The other houserule is that diagonal movement is 1-2-1. I prefer this over anything else.
Other than that, I read the quickstart rules and I think pretty much everything else looks fine. I will see probably later how well the eladrin teleport power works, I might have to limit that to line of sight (I am hoping it is already line of sight).
I plan on houseruling a fluff and a mechanic. First I will houserule that the female dragonborn gets a +1 to her con versus the male dragonborn, and they have no general physical differences besides being larger than their male components. I always felt that if dragons are to be like reptiles, they should maintain the male female size differences as well as strengths.
I disagree, for two reasons. One, they didn't keep mechanical size/ability differences (i.e., differing Strength or Constitution scores) based on gender for mammalian races. Two, gender in general should not be something that can be min/maxed in any game but the most nitpicky, un-gamist, un-narrativist, un-fun simulation there ever was--D&D is not simulationist; it is narrativist and gamist, so gender shouldn't generally carry mechanical effects.
However, I do agree entirely with suggesting that female dragonborn are on average larger than male dragonborn (and if the player wants to play it up, they can budget more point-buy points for Strength and Constitution, but there is no built-in mechanical difference) and that there are no dragomams.
The other houserule is that diagonal movement is 1-2-1. I prefer this over anything else.
I expect that this will be a common one for groups willing to do just a little bit of extra math, given that the 1-1-1 diagonal movement makes sense from a "Let's just make the game move faster" standpoint but can be headscratchy when analyzed in any other way. Square-circle burst patterns would probably be next.
As to the dragonborn one... well I will see how well it plays out, if it doesn't well then I will remove the con bonus, but I will keep the females larger than the males, and perhaps have that affect hierarchy and such.
Do you give Human males +1 Strength?
The second thing we did was to run 1-1-1 with hexes instead of squares. This was actually pretty cool and we migth well adopt it as our default. The only potential problem is we like to use some of the dungeon tiles from time to time and they aren't hex.
So when hexes aren't desirable for whatever reason (like we're using tiles) we'll stick to 1-2-1. I think it's almost absurd to refer to it as "additional math," though I suppose technically it is. I can't believe the number of people who have posted on the boards that say 1-2-1 has actually caused problems for them. One other thing we noticed when we played 1-1-1 was that there was no discernable increase in the rate of play. 1-2-1 is so easy to do that 1-1-1 isn't much of a time-saver to begin with.
Dragons aren't reptiles.
Do you give Human males +1 Strength?
Your talking into deaf ears DE. People want to make their assumptions and declare that they are right.
Take a look at the pangolin
Yes that isn't a reptile, straight up mammal here folks.
As for the 1-2-1 vs 1-1-1. Well distance isn't nearly as 'long' as it was in 3.x moving 8-10 squares will be the exception not the norm. People need to stop thinking in 3.x terms and OMG maybe actually wait until the rules are out before jumping to conclusions on how to play the game..shocking isn't it.
If half your movements are purely in one direction, and half or less than half of the moves are diagonals, then 1-1 is equally or even more accurate than 1-2-1.
I'm smart enough that I can calculate 1-2-1, but in the end, it's just a game not a simulation, and given that the majority of the time 1-1 is very close to being equal or even more accurate.
There are a lot of simplified abstractions in the game, and nobody complains about the others. I just don't see the point in worrying about it, and producing a house rule to deliberately make it a tiny less intuitive for a small benefit in accuracy.
I plan on houseruling a fluff and a mechanic. First I will houserule that the female dragonborn gets a +1 to her con versus the male dragonborn, and they have no general physical differences besides being larger than their male components. I always felt that if dragons are to be like reptiles, they should maintain the male female size differences as well as strengths.
If your going to give fluff mechanics then the races can never be equal.
Dwarf +2 con, +2 wis, +4 int (long lived race of mountain people)
Eladrin +4 dex, +2 wis, +4 int, -2 Cha (long lived race of other-worldly forest people)
Elf: +2 dex, +2 wis, +4 int (long lived race of forest people)
Human: +2 Endurance(the skill), ignore all other racial abilities
Male: +2 Str, +2 con, -2 Cha (if patriarchy), else: +1 str
Female: -2 Str, +2 dex, +4 Cha (if patriarchy), else: +1 con
If you start making one race prescribe to "realism" then be prepared to do the same for all.
Also, prove dragons are reptiles (by proving dragons are reptiles you must eliminate the white dragon and the dragonborn ability to breath ice at first level, invalidating the dragonborn in arctic, underground or temperate environments where they freeze to death in the shade or cool weather).
And besides, this is just an experiment to see if I can get more of my players interested in the dragonborn.
