Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7025819" data-attributes="member: 996">But has XP turned off.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />'Exact' positioning in 5e, though, is down to a granularity of the 5' square, and that's not very exact.&nbsp; A trigger might require you to be 'adjacent,' for instance, or 'within burst' (and the burst will be 1, 2, 3, or maybe 5 or some multiple of 5 - but the 'burst' will be a simple square).&nbsp; &nbsp;More exact, but less prevalent, perhaps - it depends on spell load-out, I guess, whether you'll be dealing with a lot of differently shaped areas or rarely with any.&nbsp; Of course, every class can have some of those spells, so...Not so much in the suitability of the system for TotM directly, but in the sense of 'fast combat' tuning, sure.&nbsp; You kill the monster in 1-3 rounds, you have fewer position-tracking headaches than if it took you 6-10, just because there was less to the whole thing.&nbsp; Sorta:&nbsp; &quot;The rules don't work for this, but even if you don't want to override them and just muddle through as best you can, at least it'll be over quickly.&quot;&nbsp;The encounter guidelines are relatively more complicated and less dependable, but easier to figure and not so bad when used for a single-monster encounter, so that encourages such encounters over more complex ones?&nbsp; So support for TotM in the form of making harder-to-do-in-TotM encounters, well, even harder to do, whether you're using TotM or not?&nbsp; Yeah, I can see that.&nbsp;Perhaps there's a goal in there somewhere about avoiding material that might be hard to handle TotM (though, really, it's not exactly a lot easier to handle some of those range/area issues /on/ the hypothetical grid, either), but it's clearly below the 'evoke the classic feel'(z?) goal.&nbsp; So when the choice is write a spell that'll work well with TotM (affects 1d4 close targets, 2d3 if cast recklessly) but will conflict with tradition, or describe the geometrically precise area in feet, you do the latter.&nbsp; &nbsp;Y'd think they could've done more with a TotM module - I guess that would be admitting that it's not TotM 'by default.'</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7025819, member: 996"] But has XP turned off. :( 'Exact' positioning in 5e, though, is down to a granularity of the 5' square, and that's not very exact. A trigger might require you to be 'adjacent,' for instance, or 'within burst' (and the burst will be 1, 2, 3, or maybe 5 or some multiple of 5 - but the 'burst' will be a simple square). More exact, but less prevalent, perhaps - it depends on spell load-out, I guess, whether you'll be dealing with a lot of differently shaped areas or rarely with any. Of course, every class can have some of those spells, so... Not so much in the suitability of the system for TotM directly, but in the sense of 'fast combat' tuning, sure. You kill the monster in 1-3 rounds, you have fewer position-tracking headaches than if it took you 6-10, just because there was less to the whole thing. Sorta: "The rules don't work for this, but even if you don't want to override them and just muddle through as best you can,[i] at least it'll be over quickly.[/i]" The encounter guidelines are relatively more complicated and less dependable, but easier to figure and not so bad when used for a single-monster encounter, so that encourages such encounters over more complex ones? So support for TotM in the form of making harder-to-do-in-TotM encounters, well, even harder to do, whether you're using TotM or not? Yeah, I can see that. Perhaps there's a goal in there somewhere about avoiding material that might be hard to handle TotM (though, really, it's not exactly a lot easier to handle some of those range/area issues /on/ the hypothetical grid, either), but it's clearly below the 'evoke the classic feel'(z?) goal. So when the choice is write a spell that'll work well with TotM (affects 1d4 close targets, 2d3 if cast recklessly) but will conflict with tradition, or describe the geometrically precise area in feet, you do the latter. Y'd think they could've done more with a TotM module - I guess that would be admitting that it's not TotM 'by default.' [/QUOTE]

Verification