Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stormrunner" data-source="post: 1235472" data-attributes="member: 13471">Um, guys, the whole idea of "range increments" is an abstract approximation to begin with.  That being the case, why can't you accept the abstract approximation of measuring center-to-center?  It's quick, easy, and you don't need to engage in long pointless arguments like this one.During the (abstract, approximate) time unit of a round, a character is assumed to be moving about within his square somewhat, as he attacks, dodges blows, etc.  The corner-to-corner ruling for cover/concealment reflects the likelihood that, if you move to the appropriate corner/edge of your square, as your partially-concealed opponent moves about within his square at some point he will move to a part of the square where you have a clear shot at him.Otherwise, you might as well do away with the grid altogether, measure distances from the position of the weapon on your mini (which will lead to a preference for minis that hold their weapons straight out in front of them rather than, say, overhead), and whip out your programmable calculator to run the physics equations for ballistic flight path and air resistance.If you want to argue about range increments, how about the discrepancy between weapon increments and Spot/Listen increments?  I could whip out my composite longbow and nail a foe 350 feet away with only a -6 to hit - that is, if I could see him due to the -35 on my Spot check.</blockquote>

Verification