Line and cone pointers

[darkivel]

Is there any way to disable the snap to grid feature on just the line and cone pointers? As it stands, if someone casts a cone spell at an angle, the snap to grid makes it impossible to measure distance multiples of 5. It tends to snap in at 11 or 17 or something. Same with the line, which we use to measure distances.

I don't know if this is a function we can change with scripting on our side, or if the coding for this is buried in the FG program itself.

Barbara

[Griogre]

I have to say I like the Line snapping but the cone is kinda wierd. What is strange about the cone is how it shades different patterns in different quadrants. I did notice I had better luck with getting the cone right by dragging it straight along a x or y axis and then swiveling it.

[Dachannien]

The snapping would be better if the center of circles and cones snapped to the grid, but then the radius snapped to multiples of one grid square (or perhaps half a grid square) no matter where you moved the mouse.

Also, the shading seems a little weird sometimes - squares get included on one side of a circle but not the similar squares on the opposite side sometimes. This is probably due to rounding error. Possibly adding or subtracting a tiny amount to the radius of the pointer (so, a 1.00001 unit radius instead of 1 exactly) could take care of this problem.

[Cantstanzya]

I think the cones squares and circles would be better displayed if they shade the area of the cone/circle/square when it is drawn rather than shading the grid of the map. Currently you get a large sawtooth type cone/circle/square but if they shaded just the cone/circle/square it would make it a much better graphically. I would imagine that this would be an easy fix, instead of shading the map, shade the item drawn.

[darkivel]

The point of the grid shading, as I understand it, is so you know which squares are affected by the squares. You want the shading to tell you which squares are hit by the spell (ie, 50% or greater of the square is in the area of effect) and which are not (less than 50%), even if that leads to a ragged effect pattern.

I hadn't noticed the circles being problematic as long as you pull it open along an x or y axis -- that keeps it increasing in 5 foot increments which matches spell areas.

[Cantstanzya]

The point of the grid shading, as I understand it, is so you know which squares are affected by the squares. You want the shading to tell you which squares are hit by the spell (ie, 50% or greater of the square is in the area of effect) and which are not (less than 50%), even if that leads to a ragged effect pattern.I see your point, but since when is a radius square? Maybe I play a little different than others, or maybe this is something that is 3rd edition (I play 1st edition). By shading the circle that is drawn it would represent the area of effect for those that play using a true radius and for those that play as squares occupied by the radius you'd be able to see that square is occupied by the radius. I think it would make it a whole lot easier on the developers just shading the shape that is drawn and not trying to fill in the squares that it occupies, unless there is some function with scripting that they need to indicate the entire square is occupied.
I know it is probably just splitting hairs or maybe a different style of play, but when a spell say Area of Effect 50" radius, then that is what it should be. After all the spell doesn't say Area of Effect 50" radius including all squares within the grid.

[Sir Bayard]

How it is now, it shades the grid squares only if the square is covered by at least 50% of the radius, which in 3.5 rules at the very least, is the minimum it has to cover of the affected square to be included in the AoE. This way, if onyl 25% of the suare is included in the radius, you know that square is not affected by your fireball or whatever you're casting.

If they shaded the entire circle area, then it'd be just like in Pen and Paper, with people arguing whether the circle is covering enough of the suare they're in to affect them or not. I like how it is now, as this way no one can argue since if their square is shaded, they know they got hit. no if's and, or buts. :)

[Cantstanzya]

If they shaded the entire circle area, then it'd be just like in Pen and Paper, with people arguing whether the circle is covering enough of the suare they're in to affect them or not. I like how it is now, as this way no one can argue since if their square is shaded, they know they got hit. no if's and, or buts. :)I guess that is why I never switch to 3rd edition....to many rules. If the shaded area touches your fig, you are effected. It can't get much easier than that.

[Sir Bayard]

I guess it's just because if your area if a 5ftx5ft square, I know I would sure as heck argue if the shaded area barely even entered by suqare as being bogus. if I have 5ft to move around in, and it enters in by 6 inches, how would I be affected? One of things I liked about 3rd edition I guess. but, that's why we all have our own systems that we play.

I guess you can just go off of "if the line enters or encompases your square it hits you" theory, since FG II is based on the new d20 structure..

[Dachannien]

If you're using the plain area of the figure, then you could just turn the grid off altogether.

As for expanding the figure along the X or Y axis, that works fine for circles, but you are supposed to be able to point a cone in any direction you want. Since FG centers the direction of the cone on the mouse cursor, and it currently snaps to grid points when determining the radius/direction, you may have difficulty getting it to point in the exact direction you want or getting it to be of the right radius.

[Cantstanzya]

I guess you can just go off of "if the line enters or encompases your square it hits you" theory, since FG II is based on the new d20 structure..We play that if the line of the shape touches your fig you are effected, that is what we have been doing with FG1 and will do with FG2. I was mearly proposing a quick and easy fix for the problem of it not drawing correcting. I did not know it affected other systems. You can blame it on my ignorance of 3rd edition.

[Sir Bayard]

I did some testing of the cones, comparing the shading patterns in the DMG to the Shading patterns in FG, and noticed that when the cone says 14', it measures the same square pattern as 15' in the DMG, but after that, I can't get them the same. When it says 28' or 31' (I can't get 30' at an angle) it chops off a single square on either side on the ends, etc. I only did some limited testing of this just to see if they shaded the right number of squares at the very least and see if the numbers mattered as long as it shaded right, and it doesn't appear to shade correctly at higher intervals.

Someone else may be able to better test/solutionize this. :P

[Sir Bayard]

We play that if the line of the shape touches your fig you are effected, that is what we have been doing with FG1 and will do with FG2. I was mearly proposing a quick and easy fix for the problem of it not drawing correcting. I did not know it affected other systems. You can blame it on my ignorance of 3rd edition.

Not blaming you at all. :P I can completely understand where both sides are coming from. It would be nice if it was possible to switch between your mode, for earlier editions, and the current mode for later editions, but I don't see Fg doing that. Maybe some indivual projects could.