now... but going west? Now you have to use an even -less- elegant method of staggering hexes.

It's to allow weird shaped rooms of any size and any orientation next to each other. The DM can have diamonded shaped rooms next to square rooms next to circular rooms, in any orientation and it all just works.[/qupte]

Except, of course, for the diamond and square shaped rooms actually being shaped with jagged weird unstraight sides.

So not really 'square' or 'diamond' at all.

It's to eliminate weird flanking problems like the diagonal flank versus the horizontal flank shift opportunity attack example that I mentioned earlier.

In exchange for:

Square:

--------------------  <-  Wall
     F O F       <- the Fs are flanking the O

Hex:

------------------- <- same wall
     O
  F     F         <-  The Fs cannot flank the O even tho they are all exactly against the wall

Seriously, try it out. And then when you get one wall that works as it should... notice that any wall perpendicular to that is now buggered.

Hexes do not work with 99% of all architecture.

This is also why I mentioned that offset squares are better than even hexes or squares. They have many of the advantages of both hexes and squares and few of the disadvantages.

Offset Squares are hexes with a different shape. Your offset squares have exactly the same problem as hexes do with 'wall'. Don't make me demonstrate it with photoshop... either those half squares are there, or are not. If they are there, you can exploit them to prevent straight line flanking and tactical mastery based solely on the fact combat is east-west rather than north-south.



If your hex system cannot handle 'wall' intuitively then it's hard to make any reasonable claim to superiority. Sure, it can handle diagonals... kinda... a bit... but sadly, it cannot handle 'left' or 'right' at all.

That makes it -terribly- flawed for anything that has a left or right.

 

[Nifft]

Hex:

------------------- <- same wall
     O
  F     F         <-  The Fs cannot flank the O even tho they are all exactly against the wall

Seriously, try it out. And then when you get one wall that works as it should... notice that any wall perpendicular to that is now buggered.

So, using hexes, it's sometimes hard to flank a guy with his back against the wall.

I'm okay with this.

Note that there's a feat in 4e which tries to replicate this defensive bonus. If we eliminate that and use tactical positioning instead, it should work out reasonably well.

Cheers, -- N

 

[DracoSuave]

So, using hexes, it's sometimes hard to flank a guy with his back against the wall.

I'm okay with this.

I'm not.

If North and South have different physics than East and West, then whats the point about caring about other directions? the physics of the universe change based on how far you are from a corner, whether that corner is of one 'polarity' or another...

Really. It's a big damn mess, and doesn't make any sort of sense...all to make fireballs and rocks rounder.

 

[KarinsDad]

In exchange for:

Square:

--------------------  <-  Wall
     F O F       <- the Fs are flanking the O

Hex:

------------------- <- same wall
     O
  F     F         <-  The Fs cannot flank the O even tho they are all exactly against the wall

Seriously, try it out. And then when you get one wall that works as it should... notice that any wall perpendicular to that is now buggered.

Hexes do not work with 99% of all architecture.



Offset Squares are hexes with a different shape. Your offset squares have exactly the same problem as hexes do with 'wall'. Don't make me demonstrate it with photoshop... either those half squares are there, or are not. If they are there, you can exploit them to prevent straight line flanking and tactical mastery based solely on the fact combat is east-west rather than north-south.



If your hex system cannot handle 'wall' intuitively then it's hard to make any reasonable claim to superiority. Sure, it can handle diagonals... kinda... a bit... but sadly, it cannot handle 'left' or 'right' at all.

That makes it -terribly- flawed for anything that has a left or right.

Well, it's obvious that you have never played with offset squares or hexes using the proper rules because you make the "cannot flank" claims.

The wall rule is simple for hexes and offset squares. If half or more of the hex is against a wall or surface, you can use that hex as if it were a full hex. Caveat: If you are in a 5 or less foot wide corridor, you use up multiple "half or partial hexes".


Square:

--------------------  <-  Wall
     F O F       <- the Fs are flanking the O
     F F F

Hex:

------------------- <- same wall
     F O F       <- the Fs are flanking the O
      F F

No difference with regard to the flank. A slight difference with regard to how many foes can surround O.

And offset squares basically work the same way.

And before you go into the non-intuitive argument or any other, it works. Ask Zinovia. She's been using them for years.

I used to use them and my group had a long and hard discussion on whether we should use them for 4E because they are much easier to use. What swayed us to try 4E with squares is because all of the new WotC adventure material is in squares. That was the main reason to use squares in 4E. In every previous edition, it depended on the people in the group. I've used both in every edition with the exception of 4E.


I suspect that your strong opinion is not based on a lot of experience using them. Or at least using them correctly.

 

[Nifft]

I'm not.

If North and South have different physics than East and West, then whats the point about caring about other directions? the physics of the universe change based on how far you are from a corner, whether that corner is of one 'polarity' or another...

Really. It's a big damn mess, and doesn't make any sort of sense...all to make fireballs and rocks rounder.

Nah, hexes help distance make more sense. Round fireballs are just a cosmetic perk.

 

[BrokeAndDrive]

So I come to a thread about magic missile, and every post on the last page is about hex vs. squares...

 

[DracoSuave]

Well played.

You did -exactly- what I anticipated you would.

You took a wall I told you you could take, made it work... but then did not answer my challenge of 'Now try the wall perpendicular to it.'

So, I shall do so, and demonstrate my statement holds perfectly.

As you can clearly see, the example I gave is very accurate given the 'half-hex' rule you have provided. Anyone against the east or west wall cannot be flanked by others along the same, parallel wall, and every five feet, someone against what is supposedly a straight wall cannot be flanked in any direction whatsoever.

You can have all the hex-rules you want, but you cannot avoid the simple mathematical equation 60x cannot equal 90 if x is an integer.