Deleriad said:
My general inclination would be to follow you on this but I find if people haven't played D&D then they balk.
Yeah, took me a while to get used to it myself in d&d... Now I rather like it. My brain tends to stop towards the end of the day, so anything that makes things simpler is good in my book.
Deleriad said:
I tried simulating a combat last night when I had some time and have put the results here (http://b5quest.pbworks.com/Example-Grid-Combat-1). It's pretty terse but I'm interested to see what you think of it.
I think an example like this is needed to clarify things. The one in the book doesn't really cover enough rules. I hope I'll be able to work up one for my 1m rules next weekend. (No time this weekend, one of my players apparently likes the rq campaign so much he wants to referee (something he's not done for 15 years or so) giving me a chance to play a (originally intendended to be a foe) Ompalam-worshiping sorcerer, giving me an opportunity to try out the sorcery rules properly. No doubt causing much confusion.
For some reason reading it made me like your distinction between cautious (half move) and normal movement more. I need to think that one over more.
Incidentally, did you use some virtual tabletop software to produce the images?
Deleriad said:
Problems were: what happens after a charge? And why can't you parry a charge (i.e. an Orlanthi bandit running at you) with a shield?
That is part of the reason that we simply disallowed charging except for mounted combat.
I guess what I'll eventually do is disregard the printed rules entirely and make something up. (Most likely little more complicated than 'full move with attack at the end, at some penalty to to hit with an increase to damage bonus'. All other rules (whether I go with 'spend CA to ready for attack', or 'if you have a CA left over, use it to attack when someone comes within reach') apply as normal. Possibly with the addition of some rule about 'use opponent's damage modifier if you set a weapon against a charge'.)
Deleriad said:
Bash as a CM becomes a little pointless with 2m square if you allow figures to step and attack because it's hard to bash someone far enough away to make a difference.
Yeah, for 2m squares, step and attack is just too high resolution. I mean, a square is 4m2, plenty of room there for minor movements that just aren't 'visible' in the game system.
Deleriad said:
Also I had one mounted character which should have been a 2*1 figure really but didn't have good answers for what happens when a non-square figure turns. May need more thinking about that so called her horse a 1*1 pony...
What I did was simply to crib another bit from d&d and say that there are no facings. A bit unrealistic for non-square creatures, but I'm willing to ignore that. (Especially given that I mostly use square d&d 4e miniatures.
However, if one does use facing, I think that for 'non-square' creatures (and miniatures) (especially at a 2m scale) it'd be enough to just allow them a 'free spin' when they spend a CA. Few creatures really fill a 4x2 meter area after all. (I.e. when deciding how many squares a creature should take up, round up so as to give wiggle room so to speak.) And, on the occasions when this seems unreasonable (say, a dozen knights moving in a tight line suddenly being attacked from the rear), demand a successful Ride roll at a -10% per square already moved this round or so. Or, just disallow turning in place.
/Jonas