1.5 instead of 1-2-1?

[mrtomsmith]

It's not even the ability to abuse the rule that bothers me. It's that the consequence of the rule is to imply that the square grid is a real feature of the game universe. It implies that in the real game universe, there is a fixed north-south(?) grid which confines everyone's actions.

So grid diagonals bother you, but the grid squares themselves don't? In this D&D-literal world you imagine, everyone always moves in discrete increments of 5', and always stops perfectly in the center of a universal grid square when they stop. It's impossible to inch forward, as the smallest increment of movement is 5 feet. Dancing must be challenging. If you extend your foot forward and slowly bring it down, are you teleported forward, or just pulled against your will?

And all movement must occur within a universally-constant 'turn', which is always about as long as it takes to swing a sword. There must be no mobile insects or similarly sized animals in this world, since they wouldn't be able to cross five feet within this time span. Snails are completely stationary, and ants cannot gather food effectively and all die. Which also means no anteaters, small birds, or similar creatures, and basically destroys the whole food chain. Thus proving that D&D cannot exist.

 

[Dragonblade]

Although, I was on the fence about 1-1-1 diagonal movement, I have to say that after trying it in my 4e playtest, I won't go back to 1-2-1.

I found that the benefits gained in speed and ease of play, far outweighed the wonkiness in distance. I say this as a DM.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

The arguement against 1-2-1-2 is "I don't want to do math in my head" or it's cousin "my fellow players don't seem to be able to do math in their head", how does your solution fix this problem?

For my brain at least adding 1/2 numbers is easier than switching what number I add everytime.
Of course 1-2-1-2 is easier for some people. Fortunately 1.5 round down works out mathematically the same.
And for those bad at math 1-2-1-2 and 1.5 are proably equally horrible.

 

[maggot]

Although, I was on the fence about 1-1-1 diagonal movement, I have to say that after trying it in my 4e playtest, I won't go back to 1-2-1.

I found that the benefits gained in speed and ease of play, far outweighed the wonkiness in distance. I say this as a DM.

How much time in the average D&D session is spent counting squares of movement? In my experience is it very low compared to the time it takes to decide on an action or resolve it with dice.

 

[pneumatik]

Turn the mat 45 degrees

I've been thinking about turning the battlemat 45 degrees at least when I run outdoor encounters. Depending on how tricky it is to draw a dungeon on a rotated battlemat, I may also do it for indoor encounters.

Like others here, the only thing about 1-1-1 that bugs gets me is that it doesn't cost extra movement to move around something that's between me and where I want to go. If the battlemat is rotated 45 degrees then I'm usually moving along a diagonal when I'm approaching an enemy. Going around something in my on a rotated mat will cost additional movement. Another way of looking at it is defining one square in the diagonal direction to be five feet, making moving in-line with the grid only 3.55 feet. Or, 1.41-1.41-1.41 becomes 1-1-1, and 1-1-1 becomes 0.71-0.71-0.71.

Of course, the problem now isn't that moving around something costs nothing, but rather that is costs too much. Still, I think it'll feel different. Or maybe not.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So grid diagonals bother you, but the grid squares themselves don't? In this D&D-literal world you imagine, everyone always moves in discrete increments of 5', and always stops perfectly in the center of a universal grid square when they stop.

Your assumption is that everyone always occupies the centre of their square.

I can move two inches, or two feet, just fine; it merely results in my not expending an action to do so, and not changing squares. I can be near the edge of my square, or near the corner of my square, or near the centre of my square; it's how it can be possible for an ally to move through your square. If you both occupied the exact centre at all times, that wouldn't work. It's how Evasion and Reflex Saves and Concealment Miss Chances can work; if I always occupied the exact centre of a square, Displacement would be useless, because you wouldn't aim for where I appeared to be, you'd aim for the exact centre of the square I was in. But since I might be anywhere in that square, the spell is effective.

-Hyp.

 

[Ranger REG]

1.5 instead of 1-2-1 or 1-1-1 has the advantage of removing one set of variables, but it adds a further mathematical aspect - rational values. They are simple enough, one might think, we learn this in elemental school (Or is it later? So long ago...)

We also learn science but not many become scientists.

I'm just saying not many enjoy using fractions, even if we have learned it. If we can avoid or minimize the presence fractions we might encounter, the better for our own convenience.

For example, I can tolerate fractional BAB progression because we only calculate that only when we level up, not when we have encounters during gameplay.

 

[Will]

Anyone with actual 4e experience able to judge whether hexes or offset squares would function without the problems 1-2-1-2 apparently will cause the system?

 

[Charwoman Gene]

It's that the consequence of the rule is to imply that the square grid is a real feature of the game universe.

The consequence of the rule is that the rules CAN'T POSSIBLY directly reflect the real features of the universe. The problem is hyper-simulationism.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm not willing to even consider 1-1-1-1 and call it an RPG. It's petty and maybe even immature, but that's how I feel.

Stop behaving in a petty and immature manner, and being controlled by your feels then?