D&D 4E Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?

Raduin711 · Feb 10, 2008

I'm for going back to 1 square diagonals. I hate it when you are counting your diagonals and you second-guess yourself or lose track of your diagonals and you're standing there, miniature in hand, with a dumb expression on your face, trying desperately to remember what space you started from so that you can re-count your movement.

It may not be geometrically accurate but it is a lot easier and makes the game run faster and smoother.

I wouldn't mind seeing the diagonals=1.5 rule as a sidebar optional rule, though.

Reaper Steve · Feb 10, 2008

Thanks for the responses guys.

I certainly didn't expect so many people to be 'for' the new measuring.

I do consider myself firmly in the 'it's a game, not a simulation' camp, I just didn't expect so many, 'yes, it really does speed up play' comments.

Is it my preferred solution? No. But I'll give it a fair shot.

Fifth Element · Feb 10, 2008

Reaper Steve said:
Is it my preferred solution? No. But I'll give it a fair shot.

That's all one can ask. It would make a lot of threads here a lot shorter, though, if everyone did that.

delericho · Feb 10, 2008

Fifth Element said:
Very poor argument. The diagonal movement rules are intended for small-scale, tactical movement in combat.

If you use rules for situations for which they were not intended, you'll often get wonky results.

Fine. You get exactly the same problem with a thrown dagger at 60 feet.

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
the old 1.5 squares per diagonal move (with the first diagonal move worth 1 square, the second 2 and so on) also had a margin of error (~ 0.09 squares per square of diagonal movement).

True, to be accurate, a diagonal square should count as root-2 squares, or approx 1.414 squares. However, there's a big difference between an error of 0.09 sq-per-sq and 0.41 sq-per-sq.

Fifth Element · Feb 10, 2008

delericho said:
True, to be accurate, a diagonal square should count as root-2 squares, or approx 1.414 squares. However, there's a big difference between an error of 0.09 sq-per-sq and 0.41 sq-per-sq.

At what point does it move from "simple" to "dumb"? 0.25 sq-per-sq? Higher? Lower?

delericho · Feb 10, 2008

Fifth Element said:
At what point does it move from "simple" to "dumb"? 0.25 sq-per-sq? Higher? Lower?

I know it when I see it.

YMMV, of course.

Edit: I'm not trying to be snarky here, but that's basically what this one boils down to. The margin for error here is just too great for my taste. Others may vary.

HeinorNY · Feb 10, 2008

The first and most obvious problem I can think of when using the 1-1-1-1 diagonal rule:
Blue is the Wizard.
Green is the Fighter.
'X' is the monster, his speed is 30 ft. or 6 squares.

In 3.5 the monster, in order to attack the Wizard in the same round, needs to go through the Fighter.

Using 1-1-1-1 rules, it can go around the Fighter, probably provoking an 'opportunity attack',

Or he can just go really around the fighter, provoking no 'opportuniy attacks'!!!!

Man, it's gonna be hard to be a defender in this game...

EDIT: ~~What about flanking?~~

Lhorgrim · Feb 10, 2008

I'm sure the answer to this is "we won't know until the rulebooks are released", but does 1 for 1 diagonal movement mean that my Steelsqwire templates will be obsolete?

I never minded the 1,2,1,2 diagonal movement in 3.X I guess. I was used to tabletop wargaming where everything was measured, so the 1,2,1,2 method was a great increase in game speed for me.

I really don't want to see square areas of effect, but I suppose "when in Rome..."

Lonely Tylenol · Feb 10, 2008

vagabundo said:
Do hex's cause any problems with the standard rules???

They cause problems where buildings are involved. If you're in a dungeon or a tavern, the walls probably do not overlay well on a hex grid. Even if you just plunk down the map on the grid and deal with it, you're likely to have some trouble getting used to drawing straight lines on the hex board.

I played on a hex board for ages because that's all we had. It makes spells much easier to adjudicate. Just count out a number of hexes from the source hex. None of those wonky cone templates you get with squares. However, drawing maps is a pain in the butt, even after I had been doing it for almost a year. Ideally, I'd have a sheet of acrylic with corner points etched on to suggest a square grid, and place it over a hex map. Then, draw on the walls using the corners on the acrylic. So long as it's lined up properly, the hex grid will sit in the right orientation, and you just have to deal with a bunch of half-hexes along the walls, which is only really a problem in a 5' wide tunnel.

Pale Jackal · Feb 10, 2008

Ainatan has a [potentially] compelling point, but there could be rules to correct for such scenarios, especially since "defenders" have new, never-before-seen tricks.

Of course, these rules are ideally less cumbersome than the 1,2 rule. But whatever, we'll see.

D&D 4E Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?

Raduin711

Hero

Reaper Steve

Explorer

Fifth Element

Legend

delericho

Legend

Fifth Element

Legend

delericho

Legend

HeinorNY

First Post

Attachments

Lhorgrim

Explorer

Lonely Tylenol

First Post

Pale Jackal

First Post

Similar Threads

Voidrunner's Codex