User talk:Tarkisflux/sandbox/Big Fat Squares

I like where this is going, but would you consider going 6/10/20/50 (or 100) for ranges of spells? Many combat spells have a medium range, and that way your average meleer can still get close enough to charge the target in a round or two if they cast -> move away every round after casting a medium ranged spell.

Also, to differentiate between ranged weapons, you might want to consider giving some +/-1 to 2 squares of range--for example, a sling might have -1, while a composite bow might have +2. --Ghostwheel (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not really interested in either of those changes actually. I don't want different ranges for spells and weapons, and I don't care if meleers have to spend a round running into range instead of just charging. It's also a bit moot when they pick up any sort of speed boosting gear or class features, like winged boots or boots of striding or whatever. I don't expect lots of fights to begin at exactly the extreme of medium range basically, and I want to leave room for the option of kiting with medium range abilities.

And since I'm going for simplicity on the ranges and ranged weapons, adding fiddly little bits to weapon ranges to further differentiate them doesn't work. The break points are already such that the larger weapons have better ranges, and the weapons remain pretty well differentiated in their secondary properties (damage, RoF, etc.) so I'm not worried about it. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)