1.5 instead of 1-2-1?

[Ten]

Actually, I prefer to use a special model I devised that keeps things flowing smoothly in my group. It is simply α-sqrt(e)-φ-λ-1-γ. As you can see, it models movement fine, but makes it so it is difficult to move diagonally at first while gradually giving them easier movement diagonally, averaging out to the proper amount!

I have no interest in gaming with someone who can't figure out why alpha square root of e phi lambda 1 gamma is in effect. This will be house-ruled back into *my* 4e. Oversimplification for the masses impresses me not.

 

[jtrowell]

My solution

I have been thinking myself of using 1-1-1-2-2-2 , where the diagonals cost only 1, expect if you change direction then it's 2.

I have no problem with firecubes, but I still have some fear about players using the 1-1-1 rule to move around obstacles without losing any movement :

W : wizard
F : fighter
M : monster
X : path used by the monster to move around the fighter with no loss of movement and no OA

[ ] [ ]  W  [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[X] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[X] [ ]  F  [ ] [ ]
[X] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ]  M  [ ] [ ]

By increasing the cost only if they change direction (should only happen when moving around something), the monster would need a speed of 6 square in my exemple, to move the last diagonal toward the wizard (the movement cost would be 1-1-1-1-2), while the 1-1-1-1 rule would only need a speed of 5 (1-1-1-1-1)

This way, I can preserve the 1-1-1 paradigm for almost all uses (even firecubes and blast as cubic cones), while still having small obstacle needing more speed to move around without having the problems of 1-2-1 solution (note that in my current 3.5 campaigns I have no problem with the 1-2-1 rule, but I can see were 4th edition can be an improvement for some players)

 

[Evanta]

Although I'm somewhat on the anti-1-1-1 camp, just to let ya guys know, well ya I accept 1-1-1 is in 4th Ed, and if the DM dictates that we follow the rule to the letter, I won't fuss. I'm a respector of rule zero. Just watch me grossly abuse the ability to zigzag though. I've been playing Descent (a dungeon crawl boardgame) with the 1-1-1 rules, and there's some tricks that can be done simply due to the ability to go further with diagonals.

The other concern is that bows and wat-not shoot 41% further diagonally as a consequence of this rule.

I'm just trying to see if there's a better compromise between playability and simulation. I just feel that well... 1-1-1 seems too big of a compromise to me, and it does open up some tactical abuses. IMO 1.5-1.5-1.5-round up seems to be easy to me and not difficult to forget, I'll prob. take max 1 more sec to resolve my movment than 1-1-1.

I have been thinking myself of using 1-1-1-2-2-2 , where the diagonals cost only 1, expect if you change direction then it's 2.

...

This way, I can preserve the 1-1-1 paradigm for almost all uses (even firecubes and blast as cubic cones), while still having small obstacle needing more speed to move around without having the problems of 1-2-1 solution

@jtrowell: That does sound like a interesting compromise. I was thinking of being more specific and charging 2 only if you change ur direction diagonally (to differentiate it from changing direction in straights which is perfectly fine.

Another proposal: 1-1-1, but if you take 3 diagonals or more in your movement, your max move this turn is reduced by 1. That should work to deter people from excessive zig-zag movement.

 

[1of3]

I have no interest in gaming with someone who can't figure out why 1, 1, 1 is in effect. High school geometry impresses me not.

Indeed. 4E is more like second year at university.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_norm

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The other concern is that bows and wat-not shoot 41% further diagonally as a consequence of this rule.

Barbed ropes shot by Goblin Picadors are also longer if shot diagonally!

 

[Pbartender]

Be aware that 1.5-1.5-1.5-1.5 is exactly the same as 1-2-1-2, since in both 3E and 4E fractions always get rounded down.

Fractions getting rounded down was one of the base design rules for both editions. The designers probably originally envisioned 1.5-1.5-1.5-1.5 for diagonal movement, and switched it to 1-2-1-2, because with rounding down, you get the same results and when tapping off squares it's easier to count one's and two's, than one-and-a-halfs and rounding down at the end.

Especially with 4E's shift to squares for combat distance, saying, "I can move 6 squares... 1, 2-3, 4, 5-6," is a lot easier for most people than, "1.5, 3, 4.5, 6."

 

[Benimoto]

I think the OP's proposed system is a good one, and that it avoids many of the pitfalls of the old 1-2-1-2 system. I don't really mind it so much, but it doesn't avoid the weird doublespeak that even though a distance says "6 squares" you can only move 4 actual squares diagonally.

The only other thing I would caution about is that 4e seems to increase the number of places where you can increase the rounding error introduced by allowing a diagonal move with only 0.5 movement left. For example, using this system it looks like a character in heavy armor with a speed of 5 squares can move the same distance diagonally (4 squares) as an unencumbered creature with a speed of 6. Since 4e does away with the double move, and instead just makes it two discrete move actions, you could get this error twice in a turn even. The same with a creature with the ability to shift 2 squares instead of 1 as a move action, or any other power that allows a character to shift 2 squares.

In fact using only discrete movements of 1 or 2 squares, there's no difference between this system or the 1-1-1-1. Still, it's more accurate over long distances, while allowing good mobility over short ones, which I appreciate. The 6 squares is actually 4 squares thing still bugs me on a level probably equivalent to the way that diagonal distances using 1-1-1-1 bugs you though.

 

[Celebrim]

Barbed ropes shot by Goblin Picadors are also longer if shot diagonally!

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. The grid ceases to be merely an approximation, a convienent set of rules with which to simulate the complexity of the universe, and becomes the universe itself. It's why they've had to drop designations like move 30' in favor of move 6. Measurements like feet have no meaing in that universe. You can't figure out how far 30' is in that universe, because it all depends on how the grid happens to be laid out. Distance is relative to the grid.

How long is the Goblin Picadors rope? It can't be measured in feet, only in squares. In squares it is not actually longer on the diagonal! It's apparant elacticity doesn't exist in that universe, and Pythagorus's rule doesn't exist in that universe because all three sides of a right triangle are equal in the game universe.

Taking the rule seriously makes my head hurt. I leave it to mathematical wizards to contemplate how such a non-euclidian universe works, and stick with my simple old rulers and 1-2-1-2.

 

[Benimoto]

Be aware that 1.5-1.5-1.5-1.5 is exactly the same as 1-2-1-2, since in both 3E and 4E fractions always get rounded down.

First, if you round fractions down, 1.5-1.5-1.5-1.5 is actually the same as 2-1-2-1, not 1-2-1-2. But, if you read the OP carefully, he's proposing not only that fractions get rounded up, but that in a few cases you get a whole extra point of movement out of it.

2. PCs with 0.5 or 1 move left can take the last step as a diagonal.

So this avoids the issue with the fact that you can't move 2 squares diagonally if your whole movement is only 2 squares. In 3.5, this issue led to the 10-foot reach hack, and other problems.

 

[hong]

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. The grid ceases to be merely an approximation, a convienent set of rules with which to simulate the complexity of the universe, and becomes the universe itself. It's why they've had to drop designations like move 30' in favor of move 6. Measurements like feet have no meaing in that universe. You can't figure out how far 30' is in that universe, because it all depends on how the grid happens to be laid out. Distance is relative to the grid.

Let the aether go, d00d. Let it go.