I just don't see the point in worrying about it, and producing a house rule to deliberately make it a tiny less intuitive for a small benefit in accuracy.
It isn't any less intuitive, and the benefit in accuracy isn't always that small. When we were comparing the movement systems we found that, for example, when using a full run, a character could move almost an additional 60 feet by taking a diagonal instead of moving along a straight line. Now that's ludicrous within the game world environment.
Well I said it was just a consideration earlier. I still think, and no I don't have to prove as this is just my opinion, that dragons are large warm blooded reptiles of some sort as in dinosaurs. Even the white dragon has to have some warm bloodedness ( and by this I mean a constant temperature regardless of outside environments) even if that temperature is 32 degrees F. The reasoning behind it is to perhaps entice people in my group to give the dragonborn a try, and also to try playing a female character. A +1 con is not very much in the long run, it adds 1 more hit point in the beginning and adds +1 to your fortitude defense. It doesn't seem to help you more than that. As you would put a +4 int helps out quite a bit more than just a +1 con.
And besides, this is just an experiment to see if I can get more of my players interested in the dragonborn.
Why not just let your players play what they want to play? Why the preference for them playing a certain race and certain gender? Do you generally bribe your players so they will do what you want? Does that generally work for you?
It isn't any less intuitive, and the benefit in accuracy isn't always that small. When we were comparing the movement systems we found that, for example, when using a full run, a character could move almost an additional 60 feet by taking a diagonal instead of moving along a straight line. Now that's ludicrous within the game world environment.
Which is why, from the looks of it, the 'full run action' is no longer in the game. Heck a run is only an extra 2 squares now.
Even if they were reptiles, there are many species of reptile where the male is larger then the female. If you want the female dragonborn to be larger in your game, so be it. I personally like the idea, purely on the basis of throwing some variety into the gender traits of PC races. But you don't need to justify it with random comparisons to real life.
I also wouldn't put any stat mods on it. Gender trait differences shouldn't be sufficient to grant stat changes, unless the genders are so different in form that they warrant entirely separate racial entries. Slightly bigger/stronger on average shouldn't be sufficient.
As for 1-2-1, it does take longer to move, and characters will supposedly move more in 4e, so 1-1-1 could represent a noticeable difference. If most of your encounters take place indoors (ie - traditional dungeon delving) then the difference shouldn't be so noticeable as to strain credulity. If you run large, open, outdoor encounters, however, the noticeably imporved (though admittedly not perfect) spacial representation of 1-2-1 may well be worth the extra hassle. I myself will be running 1-1-1 for the first several 4e sessions I run, just to give it a fair shot - firecubes and all.
I have decided upon one more so far. When a fighter is using his challenge ability to mark an opponent, the person controlling the fighter has to make sure to roleplay something appropriate to indicate he is marking the opponent. Something along the lines of talking trash, or indicating he is really trying to get in the opponents way. This is the only way I can see the fighter's marking ability as visible versus the paladin's marking ability.
This sounds more like an argument of the players in your group not roleplaying. I never understood why some DMs want to "houserule" stuff which isn't rules-based in the firstplace. In other words, this isn't a house-rule, it's a "I'm the DM and I demand that you roleplay in my games" rule.
For the record, I don't believe a house-rule should ever use the term "roleplay" as part of the rule. That's being a tad controlling, if you ask me.
Which is why, from the looks of it, the 'full run action' is no longer in the game. Heck a run is only an extra 2 squares now.
So that helps a little bit. But consider taking a long-ranged attack along a diagonal and how much farther you can shoot with 1-1-1.
I'm going to use hexes.
If you run large, open, outdoor encounters, however, the noticeably imporved (though admittedly not perfect) spacial representation of 1-2-1 may well be worth the extra hassle.
That's the thing - we ran both movement schemes back to back. There was no extra hassle with 1-2-1 and I'm am frankly quite surprised that it poses even a little bit of extra "hassle" for anyone.
So that helps a little bit. But consider taking a long-ranged attack along a diagonal and how much farther you can shoot with 1-1-1.
I'm going to use hexes.
Heh, I see. People moving at the most 12 squares(if they do nothing but a move action and use their standard action to move again), which was my Swift Hunter's normal move in 3.5. Yet the 'little' help that 1-2-1 gives people, who are so adamant about correctness in distance, is somehow so much better?
That's the thing - we ran both movement schemes back to back. There was no extra hassle with 1-2-1 and I'm am frankly quite surprised that it poses even a little bit of extra "hassle" for anyone.
