Squared FireBalls?

[HeinorNY]

To me, it's also an indication that maybe it works just fine in play and I should relax.

Were you nervous before Mouseferatu said that?

 

[Thyrwyn]

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.

I think the key point is that they are all abstractions - certain spells and effects no longer works the way it used to. Why did they work the way the did? Why should a spell called "fireball" create a perfect sphere of fire? Why should we use a cone to represent a Dragon's breath? The question should be do the new ways work any better or worse than the old ways? Are they significantly easier or harder to implement, and do they impact the game more significantly in either a positive or negative manner?

The exactness and specificity that we are supposedly looking for is an illusion.

Given that the miniatures themselves represent spatial abstractions of the characters and creatures they represent, "exact" templates can cause significant headaches, too. How much of the miniature (or its base) needs to be under the template in order to be affected? What about Large, or bigger, creatures? What about minis with square (as opposed to circular) bases? What if I am using a 20-sider to represent the BBEG? How much work will be needed to translate effects from "x square" radius to "x inches" radius?

I used to own/operate a game store dedicated to GW miniatures games and products. I ran gridless games every day. Line of sight and area of effect were a never-ending source of debate. The 4e system sacrifices "exactitude" for speed of adjudication and resolution. This sacrifice will help the game get out of combat quickly, which will free up more real time for either more combat encounters or some actual role-playing, whichever a given group prefers.

Adding complexity to any system is alway easier than simplifying it would be. This is your gateway to becoming a 4e, 3rd party publisher - "the 4e Miniatures Handbook". Go to it.

My advice:

1) All effects are measured from center of base to center of base.

2) If using 1), then translate all "x square" radius area effects to "x inch" radius area effects; otherwise add .5 inches. A creature is only affected if the center of their base is under the template (or if more than half of their base is, if not using 1) above).

3) If going gridless, and using 1) above, consider a creature to be "in melee" with any other creature within 1"; if not using 1) above, creatures are "in melee" with any other creature within a 1/2 inch. Reach would add at least 1" to either number (haven't seen the 4e reach rules, so cannot get more specific).

4) the "footprint" of all creatures and obstacles must be clearly defined at ground level: all creatures on "regular" bases; all obstacles must also be on "a" base (which defines their area of effect). All measurements are taken along the "floor".

 

[Wormwood]

Were you nervous before Mouseferatu said that?

Only that they may have decided *not* to implement a change which made play easier.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.

I don't believe I said any such thing. You may, of course, infer whatever you like.

 

[lukelightning]

...Line of sight and area of effect were a never-ending source of debate.

I've been in those arguments. Between that and "nudging" I am completely soured on the idea of a gridless map in D&D.

 

[Abraxas]

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.

Interesting, as someone who has been slowly becomming optimistic about 4E, Mouseferatu's comments of late have made me more worried that I won't like 4E.

 

[rkanodia]

I've been in those arguments. Between that and "nudging" I am completely soured on the idea of a gridless map in D&D.

This gets even more hilarious in a game like Mage Knight, where you *have* to pick up a figure (in order to turn the combat dial, which keeps track of the unit's stats and abilities) every time it takes damage.