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

Thyrwyn · Feb 14, 2008

ainatan said:
Just to make things even clearer:

Feet measurement doesn't matter because rules are in squares.
The second diagram is a larger space in an euclidian world, but not in the 1-1-1-1 world.

The second diagram is a larger space in both euclidian and non-euclidian worlds, if I can propose that we use "area encompassed" as a basis of determining which is larger.

1) The 1st diagram has 24 "full" squares. The second has 37 "full" squares and 22 "half" squares. The second space is clearly larger.
2) Why would you intentionally represent a space in such a misrepresentational manner?

Jeff Wilder · Feb 14, 2008

Thyrwyn said:
The second diagram is a larger space in both euclidian and non-euclidian worlds, if I can propose that we use "area encompassed" as a basis of determining which is larger.

That's exactly the point. The second room is actually twice as large, both from a real-world perspective and an in-game perspective. Yet according to the 1-1-1-1 rule, both of those rooms are "3-squares by 8-squares" or "15-feet by 40-feet."

So one is twice as large -- provably and observably, for us and for our characters -- yet people are defending a rule that's telling us that they're the same size.

BryonD · Feb 14, 2008

Hussar said:
Sorry BryonD my bad. Was typing without looking.

No problem. Its a constant in my life.

Really? Then how can I move 10 feet on a diagonal in 3.5 edition?

1-2-1 doesn't negate errors. I move five feet then suddenly teleport 10 feet then move another 5 feet. Like I said about rotating huge monsters 45 degrees - suddenly my sides aren't 15 feet, they're 20 feet. Oh, but, wait, I can't actually do that. Why not? Because the battle grid is abstract and I can't rotate myself 45 degrees, I have to make full 90 degree turns, no matter what and make sure that my "base" fits into the squares.

I didn't say it negated errors, I said it did not intentionally introduce errors.
1/2/1/2 is a close as can come to "correct" with the baseline assumption of 5 foot squares as I already stated. The ~6% error in that is implicit to the assumption.

1/1/1/1 makes that error more like 40% and is a direct addition of error that the system does not require.

And even with that, in a system where all standard humans have a speed of 30, a 6% error is pretty close to within the margin of error already present. So you could argue that the overall accuracy is not negatively impacted at any significant level by 1/2/1/2. If you made evey 5th 2 be a 1 then the "error" would drop down to 1%. But as I doubt that normal human beings maintain a velocity within 1% constantly as they move, particularly in situations comparable to combat. So 1% isn't really any error at all. By the same reasoning, 6% comes in quite reasonable. 40% is unreasonable.

But really, that is just a side point. The real point is that this new system is adding error that the system does not require. Nothing in that complaint, or in my prior post, requires or claims that the existing system is exact.

Imban · Feb 14, 2008

If we assume we can't capriciously redraw buildings (i.e. there's a universal grid) and that, when in doubt, measurements should be conducted by distance, your Figure 2 should look like this, placing your opponents at 14' away (closest 7' increment to 15' away) and 35' away (which is exactly correct).

This means blocking is, while still more effective on the diagonals, not a 50% increase in effectiveness, because Euclidean geometry is still being maintained even if it seems rather weird.

By the way, ainatan, what program are you using to draw these diagrams? I've had to settle for manipulating pre-existing ones in Paint.

rjdafoe · Feb 14, 2008

Starting off by saying, YMMV

Easy enough fix (and probably what most people do anyways, which is why WoTC uses a grid system). Don't draw rooms on a square grid diagonally. Most of the things that I can think of, it is logical to lay a grid system down so the lines match, not the other way.

If I take my house, it is basically a box. Why would I logically place that on a grid diagonally unless I was deliberatly trying to take advantage of something?

The way my group uses the grid is only for combat for the most part anyways. All of us always align the grid to what makes sence to the room, not the map to what we are working off of, as it does not matter. (Yes there are always exceptions, I know)

Pretty easy if you ask me. If your using a square grid, keep in the boudries of what a square grid is, or use some other form of grid.

And players should never be able to align the grid to their advantage anyways.

I am not calling anyone names at all here, let me be clear about that but the concerns of this really sound to me very similiar to MIN/MAXING ability scores. Only the concept is being applied to movement.

It also has to do with the people that you are gaming with. I think someone else said this as well. If you are trying to "win" against the DM (or player) and not playing "with" the other side, then your going to have alot of problems anyways.

