General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
So ... you lose a square of movement if your Speed is at least 35 feet, and you double-move the full distance, and you're moving only diagonally?
I can honestly say taht has never happened to me in a 3.5 game.
Any idea what the "3.5 players are so used to getting shorted a square that they don't even notice" thing is about? It can't be the above, surely?
That's an example of what I meant by being shorted a square, but is one specific example and there are many more examples as well. As a couple easy examples I whipped up (that for movement would require a run action or a race or feat bonus to speed for movement but illustrate a concept which could apply to other situations such as ranged attacks as well).
7x + 4y. In 3E = 10. Mathematically = 8.06. You're cheated a square (and off by 1.94)
8X + 4y. In 3E = 10. Mathematically = 8.94. You're cheated a square (and off by 1.04)
8x + 6y. In 3E = 11. Mathematically = 10. You're cheated a square (off by 1).
So what I was suggesting is that if someone really used to 1-2-1 might find 1-1-1 particularly jarring because it's possible to have some cases where 4E is too liberal with giving a square or 2 more than the actual math, and 1-2-1 might short a square less than the actual math, making the difference between the 2 systems seem even greater.
More common would be having to stop with 1 square of movement left because because the next closest possible point (due to spaces being occupied, impassable, or undesirable) is a diagonal, and you've already used an even number of diagonals.
And finally (and some might disagree with this one) the situation where a tiny fraction of a square can prevent you from reaching your destination and you have to stop an entire square short of your full movement because the next X or Y squares or impassable, occupied, or undesirable. You might have to stop an entire square short of where you want to go when the actual math says that the line you want to travel is only 0.06 past your movement
I think it's very likely that these kinds of things have occurred and went beneath your notice. I've never seen players doublecheck their 1-2-1 moves with a calculator to make sure they were mathematically sound, they just have faith in it.
Quote:
The "1-1-1 is simpler" is a much better approach. Math is simply not on 1-1-1's side, in any way. "I prefer simpler to more realistic," on the other hand, is perfectly reasonable. Not to our taste, depending on the balance, but reasonable.
Who claimed that 1-1-1 is mathematically superior? I only claimed that it's *usually* (except when angles approach 45 degrees) only inferior by an insignificant amount to 1-2-1 with a noticeable advantage of being more quick and intuitive for *most* players, and that 1-2-1 can be off in some situations as well.
They are both approximations, one that is generally (but not universally) more accurate, and one that is simpler and more user-friendly (but is too liberal in 45 degree angles).
I don't have a problem with people using 1-2-1, but I do have a problem with people making statements or implied statements that try to discredit those who prefer 1-1-1 as being somehow inferior, mathematically less skilled, whiners, following a flawed mentality, cheaters, and other things that are often implied (all not necessarily in this thread, but frequently on threads on this subject).
Really, it's a matter of taste.
__________________ Law's Game Style: Storyteller 83%, Tactician 75%, Specialist 67%, Method Actor 58%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 25%, Butt-Kicker 17%
Sure, you can chalk it up to me accurately representing you.
Ah, right. Totally ignoring that I was responding to what the users of 1-1-1, themselves, said they do. In this very thread.
Life's too short to waste on the dishonest.
/clunk
__________________ Jeff Wilder, San Francisco Bay Area If your sig is longer than your posts, your sig is too
long. Nobody reads it, they just get annoyed by it. And if you bore me, you lose your soul to me. - Belly
As a couple easy examples I whipped up (that for movement would require a run action or a race or feat bonus to speed for movement but illustrate a concept which could apply to other situations such as ranged attacks as well).
Is that important? That these are cases that are pretty rare in the actual play of the game?
As opposed, say, to the problems with 4E, which (in just one session) produced at least two situations in which two minis which were actually physically closest on the battlemat were not closest under 4E's rules. Is that important? That these are cases that are pretty common in the actual play of the game? (At least for characters who have important class features based on "who's closest." Like my ranger.) It's important to me.
Quote:
Who claimed that 1-1-1 is mathematically superior?
Who said anybody claimed that? What I said was that math isn't on 1-1-1's side, in any way, so I'm amazed that people continue to argue it. And you seem very willing to do that.
Quote:
They are both approximations, one that is generally (but not universally) more accurate, and one that is simpler and more user-friendly (but is too liberal in 45 degree angles).
Change that to "almost always more accurate, and always erring on the margin within a character's listed speed," and we've reached agreement.