Because you end up with unused movement. Anyone with movement of 5 gets screwed out of movement, they can only move 3 squares: 1-2,3-4-5..oh darn can't go there too bad, see you should make sure you always have a 6 square movement...ain't this sooo much better than 1-1-1...wait no you can double move to get there. wha? you wanted to attack as well, oh sorry well either way you wont be able to attack, sorry.
Because you end up with unused movement. Anyone with movement of 5 gets screwed out of movement, they can only move 3 squares: 1-2,3-4-5..oh darn can't go there too bad, see you should make sure you always have a 6 square movement...ain't this sooo much better than 1-1-1...wait no you can double move to get there. wha? you wanted to attack as well, oh sorry well either way you wont be able to attack, sorry.
We don't have the trouble you seem to have. And a movement of 5 doesn't screw anyone. If you're using diagonals you've already moved further than people moving straight, so you're not getting screwed out of anything. If 1-2-1 causes problems for your group, then use 1-1-1 in 4E. It doesn't cause problems for mine so if we use squares we'll be using 1-2-1.
I disagree, for two reasons. One, they didn't keep mechanical size/ability differences (i.e., differing Strength or Constitution scores) based on gender for mammalian races. Two, gender in general should not be something that can be min/maxed in any game but the most nitpicky, un-gamist, un-narrativist, un-fun simulation there ever was--D&D is not simulationist; it is narrativist and gamist, so gender shouldn't generally carry mechanical effects.
However, I do agree entirely with suggesting that female dragonborn are on average larger than male dragonborn (and if the player wants to play it up, they can budget more point-buy points for Strength and Constitution, but there is no built-in mechanical difference) and that there are no dragomams.
I completely and totally agree with the first point. Or if you really want to enforce gender differences, then male Dragonborn should get a +1 to some random stat also (maybe Cha ... in any event, it should be something. And for that matter, do it to all the other races also).
The other thing i wonder about, is that they are Dragonborn not Dragons. There's all sorts of precedent for dragons taking the shape of other creatures and interbreeding and then the offspring being primarily of the non-dragon race. How do we know that Dragonborn don't have more mammal in them then Magic-"Lizard"-of-Death?
Why not just let your players play what they want to play? Why the preference for them playing a certain race and certain gender? Do you generally bribe your players so they will do what you want? Does that generally work for you?
And yes, i do bribe my players to try and get them to do what i want. But in my case it's a Magic-Items for Back-Story system, and yes it does work. It's the only way i've gotten some of my players to think about who their character is other than "I like to blow **** up."
But as far as trying to bribe folks into playing a Dragonborn ... isn't that what the breath-weapon is for?
On the other topic, i also plan on using Hexes and the 1-1-1 rule (although there kinda are what could be considered "diagonals" [moving out the corner of one hex along the line] we'll probably disallow that and only have the 6 directions you can move... lest people complain i guess). The only thing i wonder about is how well Bursts will work. Apparently it's supposed to drop a square right in front of you .... i might try and shape it into a cone.
P.S. the Pangolin looks blazing cool.
We don't have the trouble you seem to have. And a movement of 5 doesn't screw anyone. If you're using diagonals you've already moved further than people moving straight, so you're not getting screwed out of anything. If 1-2-1 causes problems for your group, then use 1-1-1 in 4E. It doesn't cause problems for mine so if we use squares we'll be using 1-2-1.
Have you played 4e yet?
I will stress this again. 4e movement is not the same as 3e movement
A large chunk of abilities gets neutered for some strange cling to 'realism'.
The world doesn't work on a grid. Just because it's mathematically 'closer' if you go by 1-2-1 doesn't make it better. At the distances that are involved with 4e the small advantage of a couple squares doesn't matter in the long run.
Yes players with a move of 5 will be screwed out of distance, they will only be able to move 3 squares compared to 5 for the others and that is less distance.
Be prepared to do a lot of houseruling on abilities, they are all based on 1-1-1 movement.
2. Actually, by making a homebrew campaign you are effectively controlling what races you want your players to play. I ran a game where there were no half orcs and no gnomes (I find the races to be annoying and useless, my opinion). Yet there were three types of elves, and two types of dwarves. Sure thats control, but again its my table. I was getting some guff about the dragonborn and I wanted to reward those who would play it. I don't feel I am taking away their choice, just providing incentive to play a female (all my players are male) and to play a dragonborn (others thought it was a lame race).
3. We just started KotS last night and I enforced the 1-2-1 rule. At no time were the monsters nor pc's adversely affected by this use. I however did state clearly that if you shift, that is a 5 foot step. If you have the ability to shift twice, you can do a 1-1 diagonal movement, as you are steping, pausing, then steping again. Full on movement is the 1-2-1. In fact the kobolds who have shifty as a minor action ability at will can make good use of this, and I feel it enhances their swarm mob abilities.
