Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thyrwyn" data-source="post: 4048896" data-attributes="member: 12354">I think the key point is that they are all abstractions - certain spells and effects no longer works the way it used to.&nbsp; Why did they work the way the did?&nbsp; Why should a spell called &quot;fireball&quot; create a perfect sphere of fire?&nbsp; Why should we use a cone to represent a Dragon's breath?&nbsp; The question should be do the new ways work any better or worse than the old ways?&nbsp; 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, &quot;exact&quot; templates can cause significant headaches, too.&nbsp; How much of the miniature (or its base) needs to be under the template in order to be affected?&nbsp; What about Large, or bigger, creatures?&nbsp; What about minis with square (as opposed to circular) bases?&nbsp; What if I am using a 20-sider to represent the BBEG?&nbsp; How much work will be needed to translate effects from &quot;x square&quot; radius to &quot;x inches&quot; radius?I used to own/operate a game store dedicated to GW miniatures games and products.&nbsp; I ran gridless games every day.&nbsp; Line of sight and area of effect were a never-ending source of debate.&nbsp; The 4e system sacrifices &quot;exactitude&quot; for speed of adjudication and resolution.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Adding complexity to any system is alway easier than simplifying it would be.&nbsp; This is your gateway to becoming a 4e, 3rd party publisher - &quot;the 4e Miniatures Handbook&quot;.&nbsp; Go to it.My advice:</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thyrwyn, post: 4048896, member: 12354"] 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, [i]whichever a given group prefers[/i]. 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: [/QUOTE]

Verification