D&D 4E How did 4e take simulation away from D&D?

[Imaro]

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

Oh, I can definitely see the other side of the coin too... and upon re-reading my reply I feel I may have came off a little abrasively and I apologize for that.

 

[Dausuul]

Yeah, the 1-2-1-2 versus 1-1-1-1 thing is a problem without a really good solution. Either way it's a major nuisance. And hexes aren't a cure-all, either. I've tried hexes and had a huge amount of trouble wrapping my head around how to move Large-sized minis. They take up 3 hexes with two possible orientations, and I always have to think about whether switching orientations counts as a hex of movement or not):

...Is that one hex of movement straight down, or half a hex of movement down-and-left? Or is it even possible to move this way?

In the end, I just went with 1-1-1-1 because it's simpler. But I can see how somebody who works with charts and diagrams for a living would find it hard to take.

 

[delericho]

You could all start using Hexes and then this is all nice and moot! Except then, you can't go in a nice straight line, you have to swagger. Which could be in character.

Neverwinter Nights actually uses a hex grid, with really small hexes. That's actually probably the best model right there, except that you'd really need a VTT to handle the calculations for you.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Again, I already stated it was more irritating than a serious problem in my time playing 4e.

Because once they realized that this applied in some situations... they began checking all situations to see if there was some way to skirt around, an obstacle, foe, etc. Which in turn took up time and pulled people out of the immersion and onto the board.

 

[delericho]

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.

The problem comes at the edge conditions. If you need to move six squares to get to your buddy who's busily bleeding to death, but there's a guard in the way, suddenly it can make a huge difference if you can move along the diagonals or not. At best, it's the difference between taking an AoO or not. At worst, it could well be a matter of life and death.

Zig-zagging around the guard like that is also really artificial, and draws attention to the strict turn structure of the game. In real life, if you tried that the guard wouldn't just stand there and let you move; he'd move across to block your way.

(The turn structure is of course just as much of a problem in 3e and previous editions. Still, it is mitigated somewhat by the need to grant the guard an AoO as you move past.)

 

[NexH]

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.

The problem for me is that the 4e movement system misses many interesting tactical and cinematic possibilities: rather than trying jumping over a chasm, going trough a field of flames, or risking an OA, you can just move in zig-zags without any lose in speed and without any risk (nor meaningful choice).
To obtain the same result as you would envision with real-world geometry, you, as a DM, can try to modify the lenght of the field of battle and the starting position of the PC, the disposition of the terrain features in a room, or the tactics of the enemies, but it requires a considerable work (and produces artificial tactics and architecture that are only comprehensible from a rules standpoint).

 

[Nichwee]

The problem for me is that the 4e movement system misses many interesting tactical and cinematic possibilities: rather than trying jumping over a chasm, going trough a field of flames, or risking an OA, you can just move in zig-zags without any lose in speed and without any risk (nor meaningful choice).

Except if the chasm/fire occupy a whole space you can't diagonal around them, and if it doesn't then it is the same as when I run along the street and jump a few feet (this in reality is less than the 5ft to another square) to the side to step round a big puddle while taking a 90% straight line. If the puddle is actually 5ft wide I slow up and go around just like the D&D PCs have to, or I go for a jump just like the PCs do.

It allows going the 3 diagonals to the left followed by 3 diagonals to the right to skip an OA, but if there is only one guy even vaguely in the way (so there is room for this tactic without provoking from anoyone else) well things are probably not desperate enough for it to be major (especially as almost all healing is ranged so if you are within your speed you are probably able to solve almost any problem that could be an issue regardless of only a single enemy left in the area. (I stress not every problem, but almost any I expect to show up more than once in a purple moon* - I would say a blue moon but I think they are too common for this type of effect).

*A purple moon would be a Blue Moon in February (the red, or pink,-est of months, and also the shortest - so minimum chance ).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

Ok, so it seems i have to look it up. But I am pretty sure it was somewhere burrowed in the rules as a sidenote...

But maybe it was combat and tactics of 2e where 2-2-2 diagonals were used...

Hey, at least in 2004, at the late stages of 3rd edition, there was a rules of the games article that tells you to use 5-10-5-10 ft when moving diagonal, so unless I find the sidenote i believe to remeber vaguely, we should assume that i am misremembering...

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Ok, so it seems i have to look it up. But I am pretty sure it was somewhere burrowed in the rules as a sidenote...

But maybe it was combat and tactics of 2e where 2-2-2 diagonals were used...

It's been a long while, but I recall that C&T for 2e used inches and measuring for grid battles by default. Though, my memory may be faulty after 10 years.

 

[delericho]

Just for fun: three of my favourite 4e rules absurdities put together.

Joe is a 1st level Human Fighter, with a 20 Str, trained in Athletics, and with Skill Focus(Athletics), for a total skill modifier of +13. Here's the layout:

 1....J.....
 2..........
 3....A.....
 4.......... (Chasm)
 5.......... (Chasm)
 6.B..D..... (Chasm)
 7.......... (Chasm)
 8.......... (Chasm)
 9....C.....

Joe starts his turn at position J, with a dragonet (or other Small-Medium flyer) at position D.

Per the rules, it is valid for Joe to move to position A, jump diagonally to B, and then on to position C, thus jumping around the dragonet without risking an AoO.

Using the assumed scale of 1 square = 5 feet, that's a 30 foot jump, which is just over the current World Record. If diagonals had their 'real' length, it would be considerably more. And, of course, it's impossible to jump in that manner.

At 1st level, per the rules as written, Joe has a 20% chance of success (DC 30, means he needs to roll a '17' +13 or better).

The three absurdities:

1) At 1st level, Joe can jump further than our World Record holder. At that point, at 1st level, he's already superhuman.

2) The diagonal thing, as we've discussed here.

3) There's no rule that you can't change direction in the middle of a jump. This is actually a necessary trade-off - since you can't move diagonally around hard corners, one could build a 5ft wide corridor with a turn, place a pit trap at the corner, and nobody could jump across!

Obviously, this is an extreme (and silly) example. I just thought it would be fun to think about for a moment.