Squared FireBalls?

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I said this in the other thread, and I'll say it again here:

If fireballs are square, so what?

People aren't actually 5-ft. square creatures, but that's what they occupy in the abstraction of the board.

Horses aren't square. Dragons aren't square. Beholders certainly aren't square. Trees aren't square. Boulders aren't square. But all of them are abstracted to squares on the board, be they creatures or objects.

Why, then, should spell effects be any different? That's the nature of a grid-based battlemat--things are abstracted to squares.

Here's why:

It isn't ideal that we model Dragons and Beholders and people as squares. But we do so for several reasons:

1) in the case of medium sized creatures, they fit inside a 5' square, and the 5' square is the minimum level of granularity on the battlemap.

2) in the case of larger creatures, we model them as squares because to do otherwise would unavoidably add the issue of facing to combat, and facing rules aren't in the game.

3) Another reason we model larger creatures as squares is because there are a great many monsters in D&D , and they come in a large number of shapes and sizes. It would be difficult to come up with a small number of models that every creature could be mapped to.

Nevertheless, the fact that large creatures are modeled as squares in D&D isn't a strength of the system. It's an area where I have to apply house rules from time to time as a concession to common sense. For example, the Huge Constrictor Snake shouldn't have to squeeze to go down a corridor.

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.

It seems to me that WoTC is introducing a lot of these changes for the sake of consistency with the miniatures game. If I am correct, you must admit, it's a poor tradeoff for those of us who don't play D&D minis.

Ken

 

[Counterspin]

Or you could draw it the way the 3e fireball template is drawn. Drawing the tower as a square maintains the movement rates of 1-2-1, though doesn't it? It takes only 2 moves to get around a corner in 1-1-1 if you scallop the edges like a 3e fireball template, because you simply make two diagonal moves. If you make the tower square, it takes 3 moves to get around the corner.

Haffrung - I fail to see why applying something which is important to usability in a miniatures game to a game which has a miniatures game as a subsystem can be viewed as a disservice.

 

[Scribble]

At 1ppi, my battlemat is fairly low resolution---the fireballs look waaay too pixelated.

just turn your anti-aliasing filter on...

 

[Mouseferatu]

It seems to me that WoTC is introducing a lot of these changes for the sake of consistency with the miniatures game. If I am correct, you must admit, it's a poor tradeoff for those of us who don't play D&D minis.

Actually, I don't have to admit that. I don't play D&D minis. I'm a roleplayer, not a wargamer. I'm quite happy to have entire game sessions where there's no combat at all, though of course I love a good, interesting combat encounter. As a DM, I'm a storyteller and a worldbuilder; as a player, I look for places to act and speak in-character, even in games that are more heavily devoted to the tactics side of the game.

And with all that said, I've played with the "spell effects abstracted to squares" rule, and I've played with the "a square is a square even if it's diagonal" rule. And I find, personally, that they both speed up and simplify play more than sufficiently to overcome any problems with suspension of disbelief on my part, or on the part of any of the people who game with me. For us, it has made D&D--not the minis game, but the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying game--better.

Will that hold true for everyone? Obviously not. But I think, once people try it and get used to it, it'll hold true for the majority.

 

[HeinorNY]

I'm sorry, I just don't agree. I don't think it's any harder to accept than a horse and rider taking up a 10-ft. square, or a halfling occupying a 5-ft. square.

It's easier because we play with miniatures. Yeah that looks like a weak point, but when you put a miniature representing the character on the grid, you visualize it, it makes sense. You really don't need to abstract that much or anything at all.
You can't put a physical representation of a "firebox" on the grid to help ya, it wouldn't work, it wouldn't fit and it would look damn strange, it's something better to be kept in our imaginations only. That's why it's a bigger abstraction than accepting the halfling occupying the grid.

I said we play with miniatures. But how do we adjudicate a "firebox" when playing without miniatures? Won't our "mentally rounded" firebox affect less opponents?

 

[Mouseferatu]

I said we play with miniatures. But how do we adjudicate a "firebox" when playing without miniatures? Won't our "mentally rounded" firebox affect less opponents?

Um, when playing without miniatures, this entire discussion is moot. Without miniatures, squares don't exist, people move as far as the DM thinks is reasonable, and fireballs are spherical. Everything to do with squares is an abstraction, so of course the spell "looks" different in a game without minis than it does in a game with minis.

 

[Counterspin]

ainatan - Why would you use an abstraction which you well know is for simplifying grid combat in a situation where it is entirely inappropriate? The number of things you hit with a fireball is only a rough approximation if you don't use a grid, so I doubt it will have any effect on play at all, since it comes down to the GM.

 

[delericho]

Anyway, I wonder about rounded towers. Let's say a tower is 20 ft. radius. On the 1-1-1-1 grid it's a square.

Q: How do you confuse a 3e player?
A: Put him in a round room and tell him to sit in the corner.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Or you could draw it the way the 3e fireball template is drawn. Drawing the tower as a square maintains the movement rates of 1-2-1, though doesn't it? It takes only 2 moves to get around a corner in 1-1-1 if you scallop the edges like a 3e fireball template, because you simply make two diagonal moves. If you make the tower square, it takes 3 moves to get around the corner.

Haffrung - I fail to see why applying something which is important to usability in a miniatures game to a game which has a miniatures game as a subsystem can be viewed as a disservice.

It's a disservice because the needs of the miniatures game are not the same as the needs of the RPG. People playing the miniatures game are not attempting to imagine themselves in a persona of their character, immersed in a game world. So abstractions that destroy immersion are less important.

Ken

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Actually, I don't have to admit that. I don't play D&D minis. I'm a roleplayer, not a wargamer. I'm quite happy to have entire game sessions where there's no combat at all, though of course I love a good, interesting combat encounter. As a DM, I'm a storyteller and a worldbuilder; as a player, I look for places to act and speak in-character, even in games that are more heavily devoted to the tactics side of the game.

And with all that said, I've played with the "spell effects abstracted to squares" rule, and I've played with the "a square is a square even if it's diagonal" rule. And I find, personally, that they both speed up and simplify play more than sufficiently to overcome any problems with suspension of disbelief on my part, or on the part of any of the people who game with me. For us, it has made D&D--not the minis game, but the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying game--better.

Will that hold true for everyone? Obviously not. But I think, once people try it and get used to it, it'll hold true for the majority.

Fair enough; I don't presume to say what works for you. But I disagree with your contention that the majoriy is served by this change.

Ken