1.5 instead of 1-2-1?

[Ingolf]

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

No, they don't.

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

No, they aren't.

You are thinking about the distance your imaginary Goblin Picador or Kobold Sniper can throw or shoot in concrete terms - in feet - but it's only important in abstract terms - in squares. I say it's only important in terms of squares because that is how everything on the tabletop is measured.

 

[el-remmen]

First of all, the overall level of snark in this thread needs to be turned down three or five notches.


Secondly, my group has always counted out movement as 1.5 for diagonal. I always found that easier to keep track of than every other box on the diagonal counts as 2. So when we count out diagonal movement you'll hear anyone of use saying, "One and a half, three, four and half, six, etc. . ."

Third, yeah, the discrepencies of the 1-1-1-1 rule would drive me nuts. . .

 

[Pbartender]

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.

What? How do you figure that? Rounding DOWN, means going DOWN to the next lowest whole integer. 1.5 becomes 1 not 2, and 3 (1.5 + 1.5 == 1 + 2) stays 3.

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.

I was only pointing out that 1.5-1.5-1.5-1.5 was likely where the designers started out... 1.5, 3, 4.5, 6, 7.5. If you round the fractions down, you end up with 1-2-1-2 diagonal movement... 1, 3, 4, 6, 7. Rounding the fractions up, as the OP suggest, you get 2-1-2-1 diagonal movement... 2, 3, 5, 6, 8.

Which demonstrates, in fact, that he's wrong about getting extra movement out of rounding up. Rounding the fractions up actually causes you to use more movement to move the same distance... 7 squares of movement to move 5 diagonals, as opposed to 8 squares to move 5 diagonals.

 

[Dausuul]

You know, I don't really mind either system, but the constant discussion of it just makes me want to use hexes. (War gamer friends of mine complain enough about rulers that I don't want to use them.)

Rock on, hex brother!

 

[catsclaw]

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.

That's funny, because I can handle just about any arbitrary rule for a game, but what really annoys me is people who get hung up on one particular abstraction, but are perfectly comfortable with the other thousand.

So when someone goes on and on about how unrealistic 1-1-1-1 movement is, but doesn't have a problem with turn-based initiative, or equal weapon speeds, or fighters being equally adept with swords/bows/axes/rapiers, or crossbows getting reloaded in 3 seconds, or characters falling unconscious without lasting brain damage, that's the inconsistency which bothers me.

 

[calvinNhobbes]

The 1.5 diagonal rule already exists in 3.5, see the PHB pg 147, top right corner figure entitled "Diagonal Movement".

"If it helps, you can think of a diagonal as a distance of 1.5 squares or 7.5 feet"

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I think one reason people won't use 1.5 squares is because of the question when you can shift one square. Obviously you can make the rule be to round down, but why bother?

Another issue is the counting. Sorry, I know too many people who would actually have difficulty counting out 1.5, 3, 4.5, 6, 7.5, 9. It is much easier to count 1, 2-3, 4, 5-6, 7, 8-9.

Not that I care all that much. I'll probably just stick with 1-1-1-1 like the rules say and not worry about it being a bit "unrealistic"

 

[Benimoto]

What? How do you figure that? Rounding DOWN, means going DOWN to the next lowest whole integer. 1.5 becomes 1 not 2, and 3 (1.5 + 1.5 == 1 + 2) stays 3.

Oh, I guess I misconstrued what you were rounding then. My mistake, you're right.

But I support the OP's allowance that you get up to 1 extra square moving on a diagonal. Er, that is if you only have .5 squares of movement left, that you can still move 1 square diagonal, despite the fact that it's 1.5 squares of movement. I think he's demonstrated in his post that it leads to better, fairer approximations than strict 1-2-1-2 movement. And it allows for greater freedom of movement over short distances, like 1-3 squares, where otherwise you're stuck with extremely restrictive options.

 

[psionotic]

My thought was, that for people who want to retain a little more versimilitude, while also taking advantage of 4e's faster play mechanic, that they could do something like this:

Diagonal movement: First square as normal, cost after that = diagonal squares moved +1. (In effect, it would go 1-2-1-1-1-1-1 etc...) This way there is a higher initial cost for moving diagonal, which would equal less movement cheese, especially over shorter distances. Its also much easier to count, because the 2 square is used up right away, afterwhich you are only counting 1's which are very easy to keep track of without getting lost.

(I like 1-1-1 myself, this is just something I thought of for those who want more of a balance between the two methods and their advantages.)

 

[davethegame]

I like games to be complicated. It's part of thier attraction. If I wanted simple, I play games even a computer can play like checkers or tic-tac-toe. Prior to this contriversy, little things like the 1-2-1-2 approximation didn't even enter into my head when someone used a word like 'complicated'. Someone that thinks 1-2-1-2 is complicated can't even do a mid-turn speed change in SFB, much less calculate one off of battery power.

Alright, so I know this has been said repeatedly in other threads, but I have to repeat it:
1-2-1-2 isn't a complicated rule. The problem with it is that it's a memory condition. The state of the game does not tell you if you're on a 1 square or a 2 square. You have to remember every step, and when dealing with moving through threatened areas, tumble checks, difficult terrain, etc., it's very easy to lose count. It's an annoying rule, and I would prefer fewer annoying rules.

1-1-1-1, 1.5-1.5-1.5, 2-2-2-2, 1.41-1.41-1.41-1.41 all fix this problem. I prefer 1-1-1-1 myself for simplicity's sake (and yes, there are those of us who are gamers who prefer simple), but I can understand the other options for those who prefer less abstract movement. But getting rid of memory conditions is a desirable goal in a ruleset.

(There are certainly examples of good games with memory conditions. Chess is the big one, with Castling. But they tend to be more rare and thus easier to handle, unlike something that's in the core move rules so that it happens on almost every turn.)