That's the second-biggest flaw in your argument that 3.5 "shorts" squares. (The first being that the situations in which it occurs require special circumstances, by your own admission.) When 1-2-1 "shorts a square," the actual scale distance traveled is still within the character's speed. 1-1-1's errors allow actual scale distance traveled well beyond the character's speed.
1-1-1 breaks the visual model of scale distances, within the "1 space equals 5 feet" rule that exists in both games. (Contrary to the claims of some folks in this thread.) 1-2-1 doesn't.
But you're absolutely right. It's a matter of taste. As I said well upthread, the main reason I enjoy using battlemats is that I like an accurate scale depiction of my PC's environment. The failure of 1-1-1 to provide that, in various common circumstances, is the basis for all of my objections to the rule. If that's less important to a player, and ease of play is more important to the player, that's fine with me. I just wish that's where the argument would stop, because it's the only good argument for 1-1-1.
__________________ Jeff Wilder, San Francisco Bay Area If your sig is longer than your posts, your sig is too
long. Nobody reads it, they just get annoyed by it. And if you bore me, you lose your soul to me. - Belly
Last edited by Jeff Wilder; 4th July 2009 at 02:42 AM..
More common would be having to stop with 1 square of movement left because because the next closest possible point (due to spaces being occupied, impassable, or undesirable) is a diagonal, and you've already used an even number of diagonals.
Jeff, Herremann, this is essentially what I was referring to with respect to "inhibiting movement." I'd be a little more broad, however, and simply state that to move diagonally in the 1-2-1 system, you almost always end up not going diagonal. The system literally forces to you to zig-zag such that you don't "lose" a square of movement. Perhaps the calculations might show it to be less than 5 actual feet (or more?), but the fact is that you lose a square (just move 5 squares--25ft--each round). This will never happen in 1-1-1, obviously, as you instead gain squares.
We haven't been playing 4e as long as we did 3.X, but I have yet to run into any diagonal movement weirdness. Even on the outdoor maps and our 12-piece tactile set we still don't get such huge area combats where moving a long way on the diagonal ever occurs. In 3.X on the other hand, the "lost square" came up all the time. I'm sure everyone has seen it, at least once per combat. You just don't pay attention to it because taking that last square not on the diagonal seems so natural.
Is that important? That these are cases that are pretty rare in the actual play of the game?
As opposed, say, to the problems with 4E, which (in just one session) produced at least two situations in which two minis which were actually physically closest on the battlemat were not closest under 4E's rules. Is that important? That these are cases that are pretty common in the actual play of the game? (At least for characters who have important class features based on "who's closest." Like my ranger.) It's important to me.
Honestly, I feel the same way about the insistence on bringing up 45 degree angles. Pure 45 degree diagonal movements are only a small number of all the total possible movements. Despite this fact, and despite the fact that I've said from the start that pure 45 degrees is the least mathematical accurate example possible, that's the example that everyone fixates on.
The cases were brought up as examples because you asked where I came up with the idea of shorted distance from 1-2-1.
Quote:
Who said anybody claimed that? What I said was that math isn't on 1-1-1's side, in any way, so I'm amazed that people continue to argue it. And you seem very willing to do that.
I am? Where did I argue that math was on 1-1-1's side? In fact, where is a single person that argued this?
Quote:
Change that to "almost always more accurate, and always erring on the margin within a character's listed speed," and we've reached agreement.
That's the second-biggest flaw in your argument that 3.5 "shorts" squares. (The first being that the situations in which it occurs require special circumstances, by your own admission.) When 1-2-1 "shorts a square," the actual scale distance traveled is still within the character's speed. 1-1-1's errors allow actual scale distance traveled well beyond the character's speed.
Again, you are defending the examples I gave where 3E can have flaws by saying they require special circumstances, despite the fact that your arguments also require special circumstances (such as pure 45 degree angles being singled out exclusively, or the possibility of deciding to design rooms at a 45 degree angle which distorts distances).
Also, am I understanding you correctly in that you are saying that it's ok for 1-2-1 movement to short range, but it's bad for 1-1-1 to be too liberal with range?
Now, if you had said that you are bothered by the fact that when 4E is wrong, it is possible for it to be wrong for significantly more than 1-2-1, then I wouldn't disagree with that fact. However, to say you prefer ranges to be shorted rather than to be extended because it prevents ranges from going over their rated range or speed values seems rather arbitrary.
Quote:
1-1-1 breaks the visual model of scale distances, within the "1 space equals 5 feet" rule that exists in both games. (Contrary to the claims of some folks in this thread.) 1-2-1 doesn't.
Well first of all, I don't recall that claim being made. Secondly, "breaking the visual model" is subjective. It would be more accurate to say that it breaks your visual (or mental) model.