HeinorNY · Feb 14, 2008

DM: You walk through the long corridor and reach 5 x 5 square room with 40 orcs inside.
Player 1: Forty!?!?!?! But that's impossible!!!!
DM: Not in the Dungeon of Chaos, mwahahaha!

Player 2: Ok... I have a spell, Iceball, It's a 2 radius burst, so the area is 5 x 5 square. I cast it and kill them all!
Players: YYaaaaayyyyy!!! Go Icebox!
DM: No you don't....
Player 2: ?!?!

Thyrwyn said:
2) Why would you intentionally represent a space in such a misrepresentational manner?

It's not like I'm trying to be dishonest... the rules allow me to do that. That's why the rules are broken.
I always play and DM fairly. But that's subjective. Saying "Power Attack is not overpowered because I don't allow any player to use it" isn't a valid point to show Power Attack is not overpowered.

"I only use the 1-1-1-1 grid orthogonally so the rules are not broken".
I'm sorry, but they are.

And even if you are not trying to be a "dishonest" DM, you'll have to restrain yourself from building dungeons diagonaly for pure stylish or aesthetic reasons because the game is going to break if you do so.

HeinorNY · Feb 14, 2008

Imban said:
If we assume we can't capriciously redraw buildings (i.e. there's a universal grid) and that, when in doubt, measurements should be conducted by distance, your Figure 2 should look like this, placing your opponents at 14' away (closest 7' increment to 15' away) and 35' away (which is exactly correct).

But now the Blue dot is 4 squares away from X dot, not 6.

By the way, ainatan, what program are you using to draw these diagrams? I've had to settle for manipulating pre-existing ones in Paint.

I use Paint. But the grid and the tiles I printscreened from Fantasy Grounds.

rjdafoe · Feb 14, 2008

ainatan said:
DM: You walk through the long corridor and reach 5 x 5 square room with 40 orcs inside.
Player 1: Forty!?!?!?! But that's impossible!!!!
DM: Not in the Dungeon of Chaos, mwahahaha!

Player 2: Ok... I have a spell, Iceball, It's a 2 radius burst, so the area is 5 x 5 square. I cast it and kill them all!
Players: YYaaaaayyyyy!!! Go Icebox!
DM: No you don't....
Player 2: ?!?!

It's not like I'm trying to be dishonest... the rules allow me to do that. That's why the rules are broken.
I always play and DM fairly. But that's subjective. Saying "Power Attack is not overpowered because I don't allow any player to use it" isn't a valid point to show Power Attack is not overpowered.

"I only use the 1-1-1-1 grid orthogonally so the rules are not broken".
I'm sorry, but they are.

And even if you are not trying to be a "dishonest" DM, you'll have to restrain yourself from building dungeons diagonaly for pure stylish or aesthetic reasons because the game is going to break if you do so.

I really don't remember this so bear with me:

Would that representation have worked differently in 3.5?

Wouldn't that spell have been a 10' burst?

HeinorNY · Feb 14, 2008

rjdafoe said:
Easy enough fix

So you are suggesting a fix to fix a problem that was meant to fix a problem that could or could not really be a problem in the first place?

Imban · Feb 14, 2008

ainatan said:
But now the Blue dot is 4 squares away from X dot, not 6.

It is. My system involves settling for forfeiting squares being consistent between grid rotations for keeping distances consistent. (It further goes on to say that, as there's a universal grid, it's not just in "how you look at it" - the 5x5 40-orc room is 5x5, yeah, but it's a room, so I'd describe it in feet - that's what, 35' x 35' or so? and say it's aligned diagonally. Icebox, on the other hand, is ~~where I keep my drinks~~ always going to be a 25' x 25' cube, since there's no ability for it to be aligned differently.

With that, there's no room for randomly rotating the grid - you'd have to redraw all the buildings if you did and I'd highly not recommend that - and no room in that world for not knowing the grid alignment, since you'd be able to tell easily which directions you moved almost half again as fast in.)

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

Thyrwyn

Explorer

Jeff Wilder

First Post

BryonD

Hero

Imban

First Post

Attachments

rjdafoe

Explorer

HeinorNY

First Post

Attachments

HeinorNY

First Post

rjdafoe

Explorer

HeinorNY

First Post

Imban

First Post

Similar Threads