1. I encourage roleplaying during fighting, there should be a lot of trash talk, as I trash talk back. I want someway for others to "know" that the fighter has marked a creature, especially the paladin. The only way to do this without metagaming would be incorporating it as a roleplaying thing. I do not see this as controlling, I just want to keep the metagaming at my table under control.
Technically, the character not the player needs to issue the Fighter's Mark, tho i agree that the more the players get into their characters the better.
3. We just started KotS last night and I enforced the 1-2-1 rule. At no time were the monsters nor pc's adversely affected by this use. I however did state clearly that if you shift, that is a 5 foot step. If you have the ability to shift twice, you can do a 1-1 diagonal movement, as you are steping, pausing, then steping again. Full on movement is the 1-2-1. In fact the kobolds who have shifty as a minor action ability at will can make good use of this, and I feel it enhances their swarm mob abilities.
Kewl, I'll step pause my full 6 squares of movement diagonally.
Or better yet, you had to house rule a house rule.
So does the rogue's bait and switch get to move 1-1-1 or is he stuck with a 1-2. Fair is fair and all you know..
Be prepared to do a lot of houseruling on abilities, they are all based on 1-1-1 movement.
Like I said previously, I'm going to use hexes, where 1-1-1 makes sense. So I'm not going to have to house rule anything to conform to 1-2-1.
I like the ideas of "Halfling" "Dragonborn" and "Tiefling" being derogatory nicknames instead of the actual names of the races. Not that i have any ideas for actual names, but hey.
Between campaigns (and if i manage levels appropriately, it'll also be only between tiers) i'll allow players to sell at fixed 80% and buy at fixed 110% [accounting for the characters being in one place for a long time and having the time to find better prices and make in-roads with the local lords exc].
During campaigns, i'm going to allow for "haggling checks" of DC 10+ ItemLevel/2 to change the buy/sell price of 2% per point above DC. Diplomacy or Intimidate (but if you intimidate too much, you'll get a reputation and merchants will be less likely to deal with you in the future) will work for this, and Arcana on magic items exc.
Those two rules are basically just to express that i like loot, and want to share that joy-of-loot with my players. (is imaginary gold in a game more or less fun to think about than imaginary paper money in bank account?? gold sure is prettier ...)
I don't know if i'd consider this to be a "house rule" or just "something i'm doing in my first campaign" but i feel like running a high-powered game [and i really like seeing 20s in beginning stats] so i'm giving everyone a post-point-buy adjustment of +1 to all their attributes. I.e. the Dragonborn Warlord buys it's Strength up to 17 (to become 19) but leaves it's Wisdom at 8, it'll switch to 18 (20) and 9.
In return i'm planning on having the first encounter be against 3 lvl 4 sets of animal monsters with an additional 5 NPCs (non-character classes) on the player's side. Looking at the numbers, that's something around a lvl 11 encounter. But since the wagons they've been hired to guard (and not them) is being attacked, i expect a 50% chance of running away 20% of TPK (where i'll fiat their survival) and 30% chance of them actually winning somehow.
I like the ideas of "Halfling" "Dragonborn" and "Tiefling" being derogatory nicknames instead of the actual names of the races. Not that i have any ideas for actual names, but hey.
Each race is going to have a derogatory name (the one listed in the PH) and a personal name in my campaigns, as follows:
Human (Eoman), Elf (Eladar Inferior), Eladrin (Eladar Superior), Halfling (Hin), Dragonborn (Drakkar), Dwarf (can't remember) and Tiefling (Tibernium).
Well I said it was just a consideration earlier. I still think, and no I don't have to prove as this is just my opinion, that dragons are large warm blooded reptiles of some sort as in dinosaurs. Even the white dragon has to have some warm bloodedness ( and by this I mean a constant temperature regardless of outside environments) even if that temperature is 32 degrees F. The reasoning behind it is to perhaps entice people in my group to give the dragonborn a try, and also to try playing a female character. A +1 con is not very much in the long run, it adds 1 more hit point in the beginning and adds +1 to your fortitude defense. It doesn't seem to help you more than that. As you would put a +4 int helps out quite a bit more than just a +1 con.
Actually +1 con saves 4 points when getting a 20con, instead of having to buy up to 18, you can buy to 17 saving 4 points allowing another two attributes to be 12+. If you don't use Point Buy, it probably isn't as impactful, but if you have powergamers in your group, expect to see it abused.
As it stands with playtesting I am going to use 1-1-1 due to everyone using it, myself included. So it isn't a breaking if I can do it and they can do it.
