Squared FireBalls?

[HeinorNY]

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.

I wouldn't. I already said I'm pretty happy with the "firebox". I have no problems with abstractions, attack rolls, HP, AC are all abstractions.

I can't accept abstractions that break the game like the 1-1-1-1 diagonal movement, but that is another thread...

 

[HeinorNY]

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

Lol.
Worse, what would a actually squared tower look like in the 1-1-1-1 grid? A 4 pointed star?

 

[Set]

double post.

move along, these are not the words you're looking for.

 

[Set]

We use hex maps. The fireballs have always fit pretty well. It's the bizarre square spell effects that come out looking a little wonkey.

Either way something's gonna look weird. The real world doesn't have squares or hexes.

Could be worse, they could switch to Penrose tiles or something...

 

[WhatGravitas]

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?

Nah, it affects more opponents, since opponents aren't divided up into neat 5 ft. boxes, if I'm playing without the mat. My players then "fireball the room".

Cheers, LT.

 

[Counterspin]

Haffrung - Given that, as I've said, the miniatures game of D&D combat is a subsystem of D&D in general, I find the idea that they have separate needs to be nonsensical. If your immersion can be broken by movement rules, I would not call what you have immersion. If you don't like the rule, that's all well and good, but the idea that your RP will be damaged by the combat rules is, as always, ridiculous.

 

[HeinorNY]

My players then "fireball the room".

THAT sounds D&D.
I miss the time we played without any miniatures at all. Combat was less tactical, but definitely more chaotic (which can turn into excitement depending on the encounter).
I'll try it again the next time I play with the current rules.

 

[Mercule]

There's a difference between all of those other examples, which are basically "pixellation", and this, which is... something else.

This.

The 3.x fireball is still round in the game world. The pixellation is only there as an explicit indicator for determining who is affected and who isn't. It's just a way of highlighting things for the battle mat.

Fireboxes turn the expedient highlighting into an a questionable abstraction. I suppose I could accept if a 20' radius becomes a 6"x6" square (with some of the outer 5' considered hot, but not damaging in game terms), but even that breaks down if you get large areas. There's really no satisfactory way of abstracting a 50' radius, for example.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Haffrung - Given that, as I've said, the miniatures game of D&D combat is a subsystem of D&D in general, I find the idea that they have separate needs to be nonsensical. If your immersion can be broken by movement rules, I would not call what you have immersion. If you don't like the rule, that's all well and good, but the idea that your RP will be damaged by the combat rules is, as always, ridiculous.

You have a very poor grasp of what is nonsensical and what is ridiculous.

Ken

 

[Piratecat]

What, did this thread suddenly have a snarkgasm?

Quit the snide insults, people, now. Either discuss the topic politely, or don't post in the thread. Those - along with "get suspended for ignoring a moderator" - are your options, so I'd appreciate it if you picked one.