Quote:
But you're absolutely right. It's a matter of taste. As I said well upthread, the main reason I enjoy using battlemats is that I like an accurate scale depiction of my PC's environment. The failure of 1-1-1 to provide that, in various common circumstances, is the basis for all of my objections to the rule. If that's less important to a player, and ease of play is more important to the player, that's fine with me. I just wish that's where the argument would stop, because it's the only good argument for 1-1-1.
I agree with most of your statement. Ease of use is the best reason to use 1-1-1. I even conceded that the best reason to use 1-2-1 is if you felt accuracy is more important than ease of use.
The only thing I have argued is that *both* systems have flaws. They have different flavors of flaws. One gives too many squares too often, then other shorts squares sometimes. I've even conceded that there 1-2-1 has less mistakes than 1-1-1 does.
However, to say that 1-2-1 is "almost always more accurate, and always erring on the margin within a character's listed speed" just isn't really true. It's more accurate than 1-1-1 roughly about half the time. If had said "more or equally accurate", that would be far closer to the truth. Even that isn't "almost always", but at least in a clear majority.
Maybe I'm failing to make my point clear. The point I'm trying to make is that 1-2-1 is more accurate, but that the degree of greater accuracy is exaggerated or overstated.
__________________ Law's Game Style: Storyteller 83%, Tactician 75%, Specialist 67%, Method Actor 58%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 25%, Butt-Kicker 17%
I have a few sincere questions for those who have such strong feelings for 1-2-1.
1) Obviously using actual distance calculations (such as, SQRT(X_Distance^2 + Y+Distance^2) is too much trouble to bother with, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion. So, if there was another system that yielded even more accurate results than 1-2-1, but without the actual mathematical calculation, would you use it if it were a little more complicated?
2) Which is better, a system that is more accurate on the average but can have greater degrees of inaccuracies, or one that is less accurate on average but has a smaller degree of inaccuracies?
3) For a fair comparison of accuracy, would you say it's better to compare the 3E and 4E values against a mathematical distance that is rounded to the closest whole number, to always round down, or always round up?
4) What percentage of averageaccuracy would you estimate that you'd desire for a range determination system to be considered to be accurate enough?
Obviously there's a difference in how some of us value accuracy vs gameplay, I'm just curious how far this preference goes.
__________________ Law's Game Style: Storyteller 83%, Tactician 75%, Specialist 67%, Method Actor 58%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 25%, Butt-Kicker 17%
"Your speed is measured in squares on the battle grid, with each 1-inch square representing a 5-foot square in the game world. A character who has a speed of 6 can move up to 6 squares (or 30 feet) on the battle grid by using a move action."
Why do people contort so hard, to the point of simply making up rules, rather than simply sticking with "I like 1-1-1 movement because I find it easier"? It's very strange.
That's not the point I was trying to make. Maybe I didn't express myself well. I wrote:
"There doesn't have to be any relation to actual distances since combats are an abstraction anyway."
I know, that the 4E rules do provide the equivalent of sqaures to an actual distance. I was trying to point out that they could have easily chosen otherwise, and I would have considered it a good thing.
Why is it so important for you that someone with speed 6 shouldn't be able to move a distance of 35 feet or 40 feet? Does it really matter that much?
Now, how do you feel about running in 4E?
Doesn't it bother you that it adds a mere 2 squares to your movement when it could quadruple your speed in 3E?
Because that's actually something that _I_ find difficult to accept in 4E.
Edit: apropos of nothing: Alignment is another one of the things they didn't go far enough for my taste. It's one aspect of the game that really should go the way of the dodo. Imho, it doesn't add anything positive to the game.
Edit: apropos of nothing: Alignment is another one of the things they didn't go far enough for my taste. It's one aspect of the game that really should go the way of the dodo. Imho, it doesn't add anything positive to the game.
I very much like the alignments in AD&D and 3e, but since in 4e it basically interacts with almost no game mechanics and the cosmology itself is really not tied to the alignment system, I fully agree with you. It should have substituted with some sort of much looser allegiance system.
__________________ 'Can a magician kill a man by magic?' Lord Wellington asked Strange. Strange frowned. He seemed to dislike the question. 'I suppose a magician might,' he admitted, 'but a gentleman never could.'
Now, how do you feel about running in 4E?
Doesn't it bother you that it adds a mere 2 squares to your movement when it could quadruple your speed in 3E?
Because that's actually something that _I_ find difficult to accept in 4E.