The real problem isn't going to 1-2-1 movement -- it's in redoing the other rules that ignore geometry, like burst radii and reach distances. I'm not sure I want to mess with those things at this stage in 4e, when we're learning the game.
I would jump to a hex system in a heartbeat if it wasn't so damned hard to draw a typical dungeon map on a hex grid, and deal with all of the half-hex issues. Although a hex system does reduce the number of creatures that can surround a medium-sized creature from 8 to 6.
It isn't any less intuitive, and the benefit in accuracy isn't always that small. When we were comparing the movement systems we found that, for example, when using a full run, a character could move almost an additional 60 feet by taking a diagonal instead of moving along a straight line. Now that's ludicrous within the game world environment.
A few comments...
The idea that 1-2-1 isn't any less intuitive is ludicrous. I'm not saying 1-2-1 is hard, or even challenging, but counting in increments of 1 is without even the smallest doubt more intuitive. To suggest that they are equally intuitive is absolutely absurd.
As was stated earlier, the benefit of accuracy is small *IF* it's not a straight diagonal. If you are moving a few steps forward, a few diagonal here and there, and half of less of your steps use diagonals, then 1:1 is roughly equally accurate as 1:1.5.
And sure, if you take a straight diagonal you gain a significant gain in distance. In fact, you are about 40% off at straight diagonal. That means if they gained 60 feet, then they were probably running around 145 feet. What character typically runs 145 feet (29 squares) in a full run? Sure, it's possible, but it's hardly typical and will require a double run, plus using an action point and bonuses to run, or alternatively not using an action point and stacking up on just about every +speed bonus you could possibly get.
And the whole argument is rendered moot by the point that they don't really gain anything from this extra distance, because any enemy gains the exact same amount from diagonals also.
In reality, they gain nothing mechanically from 1:1 movement, but 1-2-1 movement makes them lose mechanically.
Most players tend to resent arbitrary limitations being set on them beyond what the game already places on them. One day, a wizard is going to be rather unhappy by being cheated by a DM's houserule on 1-2-1 movement because now his AOE attacks have their areas nerfed arbitrarily.
Burst 2's will go from covering 25 squares to covering 21 squares. Burst 3 will go from covering 49 squares to 37. They will lose between 20% and 25% of their area on their area attacks.
And what do you do about Blasts? What square will you cut off? Just the furthest corner on a Blast 3?
This was decided ages ago.
I'm sorry you have trouble with 1-2-1 movement. I don't, and neither does my group.
As for your question about blasts, I think it has been clearly stated in this thread that I'm using hexes. It's not an issue.
When we do use squares, we'll deal with blasts accordingly. The 1-2-1 decision was a group decision, and I have mature players who have been gaming together for some time, so I don't have to worry about the whiny wizard in your example.
NoMan:
I'm sorry you have trouble with 1-2-1 movement. I don't, and neither does my group.
As for your question about blasts, I think it has been clearly stated in this thread that I'm using hexes. It's not an issue.
When we do use squares, we'll deal with blasts accordingly. The 1-2-1 decision was a group decision, and I have mature players who have been gaming together for some time, so I don't have to worry about the whiny wizard in your example.
See, this is what everyone arguing for 1-2-1 does. If someone says that one is easier than the other, they try to imply that anyone who disagrees with them "has trouble with it" and is somehow intellectually or mathematically inferior. Frankly I'm tired of the condescending implications.
There is not an argument that you can make that convince me that 1-2-1 counting is equally as intuitive as 1:1 counting. People naturally count in regular increments, not by changing increments. If you want to see this, why don't you try timing random (non D&D playing) people counting in a 1:1 fashion vs a 1-2-1, and which can count to 20 the fastest.
On the other hand, maybe I should take your style of argument and point out that 1-2-1 movement is dumbed down, because you are abstractly averaging every other diagonal movement as a movement of 2. Maybe I can go on to say how my gaming group prefers to count a diagonal square as 1.4 every turn, keep track of each in our head, and round to the nearest integer to determine which square we are in. I'm fully capable of doing that in my head, and I'm sure my friends can too.
Why stop there. Maybe me and my friends should use the Pythagorean theorem to calculate our distance.
[INDENT]"I'm going to move 8 squares north and 5 squares east... that's *calculates a square root* 9.4, which rounds down to 9... Haha, those 4th Edition losers would have said that was an 8! I can't believe they can tolerate that kind of inaccuracy! And can you believe that 3rd edition players would count that as 10? Losers, hah!"[/INDENT]
But honestly, at what point of absurdity here does it take for you to realize that this is just a game, not a simulation and players don't get any in-game advantage from being able to move in a diagonal, as far as I can tell.
Unless your games run something like this:
[INDENT]Player 1: How far away is that Orc from me?
