4E Rules: First Look

[Stephen Amber]

No I simply want you to answer the question on your own.

 

I like squares for a few different reasons:

 

Flanking is easier to determine, especially on very large opponents, since the dragon's space has 4 sides no matter how large it is.

 

The compass point directions of squares are intuitive... N side NE corner E side....

 

You threaten more squares and have more options for movement with the four sides and four corners, making combat a bit more nuanced.

 

Melee reach 3/4 are a bit easier to determine.

 

...

 

Movement is worse... you don't have to deal with the diagonal movement and every other square counting as two with hexes.

 

Spell templates are probably a bit better with hexes, though that's really minor quibbling.

 

But, ultimately, the ease of mapping out the dungeons with squares outweighs both the positives and negatives... it's the reason dungeon maps have been as they are for 30+ years. Outdoor areas are occasionally hex though.

Edited March 1, 2008 by Stephen Amber

[newc0253]

No I simply want you to answer the question on your own.

yes, normally i get gromnir to answer the really difficult questions first.

 

but, since you ask, it's a little more straightforward to draw indoor maps with squares than hexes, assuming you have lots of straight lines.

 

but it doesn't take much to draw straight lines with hexes either, and i think the benefits of hexes otherwise outweight squares.

 

the ease of mapping out the dungeons with squares outweighs both the positives and negatives... it's the reason dungeon maps have been as they are for 30+ years. Outdoor areas are occasionally hex though.

D&D grew out of wargames in which hex maps were the norm, and many DMs have always used hexes for combat. i agree that squares have always been the norm for dungeon maps, but i can think of plenty of hex maps in 1e modules too. personally, i think any ease of mapping between squares and hexes is pretty marginal and hexes otherwise win out.

[Sand]

4e looks and feels uberfied. I prefer a dark gritty, low magic fantasy when I run the game. It looks like the new DnD can't do that without some heavy modifications.

[Cantousent]

I pretty much agree with Sand. It's clear the DM can modify the rules to reflect a low magic setting, but that's not the baseline for 4th edition. Of course, it wasn't the baseline of 2nd, and sure wasn't the baseline of 3.x. To refer to the FR campaign setting as low magic is laughable.

 

I completely agree that 4th edition seems ubefied. ...But I'm trying to figure out if that's going to be true during actual gameplay. I dunno. We'll have to see.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Why would they do that after releasing all of the dungeon tile packs, which are square based?

I know zero people who have bought any of those. Besides, WotC makes things obsolete all the time. E.g.: editions of D&D.

 

It would make those, which should be usable under any edition, obsolete, along with all of the spell template transparencies they've already done for burning hands, cone of cold, and I think a couple others... though those were limited to the miniatures support packs I believe. They even made different templates for the different cone angles... ala those you can photocopy out of the DM's guide. Is it really that difficult to use those? All in all a bad suggestion by Sawyer.

They could also make templates for the 4th Ed. books. Cones and circles are usually easier to represent in hexes, anyway.

 

I ran some Fallout tabletop games with a hex grid (AS GOD INTENDED) and I had no problems drawing maps. You just need to establish a rule for divided hexes in things like long hallways. I.e., can people stand in a half-hex or not? Even that's pretty easy to resolve: anything smaller than Medium can, but it doesn't count as a full square for Medium and higher, meaning occupying that half-hex with any part means you are "squeezed" (as in, the technical status).

[Stephen Amber]

The things are only 10 bucks... about the most affordable thing wotc makes anymore, so I got all of them. Though if you've a chesex magamat, hex or square, you're good to go I suppose. With curved alcoves and such of course you'll also deal with half squares in some dungeons, but they won't be as prevalent... you won't have to play hopscotch with you pc figure down every corridor. To each his own.

[newc0253]

4e has death giants but not frost giants?

 

lame.

Edited March 2, 2008 by newc0253

[Jediphile]

4e has death giants but not frost giants?

 

lame.

 

Quite.

 

And I note this:

 

It is very dependant upon maps, terrain and miniatures. That

[Gromnir]

4e has death giants but not frost giants?

 

lame.

 

let us be fair. 4e will inevitably have frost giants, but the 4e monster manual will not. is leaving out such iconic d&d stuff as metallic dragons and frost giants from 4e monster manual kinda lame? yes. no doubt is simply a way to force folks to buy monster manual II. even so, is not as if d&d is abandoning frost giants altogether in favor o' death giants.

 

is dozens o' legit reasons to be brassed off 'bout 4e... no need to create stuff.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[newc0253]

is dozens o' legit reasons to be brassed off 'bout 4e... no need to create stuff.

yes, i made that up about the frost giants.

Edited March 2, 2008 by newc0253

[Gromnir]

well yeah, you did. no frost giants in 4e monster manual #1 is not same as no frost giants in 4e. does anybody really believe that there ain't gonna be no metallic dragons in 4e? 'course not. is probably why you not say, "4e has red dragons but not gold?"

 

is no statement that claims that frost giants is gone from 4e based 'pon linked material.. is only that they not in 4e monster manual.

 

*shrug*

 

is no real biggie for Gromnir. am understanding that death giants is important for another supported setting from wotc that we don't play. so, give limited 'mount o' space for giants in the new monster manual and somebody's fave is bound to get cut. similar stuff happened in 3e. had solars and planetars and hound archons, but no devas in the 3e monster manual. did that mean devas were dropped from 3e? nope. showed up in fiend folio.

