"4E, as an anti-4E guy" (Session Two)

[malraux]

Don't worry I understand the math.

Jeff seemed to be implying that switching to 1-1-1 somehow made interpreting the batte-mat harder..?

It makes nearest or closer than less obvious. You eyeball that differently than in normal life.

 

[JeffB]

For myself the battlemat is simply a tool to help with mechanics and doesn't really symbolize that much. Like actually in-game, the characters can be jumping, rolling, etc. all over the place in a combat scene and on the board the piece has moved maybe once or twice. It is more or less for me a, "I have engaged this guy", "I can see this guy", etc. kind of deal. It is something you refer back too to make sure everything runs smoothly.

Bingo.

IMO the grid is for reference, not simulation.

 

[Obryn]

I think that changing movement back to 1-2-1-2 is one of the easier changes you can make to the game. Whether or not you want to also adjust bursts and blasts is kind of your call from there.

I thought 1-1-1-1 would bug the hell out of me, but I've learned to appreciate it. It's quicker, by and large.

With that said, if it bugs you, it doesn't matter one iota whether or not it bugs me. If you're not running the game, try and talk your DM into giving 1-2-1-2 movement a try. See how it works out.

Good luck!!

-O

 

[Mouseferatu]

One solution I've seen suggested is to count the first diagonal square in any move action as two squares, but all the rest as one. That makes it a little closer to "accurate," but is still a lot faster, and more easily eyeballed than 1-2-1-2.

I've never tried it myself, since the 1-1-1-1 doesn't bug me, but it might work as a compromise for others.

 

[jmucchiello]

My group actually switched to 1-1-1-1 in 3.5e and I despised it. It's too non-Euclidean for me. People in the group less math oriented than me didn't understand my problem with it either. I don't play D&D with that group of people any more. In this arrangement is A closer to B or C:

AXXXXXXXB
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXC

By RAW 4e A is equally distant to B and C. My brain refuses to accept that reality. If you float the three minis off the table and rotate the map 45 degrees around square A, C becomes 14 squares from A and B becomes 7 (diagonal) squares (10 inches) from A. At least with 1-2-1-2 there is less of a discrepancy.

 

[nightwyrm]

Of course, science has suggested that the universe may be non-euclidean, 4e is just incorporating the lastest scientific developments.

But anyways, I don't find 1-1-1 to be a huge deal in our group. I take off a lot of hats at the door when I get into a game.

 

[Holy Smokes]

I can definitely see where the closest question can create confusion. Areas and moving 1-1 are easy and intuitive, even if they are not realistic. Closest, however, can create situations where obvious 'inaccuracies' occur.

Are there other classes besides ranger and warlock that run into that much?

 

[dogoftheunderworld]

... Anyhow, didn't mean to sidetrack the discussion but it reminds me a lot of what we did in basic D&D when we used platic army men, weebles and legos to figure stuff out.

"Man, those Ogres just won't fall down!"

umm.. sorry... I'm better now.

Anyway, I can see both sides, I've played hero-clix with my son and the 1-1-1 doesn't really bother me. However, I can also see wanting to use the grid as more of an underlay. Even if you have to count your squares for movement, you can eyeball other stuff without having to count rows/columns/squares for everything. I guess I'll chalk this one up to personal preference and move on. (I should have stuck with my initial observation.... )

 

[N0Man]

I remember when this was being discussed over on Gleemax before 4E was released. If a person supported 1:1, it was inevitable that they'd receive some snark from some elitist who seemed to jump to the conclusion that if you didn't prefer 1-2-1, then you were bad at math (or at least inferior to those that supported it). I even saw posts stating that they were afraid that simplifying the game in ways like this might lead to an increase in players of the types that were undesirable. People like that baffle me.

As it's been said over and over again, if it's something that bothers a given group, they can house rule it. I have trouble with the "it's so simplified, it makes it harder for me" argument though. Honestly, it's usually easy to eyeball whether the X or Y length is greater, and if that's within your range, there's no need to even count squares. When moving, I usually just look at my max in either the X or Y, and then just pick a spot along that row or rank that doesn't go past the line of what a pure diagonal would.

Now, I can understand how a pure 45 degree angle might look a little off in some situations, but that's a specific angle where 1:1 is off by the largest amount. However, at some angles, 1:1 is about the same accuracy or even greater accuracy than 1-2-1, something that 1:1 critics downplay, if they acknowledge it at all. If you bring this up, it's usually argued that though both can have a margin of error in them, the margin of error for 1:1 is greater than that of 1-2-1, and it's true, for the true corner cases... no pun intended.

Examples, with a typical speed of 6 (Real math, vs 3e, vs 4e, to the closest integer)

• 6x + 1y = 6.08. 3E = 6. 4E = 6. Tie.
• 6x + 2y = 6.32. 3E = 7. 4E = 6. 4E wins (by 1)
• 6x + 3y = 6.71. 3E = 7. 4E = 6. 3E wins (by 1).
• 6x + 4y = 7.21. 3E = 8. 4E = 6. Tie. (Both are 1 off of the closest integer).
• 6x + 5y = 7.81. 3E = 8. 4E = 6. 3E wins (4E off by 2).
• 6x + 5y = 8.49. 3E = 9. 4E = 6. 3E wins (3E is off by 1, 4E off by 2).

3E's 1-2-1 math is not the landslide of realism that some of the 1:1 critics seem to argue. I think whole debate is largely psychological and is weighted by how highly some people value realistic and consistent math (even if it only wins by a small lead).

 

[Rolflyn]

Examples, with a typical speed of 6 (Real math, vs 3e, vs 4e, to the closest integer)

• 6x + 1y = 6.08. 3E = 6. 4E = 6. Tie.
• 6x + 2y = 6.32. 3E = 7. 4E = 6. 4E wins (by 1)
• 6x + 3y = 6.71. 3E = 7. 4E = 6. 3E wins (by 1).
• 6x + 4y = 7.21. 3E = 8. 4E = 6. Tie. (Both are 1 off of the closest integer).
• 6x + 5y = 7.81. 3E = 8. 4E = 6. 3E wins (4E off by 2).
• 6x + 6y = 8.49. 3E = 9. 4E = 6. 3E wins (3E is off by 1, 4E off by 2).

If you compare the values directly instead of rounding off first, 3E comes out even further ahead. For example, in your 6x+4y case, you list it as a tie, but 8 is a much better approximation of 7.21 than 6 is.