DM: About 40 feet from you. You can't quite close the distance in 1 turn and still attack.
Player 1: Which direction?
DM: Northeast.
Player 1: Ok, well I'm running diagonal, so that means instead of my normal 30 feet, I can cover up to 42 feet, round down to 40!
DM: Dang, I didn't think of that![/INDENT]
Anyway, I'm fully capable of counting in a 1-2-1 manner (even though 1:1 is more natural), but I just don't see the point in it.
See, this is what everyone arguing for 1-2-1 does. If someone says that one is easier than the other, they try to imply that anyone who disagrees with them "has trouble with it" and is somehow intellectually or mathematically inferior. Frankly I'm tired of the condescending implications.
Who knew math could get folks so riled up.
My support for 1-2-1 is that it produces fewer ridiculous results than 1-1-1, based on my 25+ years of tabletop gaming. It is simply harder to gauge distance on a 1-1-1 system, because the ability of a unit to move is distorted. Under 1-1-1, a target can easily be 25-50% closer than it appears in reality and when measuring the true distance. This situation comes up a lot more often than the 1-2-1 distortions, which are typically the product of zig-zag movement. In any event, I'm willing to live with some folks having their movement partially shortened by 1-2-1 in order to avoid the time/space distortions of 1-1-1.
The real issue to me is what to do with AoEs and reach weapons under a 1-2-1 approach. I suppose the default answer is to go back to 3.5e geometry. That's still better to me than 1-1-1's distortions.
If my DM insisted on 1-1-1, I'd happily play it. If I go to an RPGA event and they play that way, fine. But you can't seriously tell me that 1-1-1 produces more accurate and intuitively correct results, because that isn't borne out in either real geometry or in actual gaming situations.
See, this is what everyone arguing for 1-2-1 does. If someone says that one is easier than the other, they try to imply that anyone who disagrees with them "has trouble with it" and is somehow intellectually or mathematically inferior. Frankly I'm tired of the condescending implications.
Lol. You mean condescending language like this:
The idea that 1-2-1 isn't any less intuitive is ludicrous. I'm not saying 1-2-1 is hard, or even challenging, but counting in increments of 1 is without even the smallest doubt more intuitive. To suggest that they are equally intuitive is absolutely absurd.
Hey, I wonder who posted that. Oh yeah...you did.
On the other hand, maybe I should take your style of argument and point out that 1-2-1 movement is dumbed down, because you are abstractly averaging every other diagonal movement as a movement of 2. Maybe I can go on to say how my gaming group prefers to count a diagonal square as 1.4 every turn, keep track of each in our head, and round to the nearest integer to determine which square we are in. I'm fully capable of doing that in my head, and I'm sure my friends can too.
Feel free. By that argument, if 1-2-1 is dumbed down, 1-1-1 is further dumbed down. Moving in the wrong direction in that case.
Why stop there. Maybe me and my friends should use the Pythagorean theorem to calculate our distance.
Hopefully you see the problem with this idea. Even in sarcasm pick something more sensible.
[INDENT]"I'm going to move 8 squares north and 5 squares east... that's *calculates a square root* 9.4, which rounds down to 9... Haha, those 4th Edition losers would have said that was an 8! I can't believe they can tolerate that kind of inaccuracy! And can you believe that 3rd edition players would count that as 10? Losers, hah!"[/INDENT]
If you think this sort of nonsense is a good analogy to the difference between 1-2-1 and 1-1-1 you've got a poor grasp of argument. Your hyperbole is ridiculous and, not only that, unlike properly used hyperbole it doesn't nothing to illuminate the point you're trying to make.
My support for 1-2-1 is that it produces fewer ridiculous results than 1-1-1, based on my 25+ years of tabletop gaming. It is simply harder to gauge distance on a 1-1-1 system, because the ability of a unit to move is distorted.
I can see your point on the distance being misleading on a long diagonal (which is the main weakness of 1:1), but at the same time it simplifies eyeballing a zigzagging path incredibly.
In either a long diagonal or a zigzagging path, one simply has to make an eyeball judgment of which appears to be greater, the distance X or Y distance, and then make an estimate based on the greater dimension.
Under 1-1-1, a target can easily be 25-50% closer than it appears in reality and when measuring the true distance.
Well technically, it's never 50% closer. At the absolute worst amount, it's ~41% off, but that's just quibbling over small numbers. ;)
This situation comes up a lot more often than the 1-2-1 distortions, which are typically the product of zig-zag movement. In any event, I'm willing to live with some folks having their movement partially shortened by 1-2-1 in order to avoid the time/space distortions of 1-1-1.
