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

[Rechan]

I can understand the frustration with the squares.

I don't. Despite it having been explained to me, it's just so right-brain I can't empathize with it at all. It's such an insignificant, superficial thing to care about. People don't move in straight lines - minis should?

Hell, every square is five feet. And because you can't enter another person's square, it means that everyone has a five foot bubble around them instead of being right up next to each other. Why doesn't that hurt the suspension of disbelief, that there's five feet between two guys grappling?

Why? Because it's not supposed to be realistic. It's just a framework to hang the rules on, it's not supposed to simulate anything except the barest notion of distances and positioning.

If you can accept and explain away the 5' bubble issue, then you should be able to accept and explain away diagonals and square fireballs - because the grid is not how it looks, it's just a primitive reference model.

Squares, hexes, a grid formed out of little bunnies - I don't care.

 

[Rechan]

Has anyone ever tried just using hexes with the RAW? Other than the oft-mentioned difficulty with mapmaking, and a 6-on-1 limit vs an 8-on-1 limit, what's to keep you from just making the switch?

The last time this thread came up and the last time that Jeff complained about it, the Hexes were brought up.

Essentially it works fine. The only troubling part is dealing with monsters that are large, huge, etc; figuring out how many hexes they take up can be tricky.

However, someone complained that the same diagonal problem exists - it's just at right angles instead of diagonals.

 

[Nymrohd]

Honestly only a computer game could handle the spatial geometry of combat perfect.

 

[Remathilis]

The last time this thread came up and the last time that Jeff complained about it, the Hexes were brought up.

Essentially it works fine. The only troubling part is dealing with monsters that are large, huge, etc; figuring out how many hexes they take up can be tricky.

However, someone complained that the same diagonal problem exists - it's just at right angles instead of diagonals.

Sizing is easy: Unearthed Arcana (3.5) did it for you. (Hex Grid :: d20srd.org). Alternately, just use DDM minis (or appropriate sized bases) and you're good.

The latter irritates me enough to forswear hexes for anything but the largest of wilderness battles.

 

[Kez Darksun]

I don't. Despite it being explained to me, it's just so right-brain I can't empathize with it at all. It's such an insignificant, superficial thing to care about.

Hell, every square is five feet. And because you can't enter another person's square, it means that everyone has a five foot bubble around them instead of being right up next to each other. Why doesn't that hurt the suspension of disbelief, that there's five feet between two guys grappling?

Why? Because it's not supposed to be realistic. It's just a framework to hang the rules on, it's not supposed to simulate anything except the barest notion of distances and positioning.

Squares, hexes, a grid formed out of little bunnies - I don't care.

I, too, am hoping someone can elaborate on the difficulty with the squares because, like Rechan, I just don't get that complaint at all. I don't doubt its an issue for the original poster, but it is a complaint that I just don't understand.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Twice during the session I moved to place myself closest to an enemy. Looking at the map, ignoring the grid and just making spatial judgment, there's absolutely no doubt that I'm in the position I want.

But then you count the squares, and I'm not. ARGH!

Any time savings from not having to count diagonals differently is absolutely wasted in having to count from final intended position to enemy positions. Forget about judging distances on the map. In situations in which it matters, you must count: from X1 to X2; from X2 to Y; from X2 to Z; oops, X2 is closer to Z, so let's start over; from X1 to X3, from X3 to Y; from X3 to Z, oh, okay, there we go.

You need to train yourself not to count in a straight line from X1 to X2. All you need to look at is the two straight axes that form the rectangle between X1 and X2. The greater "side" equals your distance.


Example:


XXXXXbXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXaXXXXXX

The horizontal distance is 3 squares. The verticle distance is 4 squares. The distance between A and B is 4 squares.

It becomes easier once you get used to looking at it this way. Then you aren't even comparing longest, you can easily see which lateral dimension is longer and only count that one.

 

[Ktulu]

I'm with other's on this; while mathmatically the 1,2,1 makes sense, it's just more intuitive to see every square as 1 and not think furhter on the subject. I don't ever have to wonder whether or not reach hits here, or a blast hits there. It's really just about keeping it simple; and I never thought the 1,2,1 was all that simple.

However, if you've trained your self to see the grid that way, I can understand the headache about unlearning. Simple answer, do as Yoda says, "Unlearn what you have learned."

 

[malraux]

It becomes easier once you get used to looking at it this way. Then you aren't even comparing longest, you can easily see which lateral dimension is longer and only count that one.

Yup. The only difficulty could be difficult terrain or corners, but those don't get easier with 1.5 diagonals.

The big advantage I've found to 1-1 movement is because its just counting columns or rows, i can count from across the table.

That said, closest to X does get a bit more tricky. You might ask to have effects like that follow direct spatial measurements while regular movement goes by the 1-1 thing.

 

[Festivus]

I think rather then squares or hexes the most accurate would be just inches. You wouldn't have the easy to count grid space, but it would be more accurate I guess.

So give each player a piece of string cut to exactly how many squares they can move? Templates for bursts and blasts and such (like those fun wire ones)? And then just toss the grid out and play an open area? Cover would be interesting, probably mostly in the DM's hands to adjudicate. 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.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Yup. The only difficulty could be difficult terrain or corners, but those don't get easier with 1.5 diagonals.

And we usually are counting movement sqaure by square so the issue of difficult terrain and corners isn't as much an issue.

That said, closest to X does get a bit more tricky. You might ask to have effects like that follow direct spatial measurements while regular movement goes by the 1-1 thing.

We've gotten pretty good at eyeballing and quick confirmation when the answer isn't obvious.