Squared FireBalls?

ainatan said:
Because it's really a square.

If you mean the other thing I think you mean, because a 20 ft radius circle, on a grid that considers diagonal movement as 1 square(or 5ft.), becomes a square, not a circle.

I believe Merric is suggesting that the two can be independent of each other. This is true, and even works in the odd world setup I posited in the much, much longer geometry thread.

Do we have anything beyond speculation that flare squares have replaced fireballs? How do DDM2's fireballs work?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


great thing about this

the great thing about this...once again, it's easy enough to house rule. YOu want explosions to be true spheres....just say that they are.

Not hard, not a problem.

Sanjay
 

delericho said:
Q: How do you confuse a 3e player?
A: Put him in a round room and tell him to sit in the corner.
Q: How do you really confuse him?
A: Tell him that the 4E player found the corner.

Edit:
Q: How do you confuse a 4E player?
A: Tell him that if the 3E player could find the corner, he could avoid the fireballcube.
 
Last edited:

I am alright with these abstractions for 4e.

I also think a lot of the problems can be solved by taking the miniatures part of the game a little closer what I consider old school and do away with the grid.

That way you measure out your movement, use spherical or true cone templates and can introduce 3-D terrain in an easier fashion.
 

MacMathan said:
I am alright with these abstractions for 4e.
I'm not.

But, that said...
I also think a lot of the problems can be solved by taking the miniatures part of the game a little closer what I consider old school and do away with the grid.

That way you measure out your movement, use spherical or true cone templates and can introduce 3-D terrain in an easier fashion.
You've got this one absolutely right. :)

Do away with the grid except as a rough unit of scale for convenience, and go from there.

Lanefan
 

Haffrung Helleyes said:
In the case of the fireball, it is a regular , symmetrical solid. No issues of facing are introduced by modeling it as a sphere, and the different types of spheres that the system needs to represent are few. So it's much easier to treat the fireball in a more realistic matter than the dragon.

When designing an RPG, you have to balance the realism of the system with speed of play. What we are saying is that you are sacrificing a large amount of realism (more with the movement rules than with the square fireballs, in my opinion) for a marginal gain in speed of play.

Even if the gain in speed of play is significant, there's a point past which the realism sacrifice makes suspension of disbelief for some of us impossible. At that point it just doesn't matter if the game plays faster.
I agree.
 

MerricB said:
Is there any reason why 4e won't use a template for fireball effects that looks "circular"?

Cheers!
well, If 4e does, it will be quite different from the way DDM handles radius effects. And much has been said DDM2 and 4E will be more tranparent in rules.

Also, Mouseferatu, someone who has seen 4E, seems to be defending the simplicity of the 'firecube', rather than saying "wait and see". :] To me, that is a confirmation of the firecube's existence.
 

MerricB said:
It uses templates for circles and cones.
Umm, really? Last time I checked, the new DDM rules use a template for cones but uses squares for radius-effects.

Actually, you cannot even use a square-template for the new radius-effects because the effect has to 'move around walls', i.e. you basically apply the movement rules to decide if someone is within the area of effect.
 

frankthedm said:
Also, Mouseferatu, someone who has seen 4E, seems to be defending the simplicity of the 'firecube', rather than saying "wait and see". :] To me, that is a confirmation of the firecube's existence.
To me, it's also an indication that maybe it works just fine in play and I should relax.
 

Remove ads

Top