Well here it comes down to just a matter of taste. When there are 2 movement systems to choose from, and one is simpler than the other, and areas covered by effects were designed to be balanced according to the simpler system, and the simpler system is the 'official' system, and there is no advantage over one opponent to the other using the simpler system, I'll choose the simpler system, and I'm willing to live with some cases of it being mathematically less accurate in some situations. To me, reasonable gameplay trumps accurate simulation.
The real issue to me is what to do with AoEs and reach weapons under a 1-2-1 approach. I suppose the default answer is to go back to 3.5e geometry. That's still better to me than 1-1-1's distortions.
Again, I think simplicity and quick gameplay trumps simulation. Do I think that square area effects seem a little odd? Sure, but at the same time it's so much easier evaluate. Instead of trying to figure out a blast pattern based on 1-2-1 distances and calculating the blocky-circle pattern, one can just pick 2 opposing corners and easily envision the square in between.
But you can't seriously tell me that 1-1-1 produces more accurate and intuitively correct results, because that isn't borne out in either real geometry or in actual gaming situations.
See, we're talking about 2 different things here. I did not say that it produced more accurate or intuitive results.
I won't even argue that 1-2-1 isn't more accurate, it does have an advantage (close to true diagonals), but at the same time it's even slightly less accurate than 1:1 in small angles. What I'm arguing is that a mathematical simulation isn't really necessary for intuitive and balanced gameplay.
And I'm not arguing that the results are more intuitive. I'm arguing that counting 1:1 is more intuitive than 1-2-1 when it's your time to move your piece on a grid.
I don't think either of is going to change eachother's mind here. It seems that both of our opinions are based on how each of us respectively value gameplay vs simulation, and those values are a matter of taste, not something that one can argue and change someone's mind on.
1-2-1 has a simulationist advantage, and 1:1 has a gameplay advantage. Though I can respect both of them, again, I think gameplay trumps simulation, especially when the simulation style's only offers a limited advantage.
The real issue to me is what to do with AoEs and reach weapons under a 1-2-1 approach. I suppose the default answer is to go back to 3.5e geometry. That's still better to me than 1-1-1's distortions.
Try using hexes. That's the way I'm going, and based on having run some games that way I think it works better.
Try using hexes. That's the way I'm going, and based on having run some games that way I think it works better.
Drawing typical dungeon maps on a hex grid drives me batty, and you always have to deal with the half-hex (or smaller!) problem. I saw someone else suggest hexes for outdoors and squares for indoors, which might work and has a basis in D&D gameplay from the old old days (outdoor maps on hexes, doncha know).
I'll live with whatever the WoTC gurus tell me to do, but just in playing KoTS, we discovered that using 1-1-1 resulted in nice little "pocket wormholes" through which you could achieve greater than light speeds. :P
Lol. You mean condescending language like this:
Hey, I wonder who posted that. Oh yeah...you did.
This is clearly not the same thing at all. Your original post was clearly condescending and clearly attempted to imply a deficiency in mental capabilities for someone arguing for 1:1. It is an implied personal attack based on someone's preference differing from yours.
My statement was criticizing the idea as being indefensible. Honestly, I find the notion that counting by 1's is exactly as intuitive to people as changing their counting increment every few steps to be an idea that is so intuitively and obviously wrong, that there is no other adjective to use other than 'absurd'. This is not a personal attack, this is calling an argument what it is.
If you want to argue that 1-2-1 is more mathematically accurate, more realistic, or your personal preference, fine. I won't disagree with any of those points, merely whether or not the difference in accuracy is significant or important enough to worry about.
But if you try to imply people are dumb, are mathematically challenged, or try to take some kind of higher ground based on a personal preference, I'll call you out on it. If you make a statement that is indefensible, I'll call you out on it.
Feel free. By that argument, if 1-2-1 is dumbed down, 1-1-1 is further dumbed down. Moving in the wrong direction in that case.
You see, again you are trying to imply intellectual superiority by implying that 1-1-1 is "dumbed down". It's not a matter of being "dumbed down", it's a matter of it being streamlined to allow for quicker play and friendlier to newer players. It has a more 'user-friendly interface'. Is an easier to learn game a bad thing?
And again, I never have argued that 1-2-1 is more mathematically accurate, just that the majority of the time (when not taking a full or close to full diagonal), both very close in accuracy, and one has a clear advantage in simplicity.
If you think this sort of nonsense is a good analogy to the difference between 1-2-1 and 1-1-1 you've got a poor grasp of argument. Your hyperbole is ridiculous and, not only that, unlike properly used hyperbole it doesn't nothing to illuminate the point you're trying to make.