Well, 3e running was impossible. You couldn't, for example, run on a running track. Basically it just didn't happen.
Running in 4e is probably closer to a jog type of movement. You move a bit faster, but can go around corners, zig-zag, etc. You can't easily defend and really can't aim.
__________________ All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains
"There doesn't have to be any relation to actual distances since combats are an abstraction anyway."
I know, that the 4E rules do provide the equivalent of sqaures to an actual distance. I was trying to point out that they could have easily chosen otherwise, and I would have considered it a good thing.
It's all about the level of abstraction. When our group uses miniatures, we are effectively viewing a miniaturisation of the battlefield. So for our group, there is minimal abstraction in this aspect of play. I suppose this is why the 1-1-1 movement thing annoys me to no end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jhaelen
Why is it so important for you that someone with speed 6 shouldn't be able to move a distance of 35 feet or 40 feet? Does it really matter that much?
I suppose because it feels like cheating to me. It's like "accidently" throwing in an extra d6 into my [3.x] wizard's fireball. You're getting an advantage when you have no right to it. YMOV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jhaelen
Doesn't it bother you that it adds a mere 2 squares to your movement when it could quadruple your speed in 3E?
Because that's actually something that _I_ find difficult to accept in 4E.
Yes. It does. However, I didn't see this thread as an opportunity to catalogue the myriad of issues I have with aspects of 4E - even though in the main I am enjoying our current 4E campaign. I just wanted to stick to the topic(s) that Jeff brought up. But yes, where as 3E actually simulates quite well both the actual speed of humans and horses (ignoring the monk - which our group does), 4E turns it into an interesting but way too abstract mechanic for my group's liking - except for Dave.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
It's all about the level of abstraction. When our group uses miniatures, we are effectively viewing a miniaturisation of the battlefield.
Heh. Then you would hate my group too, because we use pennies, bullet casings, lug nuts, glass beads and little bunnies instead of minis. It's not a minaturisation of the battlefield as far as it is a point of reference.
I dare say that a plastic bunny holding the place for an orc surrounded by its glass bead minions is not a good representation of the scene.
I have a few sincere questions for those who have such strong feelings for 1-2-1.
1) Obviously using actual distance calculations (such as, SQRT(X_Distance^2 + Y+Distance^2) is too much trouble to bother with, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion. So, if there was another system that yielded even more accurate results than 1-2-1, but without the actual mathematical calculation, would you use it if it were a little more complicated?
Three people in our group (including myself) can do pythagorus on the fly - this normally comes into play when adjudicating 3D play for us. As such, our group can handle a certain level of complexity without issue. So therefore you are saying a system less complicated than that for equal accuracy? Yeah, we'd go with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0Man
2) Which is better, a system that is more accurate on the average but can have greater degrees of inaccuracies, or one that is less accurate on average but has a smaller degree of inaccuracies?
The one that is more accurate on average. It makes the outlier cases easier to adjudicate on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0Man
3) For a fair comparison of accuracy, would you say it's better to compare the 3E and 4E values against a mathematical distance that is rounded to the closest whole number, to always round down, or always round up?
When having the opportunity to sit down and work it out comparing accuracy such as we are, I don't round off, up or down. It is what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0Man
4) What percentage of averageaccuracy would you estimate that you'd desire for a range determination system to be considered to be accurate enough?
Obviously there's a difference in how some of us value accuracy vs gameplay, I'm just curious how far this preference goes.
This is looking at the issue backwards for me. As mathematically literate as I am (Maths Major/Tutored Mathematics for over 15 years), putting a percentage on this seems counter-intuitive. More at issue for me is:
- The diagonal speed up factor of 4E is too loose an interpretation for the games I like to run and play in.
- Exceeding the limits of what my character can do feels wrong. By the way, there are aspects of both 3.x and 4E that rub me the wrong way - I just find 4E more abrasive overall.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
Heh. Then you would hate my group too, because we use pennies, bullet casings, lug nuts, glass beads and little bunnies instead of minis. It's not a minaturisation of the battlefield as far as it is a point of reference.
I wouldn't hate your group at all. Actually it's more that most of us collect and paint miniatures. Eddie has most likely spend over 10K on minis (that we know of anyway), so we kind of feel obligated to use them.
Whenever someone brings in a new character, they have generally painted it up just so... it's just what our group does I suppose.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
I used to work as part of a team to fix Tornado Fighter Aircraft, hang in- I'm going somewhere with this. The Tornado's were training aircraft- ostensibly UK RAF pilots used them to teach Italian and German Pilots. Before the trainees were allowed in the aircraft they had to read lots of instruction manuals, take a test, attend lots of lectures etc. Then when they'd signed off on all of this, and passed the test- learnt the rules, only then were they allowed to take a test drive.
