D&D 4E Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?

I'd like to reiterate a point I saw made much earlier in the thread that was never really addressed.

1/1/1 is bad for Gamists, because fun for them is playing the tactical game and getting every benefit possible out of things, and this rule is BROKEN for them, due to the "going around the defender" thing.

1/1/1 is horrible for simulationists. 1/2/1 isn't perfect either, but it's a huge improvement at least.

1/1/1 makes no difference to narrativists, although they'll be annoyed if there's a gamist in the group who disrupts the story by going around the defender.

1/2/1 takes a moment to learn, and there's some small delay in how long it takes to play a turn-- the time saved depending on the group, of course. The cost here is variable, but the other price... of fun in tactics, in simulation, and in abusability... that's pretty fixed. How can this be a gain?


So far, this is the 2nd thing I've disliked about 4e. The first being the old "Dragon Tail Cut" thing. I'm gung-ho for everything else. Yeah, sure, I could house rule it, and I will if I have to, but the fact is... I -have- to house rule it. I honestly can't imagine the small amount of time it takes to 1/2/1 outweighing the HUGE decrease in fun for everyone at the table for a broken rule.

I would also prefer 2/2/2 to 1/1/1 ANY day. It may not be as good for simulationists, but it works fine for gamists, and still won't effect a narrativist at all, except that the broken rule won't potentially get in the way of the story in case a gamist slips into the group.

AllisterH said:

Here's the thing though, neither does 1-2-1 prevent those scenarios. For example, in the first scenario, even with a 1-2-1 rule, a monster with a move of 8 can simply walk around the fighter and tag the ranger/wizard. In the second example, the only mechanical difference is that monsters with moves of 9+ can attack the blue dot whereas in the 1-2-1 system, monsters with moves of 11+

Click to expand...

Simply changing the monster's speed proves nothing. In the presented cases the monster's speed IS 6 squares.

How can you explain the discrepancy? In both diagrams the Blue dot (ranger) can PBS the X monster, but in the first diagram, the X monster can completly bypass the defender and in the second diagram the same monster with the same speed just can't?

He can't because the characters used the 1-1-1-1 grid-trick™.

Yeah the monster speed could be 8 squares, or the Ranger could stay 10 squares behind, or he instead could be at the tavern, but the inconsistence remains.

So what advantage does 1-2-1 actually give if it can't even prevent the same problems as 1-1-1?

Click to expand...

Can't it?

In 3.5 that would not happen as you keep saying:

Below the Blue dot(ranger) is 6 squares away from X monster. He CAN Point Blank Shot the monster and the monster needs 8 squares of movement to reach him.


If the character tried the grid-trick, the 1-2-1-2 rules would work just fine because the Blue dot(ranger) would not be 6 squares appart from the X monster anymore. Of course the X monster would need to move more squares to reach the Ranger because in 1-2-1-2 the ranger now is 9 squares away, not 6, thus he also can't Point Blank Shot the X monster anymore!



If the Blue dot(ranger) tried to stay 6 squares away from the X monster, but diagonally, he would gain no advantage in 1-2-1-2.
Below the Blue dot IS 6 quares from X monster and he can still PBS the X monster, and the X monster also needs 8 squares of movement to reach the blue dot as when they were othogonally opposed.



The 1-2-1-2 rule works just fine. All those discrepancies are 1-1-1-1 only.

AllisterH said:

So what advantage does 1-2-1 actually give if it can't even prevent the same problems as 1-1-1?

Click to expand...

What...you mean apart from being a lot less wrong than the proposed new system while not being that much harder to remember? I'll leave pointing out the fine details of difference to aintan, since he's a lot better playing around with grid-graphics than I am.

Fieari said:

1/1/1 is bad for Gamists, because fun for them is playing the tactical game and getting every benefit possible out of things, and this rule is BROKEN for them, due to the "going around the defender" thing.

Click to expand...

No, 1-1-1 is irrelevant for gamists. Reality for the gamist is defined by the game mechanics. Thus it doesn't really matter to the pure gamist whether diagonals are always 1 or sometimes 1 and sometimes 2 or hexes or whatever, except as these affect the playability of the game. That some border cases will differ to the previous ruleset is neither here nor there.

Simulationists might care, if they care about simulating the physical environment. Though they may be better served by going gridless. Especially since the issue is one of magnitude of oddball measuring effects, not presence. Plus, "going around" is far more of an issue from turn-based play rather than euclidean distance. Yes, there are certain situations where someone could not "go around" in 3E but can in 4. But it's also quite possible to create situations where "going around" in 3E wouldn't match the same issue if playing without a grid (both where 3E is more generous and where it is less). The rule doesn't exactly model reality. But it's only internally broken if you mix 3E and 4E movement mechanics.

Fieari said:

1/1/1 makes no difference to narrativists, although they'll be annoyed if there's a gamist in the group who disrupts the story by going around the defender.

