Forum

[Jeff Wilder]

Originally Posted by Nifft

Nope, 3e's map rules fail for being just as deeply in "error" as chess board distance.

√2 ≠ 1.5

So? SQRT(2) is much, much closer to 1.5 than it is to 1.

Basically, Jeff showed preference for one abstraction, but then went on to assert that his preferred abstraction is actual distance

That is not what I said. Please reread.

Both abstractions are equally non-actual.

But one abstraction is far closer to modeling actual spatial relationships than the other. And you're very well aware of it.

But all that isn't the main thrust of my beef with Jeff's error. My beef is that he wrongly asserts 1-1-1 is somehow hard to learn, that using it requires some kind of special training.

I prefer to believe that you're not deliberately misrepresenting me, so I'll chalk it up to other things.

What I said was that 1-1-1 causes problems for me because it does not model distances between things on the battlemat well. Everyone reading this knows that it is entirely possible to have three features on the battlemat -- A, B, and C -- such that actual physical distance between them can have C closer to A than B, while 4E's measurement of distance in the game says exactly the opposite. What I have said is that I prefer the one (actual physical distance) to accurately (within the limits of playability) represent the other (in-game distance), which 3.5's measurement provides.