Search results

And that's what I mean...most of the values are given in feet first, and are then "translated" into a 5'-square grid as good as possible. Which, to me, means there is a real world underlying the grid that follows the same sort of spatial laws ours does. A creature occupying a space 10 feet wide...

And I have to disagree again. 3.X doesn't rotate the grid at all, there's no need to rotate the grid in the first place. With its rule for diagonal measurement, 15 feet are 3 squares orthogonal or 2 squares diagonal. The error margin of that procedure has been posted upon more than once in this...

And just as an aside, if there's really no other rules about "turning monsters" in combat, I'd simply adapt the maneuverability rules. They are meant to faciliate movement in all 3 dimensions after all, so I can easily use them to judge turning around a corner. And from them, every creature that...

And here's where I simply have to ask for some sort of quote. See, when I look into my DMG, a Huge creature has a width of 15 feet...not 3 squares. 15 feet are either 3 squares when aligned orthogonally to the grid, or 2 squares when aligned diagonally. And I can't find anything that tells me...

Erm...no? A base that is (if you want to argue in squares) 3 squares wide across the orthogonal is 2 squares wide across the diagonal. You did describe this quite nicely in your first sentence (15 feet being the diagonal distance across two squares). Why you go and try to contradict that in your...

That's even more of a puzzle to me now. If the base of the creature fits between the lines of the straight part of the corridor, it will equally fit between the lines of the angled part of the corridor, since the width between the lines is the same in both parts, and I'm talking cm (or inches...

How do you figure that? :confused: The corridor remains at 15' width all the way through (general inaccuracies are due to my drawing skills rather than geometric differences), and at least in the DMG, a Huge creature uses a space of 15'x15'. So why should it have to squeeze through the corridor...

Hey, glad I could be of assistance. :) And by the way, welcome to ENWorld.

Hey, nice for you...looks like you overlooked this thread here, though. Might be your post is a bit more fitting there. Why WILL you switch. :)

*removed by myself*

I guess we're following Morris' request to fork those threads that grow too large in order to take some strain from the board. :lol:

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. :lol:

This is just my personal experience, but I never saw peer pressure or DM pressure keep powergamers (new or old hands) from abusing some "loophole" in the game that the rest of the group, DM included, hasn't spotted yet or hasn't ascribed too much importance too. :lol:

What do you mean with "faked"?

Yeah, uhm...I guess that's why you should draw it more like this if you want to keep the corridor at same width? :confused: I thought that was basic stuff that you learn when you start drawing dungeons on graph paper. ;) And I apologize for the small size..just click on it for a bigger version.

Chess? What's chess got to do with D&D? Chess doesn't assume a square is 5'x5', for one, or any size, actually. Chess has taken abstraction to extreme levels in order to faciliate a game that is only bothered about long-term strategic thinking on a simplified battlefield. Chess is not trying to...

This kinda sounds like "It's magic! You should stop looking so closely at it, and it will make sense. It's not so important anyway, it's just an RPG." :confused:

Well, at least we can agree to disagree (I know that works because we did it in the past already. ;) ), because that's basically the only thing we'll agree on with this topic, then. :)

Sure, D&D is abstract in a lot of places...and there's enough people that already have a problem with hit points as an abstract concept of character combat durability, or with cyclical initiative as a core concept, or the weird way some creatures fill a square area while in combat. (By the way...

And I'm kinda sure that, if you search back to the introduction of the 3.5 changes to the online gaming public, you'll see plenty of similar threads where the sense/nonsense of cubic creatures is discussed. ;) We're not talking about what we individually will do with this "new" official core...