Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6682178" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Do you really find yourself in situations where those extra 12 squares are going to add substantially more targets, without adding more allies? I find that...frankly difficult to believe, except in rare/unusual circumstances. The smaller cases (e.g. things with only a 5' or 10' radius) have a much more dramatic difference percentagewise and are much more likely to end up filled/spanned...but even for those, it feels like just a lot of work for so little &quot;gain.&quot;Plus...if we're talking a design consideration here...just design the spells to use the simpler-to-run method in the first place, and there's no &quot;potency boost&quot; in the first place.More or less, a preoccupation with geometric precision--&quot;cones,&quot; &quot;circles,&quot; etc. that are always a compromise to begin with--strikes me as being exactly the same kind of thing as a preoccupation with &quot;weapon speed&quot; or &quot;iterative attacks.&quot; Yes, in the games that were designed with those in mind, just dropping them for a simpler alternative will probably make something go pear-shaped. But if we're talking about our &quot;preferences&quot; for how a game does something, my preference is that the designers just cut out the largely-superfluous geometry, timing, and bonus-variation, and make a system that works properly without needing those things.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6682178, member: 6790260"] Do you really find yourself in situations where those extra 12 squares are going to add substantially more targets, without adding more allies? I find that...frankly difficult to believe, except in rare/unusual circumstances. The smaller cases (e.g. things with only a 5' or 10' radius) have a much more dramatic difference percentagewise and are much more likely to end up filled/spanned...but even for those, it feels like just a lot of work for so little "gain." Plus...if we're talking a design consideration here...just design the spells to use the simpler-to-run method in the first place, and there's no "potency boost" in the first place. More or less, a preoccupation with geometric precision--"cones," "circles," etc. that are always a compromise to begin with--strikes me as being exactly the same kind of thing as a preoccupation with "weapon speed" or "iterative attacks." Yes, in the games that were designed with those in mind, just dropping them for a simpler alternative will probably make [I]something[/I] go pear-shaped. But if we're talking about our "preferences" for how a game does something, my preference is that the designers just cut out the largely-superfluous geometry, timing, and bonus-variation, and make a system that works properly without [I]needing[/I] those things. [/QUOTE]

Verification