Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder  You're missing the point. 4E's error matters ... the PC actually moves farther (actual distance) than his 6 speed should allow. (Specifically, 7.21 in actual distance.) |
Except actual distances do not matter. We're talking about combat movement here which is measured in squares. There doesn't have to be any relation to actual distances since combats are an abstraction anyway.
That's also why the example with diagonal rooms totally falls flat:
How I divide a room into squares is completely arbitrary, unless I'm interested in a division that is easiest to use for an abstracted combat system like the one in
4E. Then it makes sense to divide every room in such a way that I don't actually have diagonal rooms.
I realize this is all about personal prefernces, but even in my
3E games I never bothered with actual, accurate measurements. I like using poster maps and dungeon tiles which often don't have the 'correct' size. Why should it matter?
When I'm describing rooms in a dungeon I don't give exact dimensions either. I mean, it's not as if the pcs are taking their time using rulers to measure a room down to fractions of an inch.
Actually, by measuring combat movement and distances in squares exclusively you have an incredible advantage: You can always ensure the encounter area has an appropriate size for the encounter. Who cares if you're using 4 feet per square for one room and 7 feet per square for another?
About the only thing that might get tricky with such a 'fuzzy' approach is placing secret rooms in an adventure without providing any kind of clues they exist except a suspicious 'gap' in your dungeon map.
But since that's not representative of the kind of adventure design I enjoy these days, it doesn't bother me in the least.
And yet another word from our sponsors