And they'd turn up at the Line (where we line up the Tornado's) and some grubby little monkey (my Sgt/Chief Tech) would tell them about all the rules that were broken, or don't work, or have never worked- "you know where they taught you about when the APU... Well don't do what they taught, not what's in the books, it doesn''t work like that- I promise." Then we'd go through all of things that the aircraft should be able to do but err... couldn't or wouldn't or at least don't try any of the above (please), and they'd have to sign to say they'd seen and heard, and if they were smart they'd check their insurance.
And sometimes a Pilot would forget about what we'd told him about the APU (or whatever) and then we'd have to put out the fire, and then go back about our business- the keepers of the knowledge, not the rules though they're in books, just how it works best (or at all).
In short we house-ruled the Tornado- £22,000,000 and change and it don't work like it says in the books.
And so to D&D, I've been at it a few years (25+), every edition is broken or at least needs house rules, not because the books wrong but because I'm right- and it's my game, so there.
So I get what your saying OP, an immersive environment, and it feels wrong- the distances, the movement; but there's an awful lot of maths in these posts, and... well just fix it, whatever works for you. If 3.x floats your boat as far as movement goes then figure a way to make it work- plenty of suggestions here, although some of them make my head itch on the inside.
I play using Maptools, I hated 4e when it came out, I've been playing it every Friday for the past (however long it's been out- less a few months of stolid- "I'm not switching"). I've played on-line with approx. 30 people in that time (me DM), nobody has mentioned the movement/measuring problem yet (and my present game is global, Serbia, Spain, USA and Halifax(UK)). That of course doesn't make us better people than the OP, possibly we're not as bright as the OP.
Perhaps we're less bothered, perhaps the immersive environment comes from having nice maps, cool descriptions, cool tokens, cool monsters with strange new abilities and the odd fool who tries to get in character and do the voices (ahem... that'd be me then), but in general lots of other cool stuff, which we port from game to game, edition to edition- like the rules that we like.
In conclusion- you hate 4e, your words (even without the vehemance of the word hate) you come to the game fearing the worst- where's the revelation, you don't like a game (for reason N) that you don't like. Meh.
On the positive side I hated 4e for a myriad reasons, unless your posting all your other dislikes elsewhere then you're expending a lot of energy (as are others) on one broken rule- which is fine (afterall so am I now).
And so with respect- I think you secretly love 4e and are locked in some internal battle in your mind for the very soul of D&D (as you know it)- a longshot I know, but I've backed outsiders before.
Lastly the Tornado was billed, at one time or another, as the all-weather-fighter- which even then sounded silly, we generally had to apply two rolls of gaffer tape liberally in order to get anywhere close to living up to that moniker.
4e has plenty of crap rules that I don't get, D&D taken as a whole has provided me with a myriad alternatives- pick one.
Honestly, all the best with it, whichever edition you decide to play; D&D's a great game- taken as a whole.
I still dislike Wizards though- and please don't respond to this, my tongue's in my cheek as I write it.
True story. When I started playing 3e back in the day, it was with anti-battlemat people, so I didn't have a reference for how to deal with miniature. In fact, when I first started playing in the 90s, there was a kind of anti-miniature and battlemat sentiment going around. When I started-up my own group as the DM I didn't use one but half my players (I had two, the other one was his girlfriend who was new to D&D and tabletop RPGs in general ) insisted on some kind of representation.
So I invested in a battlemat and some tokens. I believe mine for from Sword and Sorcery. Now had pay more attention to the movement rules and such. The original printing of the 3e PHB (the one with few monsters in the back to tide the DM over until the MM came out two months later) didn't say, one way or another, how to count squares. I went with a 1-1-1 standard (aware that it was unrealistic, but chalking it up to D&D is unrealistic).
In fact, I had to make a lot a decisions that IIRC weren't in the 3e rule book. For example, my first, home made, fireball template started in the center of the square and not at an intersection. Latter, through the website and Dragon I gathered 'official' templates. I also found out that, technically, I was supposed to count every other square as 2 squares. Since it wasn't in the rulebook and I didn't like that rule (to cumbersome for me) I ignored it. Latter, in the 3.5 rulebook the 1-2-1 was included. That's when I switched, figuring it was better to switch than to argue over personal taste.
So, when 4e went the 1-1-1 route, I considered it a return to a rule that I feel never should have been changed.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