 

no frost giants in 4e monster manual. deal with it... 'cause given the huge volume o' d&d critters that has become part o' the creature catalog available to dms over past decades, we guarantee that more 1, 2, 3 & 3.5e critters will not be in the 4e monster manual than is.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[newc0253]

yes, clearly it was too much to assume that folk would follow the link and read the details for themselves. silly me.

 

i pity the folk who write the headlines for your local newspaper. the letters they must get.

Edited March 2, 2008 by newc0253

[Gromnir]

the folks who write for The Enquirer is the kinda journalists who makes purposeful misleading headlines. is not a general practice 'mongst legit journalists.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Joseph Bulock]

4e has death giants but not frost giants?

 

lame.

 

I love how you read a massively positive article and pull out only the minor gripe.

[Jediphile]

4e has death giants but not frost giants?

 

lame.

 

I love how you read a massively positive article and pull out only the minor gripe.

 

Not the only one.

 

It is very dependant upon maps, terrain and miniatures. That

[newc0253]

the folks who write for The Enquirer is the kinda journalists who makes purposeful misleading headlines. is not a general practice 'mongst legit journalists.

sorry, i forgot american newspaper readers were such a rarified and delicate bunch, and apparently unable to follow a link.

 

british papers assume a more robust, less easily offended readership.

Edited March 2, 2008 by newc0253

[Amentep]

To be fair in regards to the importance of maps and minatures, that seems to be where game players have been going (as far as I know the main reason WotC abandoned the P&P Star Wars line was because they found that the minatures were selling better, and concentrated on that).

 

So kinda not surprising 4e is built to favor maps and minatures to me.

[newc0253]

I love how you read a massively positive article and pull out only the minor gripe.

as they say at AICN, the article is ... a little leafy.

 

me, i go for facts, not opinions.

[Stephen Amber]

To be fair in regards to the importance of maps and minatures, that seems to be where game players have been going (as far as I know the main reason WotC abandoned the P&P Star Wars line was because they found that the minatures were selling better, and concentrated on that).

 

So kinda not surprising 4e is built to favor maps and minatures to me.

 

 

Your orc mini can be as simple as a 1 inch square cardboard chit with an "o" printed on it. For the map I recommend the chessex mat and a water soluble magic marker. The representation is what's important and not the quality of the props. Though I enjoy the elaborate maps/minis that Wotc has produced over the last few years, they do encroach a bit on the player's imagination. Do people like all the props?

[Amentep]

Your orc mini can be as simple as a 1 inch square cardboard chit with an "o" printed on it. For the map I recommend the chessex mat and a water soluble magic marker. The representation is what's important and not the quality of the props. Though I enjoy the elaborate maps/minis that Wotc has produced over the last few years, they do encroach a bit on the player's imagination. Do people like all the props?

 

Oh sure, it doesn't need to be elaborate, I'm sure. I seriously doubt if/when I get 4e manuals I'll be buying a bunch of props. Heck I don't have room for my old school lead figures (with real lead!) much less newfangled plastic doo-hickeys.

 

I'm just saying its not surprising its more physical representational and not abstract as it seems like the minature stuff is what's really selling (but I could always be wrong).

[ramza]

The things are only 10 bucks... about the most affordable thing wotc makes anymore, so I got all of them. Though if you've a chesex magamat, hex or square, you're good to go I suppose. With curved alcoves and such of course you'll also deal with half squares in some dungeons, but they won't be as prevalent... you won't have to play hopscotch with you pc figure down every corridor. To each his own.

 

 

Yeah, I bought them too for 7 euros each (except for the first set, for which I had to pay triple price, since it's OOP ). They are pretty useful to me because my PnP sessions are more combat-oriented. The new encounter format used by wizards displays a small map for each battle, map that can be recreated through the use of tiles. Moreover, my players tend to cheat and start arguments about their characters' positions. Using minis and tiles makes life easier for me in order to solve such issues, like spell radius effects.

[Stephen Amber]

They work well when, after arranged, you place a sheet of plexiglass over them. This gives a nice surface for rolling dice and moving figures on, and keeps the tiles in place of course. Else they have the tendency to get jostled around.

[Magister Lajciak]

The character sheets of the 4E pregenerated characters used at D&D Experience can be downloaded here: www.wizards.com/dnd/files/ExperienceCharacters.zip

[Magister Lajciak]

Why the heck don't they just switch to hexes? It's the most efficient use of space and allows for very easy modeling of circles and cones. HEXAGONS: NATURE'S POLYGON.

 

Hexes rule, squares drool.

 

Hexagons are not bad, but WotC is placing a huge emphasis on simplifying the game, so a move to hexagons would be out of the question for them. Another problem with hexagons is that most rooms are rectangular, which can cause problems in hexagonal grids. Still, regardless of the practicalities, the perfection of hexagonal spacing does appeal to me at some level.

[Amentep]

Maybe I'm just stupid, but what's the problem with hexagons and rectangular rooms?

 

Also why wouldn't octagons be used over squares or even hexagons?

 

I admit I've only ever used squares when needed and never put much thought into it, so I'm sure I'm missing something!