Click to expand...

Huh? Narrativists are about exploring the idea in narrative. D&D is a gamist system that can sorta be used simulationist. Thus, I doubt any narrativists care about "the different effect of turn-based vs euclidean approximations". Narrativists might appreciate the 1-1 metric for being simpler (and thus reducing the mechanics in the way of their story) or just ditch the grid altogether and wing it.

Heck, I'm a gamist, and I've still considered just ditching the grid and winging it, because I find that pickyness over movement distances isn't a game mechanic aspect that is particularly interesting - I'd rather break out cool combos of abilities than quibble over counting.

Basically, 1-1-1 is only uniquely broken if
(1) you take a simulationist perspective and
(2) you are using a subjective measure for how much euclidean inaccuracy counts as "broken".

Ainatan -

Wouldn't the fighter actually need to be one diagonal step closer to the monster to keep the scale consistent? In both cases it's then possible for him to reach the mage in just 7 steps if you aim for the nearest point.

I think you're absolutely correct otherwise.


[TANGENT]

delericho said:

(a whole bunch of stuff)

Click to expand...

Getting rid of square block does pretty much require using facing rules, I admit, but it still isn't that tricky.

Can a horse turn around/stand sideways in 5' corridors? Sure, if it squeezes.
Can it go backwards? I don't see why not.

Can the snake go backwards? They can't do that too well due to their physical construction, which would probably call for a special movement restriction in the stat block.
what are the allowable configurations? Anything with three adjacent squares (or maybe just two when stretched out on a diagonal, depending on which rule set is in place). Rotate any of these in 45 degree increments to your heart's content:
[][][]

[][]
[]

[][]
....[] (periods for spacing)

how quickly can it change shape? That would be a move action.
how do you rule flanking? Well, if we're using facing rules anyway I would generally argue that flanking would be better replaced by a back-attack bonus or some such. If flanking were still the rule, however, I'd say that if two (or more) people can get across from any part of the snake they can flank it; head to tail, side to side, you name it. Tough luck for the snake, but I guess that's why the rest of us stuck with the concept of legs, eh?

[/TANGENT]

dang 18 pages.

I'm gonna laugh if the new 1-1-1 diag movement change only applies to DDM (which after all has a lower min age on the box).

Benimoto said:

But seriously, all of you who are bothered by the artificial 5-square by 5-square room orthogonal and diagonal, were never bothered by the number of squares that a 3.5-style cone, aimed diagonally and orthogonally took up? (Okay, rhetorical question, as I understand it's a matter of degree, but still.)

Click to expand...

You made an error on your 15 foot cone. It has 7 squares, not 8 (DMG pg. 307).

Also, it is unfortunate that like the 1 1 1 1 rule, WotC screwed up the 30 foot cone. It should be:

OOOOOOOOO
OOOXXXOOO
OXXXXXXXO
OXXXXXXXO
OOXXXXXOO
OOOXXXOOO
OOOOXOOOO
OOOOCOOOO

where C is the caster. This would result in 28 squares compared to the 30 squares of the diagonal cone.

The problem with WotC's cones is that they do not follow the same rules. For example, the 15 foot orthogonal cone starts in the center of the square whereas the 30 foot orthogonal cone starts at the vertex of the square.

That makes the 30 and 60 foot cones too wide. And yes, it is annoying that WotC did not come up with better cones.

But, the reason they did it that way is that they wanted 4 90 degree diagonal cones or 4 90 degree orthogonal cones to make up the equivalent of a spread (course, this failed for their 15 foot cone).

This would allow someone to use 4 cone templates to make up a single spread of the same size. Course, this is silly. But, that did not stop WotC from doing it that way.

It's much easier for the 30 foot orthogonal cone to remember 1 3 5 7 5 3 (which does not have a break in the pattern) than it is 2 6 8 6 4 2.

More acceptance of the 1:1 diagonal...

With all the movement effects (push, slide,etc) that have been alluded to for 4E, they kind of have to use 1:1. That way a model can be pushed/pulled in a diagonal.

No, that's not the most convincing argument, and yes, there are ways to do it with more realism. But my point is, with so much movement and movement effects, having anything but 1:1 would invite more trouble than its worth.

So, in theory, I see the 'necessity' and think I can handle it. But something also tells me that I will freak when I see diagonal abuse.

18 pages discussing ballpark distance in an abstract game, wow. That is just amazing, even for ENworld. It may be the longest thread I have ever seen that has stayed on topic, or I assume it has, who the hell would read 18 pages on 1-1-1 or 1-2-1 movement.

smetzger said:

dang 18 pages.

I'm gonna laugh if the new 1-1-1 diag movement change only applies to DDM (which after all has a lower min age on the box).

Click to expand...

If that indeed happens, please, find this thread and bump it so we can all laugh together. Although I find it improbable, it would be a nice surprise...