I really don't understand how that works. Can you show an example? The shortest distance between your starting point and your goal is a straight line, right? Are you saying that some diagonal is shorter than that straight line?
D&D 4E How did 4e take simulation away from D&D?
- Thread starter Tiitha
- Start date
Getting rid of the skill point system was a total win for me. I never found that skill points added anything to verisimilitude; skill points and skill training are both highly artificial mechanics, as are pretty much all the mechanics involved in chargen and leveling up.
The removal of non-adventuring-related skills... I'm of two minds about that one. I approve of getting rid of the need to choose between "background skills" and "skills you're actually likely to use in play." And there's a lot to be said for the idea that you don't have to have a skill for every little thing your PC knows how to do. On the other hand, not having any mechanic to portray those background talents does often result in PCs who never think about or use such talents.
Perhaps something along the lines of AD&D's Secondary Skill mechanic would do the job. You choose a profession/background, like Hunter, or Aristocrat, or Blacksmith. Any time you want to do something plausibly related to that profession, if it's not covered by a standard skill, you make an appropriate ability check with a +5 bonus (where you would otherwise make a flat ability check).
In fact, that'd be a nice replacement for the existing background mechanic. Hmm... maybe I need to work that into my next campaign.
I think the main thing is that in 4E, you lose nothing by taking a zigzag diagonal path instead of walking straight ahead. In certain cases, this can lead to weird results as you zip around obstacles that ought properly to slow you up. I have not found it to be a big deal in actual play, but I guess experiences vary.
Last edited:
UngeheuerLich
Legend
delericho, as a mathematical MODEL, 1-2-1-2 works better, and more or less spherical fireballs look nicer. But for most movements 1-1-1-1 works well enough. Only strictly diagonal movements pronounce the error. So an easy way to fix diagonal movement could be using 1-2 only if you take two diagonal moves in a row. (so you don´t have to remeber if your last diagonal move was 1 or 2...)
In Old timer´s example you would need speed 6 to get there.
If you look at this from a mathematical point of view you make it even worse, as you now have no norm at all, because the same distance can be 6 or 7 squares, depending how you count, but in practice it could be a good method of measurement.
In Old timer´s example you would need speed 6 to get there.
If you look at this from a mathematical point of view you make it even worse, as you now have no norm at all, because the same distance can be 6 or 7 squares, depending how you count, but in practice it could be a good method of measurement.
True, but if the obstacle is blocking terrain you can't do a quick diagonal around it, you have to take the 2-step approach, and anything else is a case of representing a slight lean as you move and the fact that you can step within 5ft of someone normally but the game needs to count the square as "occupied" - just like dodging between people on the pavement if you are in a hurry. Lets face it, how many people really take up 5ftx5ft in real life (my shoulders aren't even 2ft wide).
Lalato
Adventurer
There are ways to mitigate this as a DM. You can add rough terrain that makes it tougher for players to move diagonally on a straight path or to zig zag. You can make rooms different shapes and sizes. You can add walls, tables, chairs, dead bodies, and the list goes on.
It's interesting to me that people are describing diagonal movement as if it exists in a vacuum. Are these places where people are zooming about diagonally devoid of any topographical features whatsoever? Man, that's some boring dungeon design right there.
If you go in knowing how diagonals work and you want to mitigate it in some way, you can do it. If it doesn't bother you, you can ignore it.
Hey Dausuul, I was going to say something similar about backgrounds. The only thing I would add is possibly allowing PCs to gain more "backgrounds" as they level up. Perhaps one new "background" per tier using your +5 mechanic.
Or you could do them more often using a +2 bonus instead. If you did it more often, I would let people stack them... say every 5 levels. So at first level I take the Sailor background which gives me a +2 bonus. Then at 5th level I take Sailor again which gives me another +2 for a total of +4. Or I can take something else entirely for a different +2 bonus. A bit more fiddly, but some people really love fiddly.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
he can´t, because it is impossible, as the maximum norm oblieges the triangle inequality, because, it is a norm.
Imaro
Legend
Yeah this basically sums up what I was trying (unsuccesfully) to express in my earlier post
Dude let's not do the whole... "Hey, it shouldn't bother you because you can do extra work to circumvent the problem." thing, please. It's not that diagonal movement exsists in a vacum, it's that I don't now (and don't want to have to everytime I build an encounter) design the features of a room to combat diagonal movement... I design them to fit the encounter area. Is it the worst of my problems with D&D 4e... no, but it is irritating to me.
Lalato
Adventurer
I totally get that, and I agree with what you're saying. Yes, just design the encounters to fit the scene. That makes total sense to me. All I'm saying is that it's not much more work to add a few bits of hindering or interesting terrain. And you don't even have to do it with the express desire of hindering diagonal movement. It's about making the best encounter for the scene. I don't see how this means a ton of extra work.
Will there be edge cases where a player finds a super optimal route? Sure, but in my experience (and again, this is just my experience I'm not saying everyone experiences things the way I do) once the first round of initiative passes there isn't much in the way of massive diagonal movement unless the scene is in a wide open space. And even then, there is a lot more straight on movement or tactical short movement than there is straight diagonal or zig zag movements.
I can't count the number of times people got the 1-2-1-2 movement wrong in the games I played. I would see people counting out their movement 2, 3 or more times because they would forget which diagonal they were on. That might say more about those players than the rules, but it was frustrating in the same way, I suppose, that some folks find 1-1-1-1 movement. LOL
This is true, but how much of a problem is it really? Also, in this case I think both models fail to give the exact real world distance.
So you can sometimes go past a lone guardsman standing in an open field without losing the 1 or 2 squares of movement you would in D&D 3.x. I really don't see how this turns into everyone trying do diagonal movement on every opportunity.
delericho
Legend
By my guest...
I checked the 3.0e books when I got home, and I couldn't find anything. The PHB refers to the DMG, but the DMG doesn't say anything about diagonals at all. Neither does Call of Cthulhu d20, the first Star Wars d20 or Wheel of Time d20.
As far as I can tell, the move to the grid being assumed came in d20 Modern (1-2-1-2), after which it went into 3.5e and then Star Wars revised.
Star Wars Saga had brief dalliance with 2-2-2-2 diagonals, before 4e went to 1-1-1-1 diagonals. (WFRP 2e also uses 1-1-1-1, FWIW.)
As for the rest of it... Well, I'm not going to be convinced. And I can see that you're not going to be either. So, I'm content to leave it be at this point.
