D&D 4E Houseruling 4E diagonal movement?

[Jeff Wilder]

One of the biggest things keeping me from playing 4E (as opposed to DMing it, where the biggest thing is probably my unwillingness to give up my complete 3.5 library) is the diagonal movement rule. There are other issues I have with the system, but this one is both emblematic of those and a deal-breaker. I just can't force myself to accept the non-Euclidean space that 4E has as default. I'm not stating that as a value judgment ... simply as a fact pertaining to me.

So I'm curious:

Has anybody house-rules movement back to 1-2-1-2?

How did you handle things like area effects and movement triggered by powers?

Did you find the house-ruling easy to do?

Do you find the house-ruling easy to play? (Obviously it's not as easy as 1-1-1-1, so that's not my question.)

 

[Syrsuro]

I'd go with the compromise solution (1-2-2-2) before I'd go all the way back to the old rules (1-2-1-2). It gives you a decent approximation of circular (at least for the radii you are likely to see in the game) combined with decent speed of use.

But frankly, we just use the 1-1-1 approach for convenience.

Carl

 

[AtomicPope]

One of the biggest things keeping me from playing 4E (as opposed to DMing it, where the biggest thing is probably my unwillingness to give up my complete 3.5 library) is the diagonal movement rule.

If that's all it takes for you to not play a game then you need professional help. Seriously. I housed ruled it to 1-2-1-2 day one. Done. The reasons for doing it are fairly obvious and it's not a big deal.

 

[ulrikbb]

Seriously, I feel that the new movement rules are way better. It makes movement take less time, and it is easier to learn for new players. When I've played D&D, I've found even experienced players not being used to having to pay 1.5 feet of movement for a diagonal move, as their DMs have probably house ruled that all movement cost the same. The details of movement don't have to be as gritty as in 3.5E. I'm very happy with it.

 

[fissionessence]

I'm not happy with the 4E diagonals, but I also don't see myself changing it any time soon.

A couple weeks ago my players were fighting a vampire, and toward the end he tried to retreat by spider climbing up a wall and across a ceiling. At one point, he was directly above the players 20 squares up (high ceiling), and the wizard magic missiled him. On the next round, he was still 20 squares up, but also no longer directly above the players, but instead several squares away. However, I realized that by using 4E diagonals, it didn't matter how far away he was horizontally; as long as he was no more than 20 squares high, and no more than 20 squares horizontally, he was still within range. Under 3.5 movement, it would have been much trickier to determine whether he would be within range or not, but it would have been much less silly also.

I find that my players and I end up laughing a lot about some of the silly things free diagonals allows, but we still go along with it.

Anyway, more in response to the OP's direct question: a while back I saw a thread like this one. The main issue that I saw brought up was that of wizards' area spells. One poster said that it didn't matter as long as monsters' powers were affected as well, but I don't think this is necessarily the case considering the wizard is a player who will be using (or not using) his area spells all the time . . . and depending on the area, he could be targeting much fewer squares under the changed movement rules.

You might consider keeping the area measurements the same, but only changing the rules where relevant to actual movement; I'm not sure how that would work out.

~ fissionessence

 

[Bhikku]

I'd say that if you want more "realistic" movement, ditch the grid system entirely and either switch to hexes or make like Savage Worlds and carry a pocket-size tape-measure with you. I'm sticking with the 4e standard for now, but may switch to measured distances if it starts to irritate me. I do know from playing Savage Worlds that players are more prone to holding formations and interacting with terrain when they move without a grid, but YMMV.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If that's all it takes for you to not play a game then you need professional help.

I think you may be responding to another post, as I didn't write what you seem to think I wrote.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I'd say that if you want more "realistic" movement, ditch the grid system entirely and either switch to hexes or make like Savage Worlds and carry a pocket-size tape-measure with you.

The trade-off between verisimilitude and ease-of-play is just fine for me in 3.5. I don't need anything close to perfect accuracy ... I just don't want the huge deliberate error in spatial relationships that 4E has built in. For whatever reason, I am unable to process it without cringing every time I look at the battlemat.

Those that have made some attempt to answer my questions, thanks much. I appreciate it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The trade-off between verisimilitude and ease-of-play is just fine for me in 3.5. I don't need anything close to perfect accuracy ... I just don't want the huge deliberate error in spatial relationships that 4E has built in. For whatever reason, I am unable to process it without cringing every time I look at the battlemat.

Those that have made some attempt to answer my questions, thanks much. I appreciate it.

Well, I never encountered the problem. I didn't like the idea of Firecubes at first, but... Now I just enjoy the increases in speed and simpler adjudication and when I look at the battlemat, I don't cringe, I see where area effects start and end and where my character can move to way more clearly then ever before.

But I suppose if Firelance comes around, he should have some suggestions and solid experience - at least if I where to believe his signature.

 

[The_Spider]

on a side note does anyone know if for spells are we suppose to count diagonal 1 for 1 when determining ranges?