Apparently you are right, I obviously did fail to illuminate the point. The primary point to that hyperbole wasn't really so much arguing for or against 1-2-1, but rather criticizing your implied intellectual superiority because you preferred a slightly more complicated system.
Fine, I'll dispense with the hyperbole and sarcasm and make my point in plain language.
Just because you prefer a slightly more complicated system, doesn't make you slightly smarter than someone who doesn't. I have the intellectual capacity to play 1-2-1, or even far more complicated systems. You and I, and other posters, could all have a big battle to try to come up with the most convoluted simulationist systems we can imagine, and then call each other dumb because someone's system isn't as complicated as our own, but then it becomes an exercise in escalating absurdity, ego battles, and pointless arguments that prove nothing and don't add anything of value to the game.
That is really the point that I apparently failed to make with my hyperbole.
But I don't play a game to be a fantasy simulation or a mathematical exercise. I play it as a social activity, to relax and have fun, and as a creative outlet.
When I play a roleplaying game, I want enough rules and structure so that fair and consistent rulings can be made, but streamlined enough that they fall into the background so that I can spend more of my mental energy thinking about storytelling, roleplaying, problem solving, and simply having fun.
I believe that 4E is designed with a very similar philosophy in mind. If you are not of a similar mind in this, I'd suggest not even going to 4E, stick with 3.5.
Drawing typical dungeon maps on a hex grid drives me batty, and you always have to deal with the half-hex (or smaller!) problem. I saw someone else suggest hexes for outdoors and squares for indoors, which might work and has a basis in D&D gameplay from the old old days (outdoor maps on hexes, doncha know).
I'll live with whatever the WoTC gurus tell me to do, but just in playing KoTS, we discovered that using 1-1-1 resulted in nice little "pocket wormholes" through which you could achieve greater than light speeds. :P
Haha, I never saw them as pocket wormholes so much, but rather that all this time spent in dungeons has taught the characters something that the rest of us learned from Duke Nuke'em 3D and Quake, how to strafe run! ;)
I agree with you on the Hex grids. The Only 2 places I'd ever use Hex maps is on natural terrain (either wilderness maps, or in subterranean settings).
It does have the effect of mucking around with things like the number of attackers that can flank a target as well. It probably favors the player, given that it's far more likely to have more than 6 monsters surrounding 1 player than having more than 6 players surrounding 1 monster in 4th Edition, especially with all those minions, heh.
This is clearly not the same thing at all. Your original post was clearly condescending and clearly attempted to imply a deficiency in mental capabilities for someone arguing for 1:1. It is an implied personal attack based on someone's preference differing from yours.On the contrary, it was a response to people who suggested that 1-1-1 was better merely because 1-2-1 was hard (or harder). If people personally prefer 1-1-1 that shouldn't bother anyone. But lamenting how hard it was to do 1-2-1 is nuts.If you want to argue that 1-2-1 is more mathematically accurate, more realistic, or your personal preference, fine. I won't disagree with any of those points, merely whether or not the difference in accuracy is significant or important enough to worry about.
That's a determination that each group ought to make on its own.If you make a statement that is indefensible, I'll call you out on it.
Just not very effectively.Just because you prefer a slightly more complicated system, doesn't make you slightly smarter than someone who doesn't.
No one thinks it does. It was sarcasm in response to gross exaggeration.When I play a roleplaying game, I want enough rules and structure so that fair and consistent rulings can be made, but streamlined enough that they fall into the background so that I can spend more of my mental energy thinking about storytelling, roleplaying, problem solving, and simply having fun.
And do you actually believe 1-2-1 is an impediment to any of that?I believe that 4E is designed with a very similar philosophy in mind. If you are not of a similar mind in this, I'd suggest not even going to 4E, stick with 3.5.
Sure, because you're of the "if you don't play it my way you're playing it wrong" philosophy. I am declining to follow your suggestion, but thanks anyway.
Drawing typical dungeon maps on a hex grid drives me batty, and you always have to deal with the half-hex (or smaller!) problem. I saw someone else suggest hexes for outdoors and squares for indoors, which might work and has a basis in D&D gameplay from the old old days (outdoor maps on hexes, doncha know).
I'll live with whatever the WoTC gurus tell me to do, but just in playing KoTS, we discovered that using 1-1-1 resulted in nice little "pocket wormholes" through which you could achieve greater than light speeds. :P
It does take some getting used to. We basically consider any hex more than half obscured by a line to be one that can't be occupied. We use the flanking rules from 1E AD&D for hexes, although at Hypertext SRD there are some 3E flanking rules. They may be basically the same, I'm not sure.
But I like some of the dungeon tiles, etc. so that would preclude hexes.