1 square Diagonal Movement: Reaction from Players

[Fieari]

I'm not entirely sure why that works with 1-2-1 but doesn't work with 1-1-1. I mean I could probably come up with an exact battle field circumstance that was perfectly tailored so the monster was just far enough away and had just enough movement that he could move around the fighter line with 1-1-1 but not with 1-2-1, but it's not something I see happening much (and would only throw off an advanced player who knows the exact speed of his enemy). Plus I can just as easily create equally bizarre and illogical situations using AoEs with the 1-2-1 system that work more logically with 1-1-1.

These are illogical or bizarre situations?

 

[FadedC]

These are illogical or bizarre situations?

The first situation is one where it requires exactly 30 movement to reach the target in a 1-2-1 scenario and exactly 35 to reach the enemy without it. The result is a it's 5' cheaper to get around the fighter under the new system, which isn't relevent in the vast majority of cases. Of course you made sure to setup one of the rare cases where it might matter....where the distance is EXACTLY 30 and there are multiple spaces between the enemy and the blocker. Move the blocker up 1 space and he blocks just fine. Move either the attacker or the defender 1 space forward or back and the change the distance in any way and the rule no longer matters. So yes this is a situation that will almost never come up.

The second situation it takes 45 instead of 55. The change makes no difference at all unless your fighting an enemy with a movement of exactly 50.

 

[Lackhand]

The first situation is one where it requires exactly 30 movement to reach the target in a 1-2-1 scenario and exactly 35 to reach the enemy without it. The result is a it's 5' cheaper to get around the fighter under the new system, which isn't relevent in the vast majority of cases. Of course you made sure to setup one of the rare cases where it might matter....where the distance is EXACTLY 30 and there are multiple spaces between the enemy and the blocker. Move the blocker up 1 space and he blocks just fine. Move either the attacker or the defender 1 space forward or back and the change the distance in any way and the rule no longer matters. So yes this is a situation that will almost never come up.

The second situation it takes 45 instead of 55. The change makes no difference at all unless your fighting an enemy with a movement of exactly 50.

And this, ladies and germs, is why the 1-2-1 counting is a complex rule:

Square/Total in 1-1-1    Total in 1-2-1
1 (5)                            1 (5)
2 (10)                           3 (15)
3 (15)                           4 (20)
4 (20)                           5 (25)
5 (25)                           7 (35)
6 (30)                           8 (40)

See? There were 5 diagonal moves, 1 orthogonal move -- 5 * 3/2 = 15/2 = 7.5, +1 orthogonal = 8.5, round down, 8 squares.

It's definitely more realistic. It's also easy to get wrong

 

[FadedC]

And this, ladies and germs, is why the 1-2-1 counting is a complex rule:

Square/Total in 1-1-1    Total in 1-2-1
1 (5)                            1 (5)
2 (10)                           3 (15)
3 (15)                           4 (20)
4 (20)                           5 (25)
5 (25)                           7 (35)
6 (30)                           8 (40)

See? There were 5 diagonal moves, 1 orthogonal move -- 5 * 3/2 = 15/2 = 7.5, +1 orthogonal = 8.5, round down, 8 squares.

It's definitely more realistic. It's also easy to get wrong

Well that is true, but in the example he only NEEDED to make 3 diagnal moves to get around his enemy. The other few were completely unnecesary. So while I do agree that it's easier to get wrong, there's still only a 5' difference in the movement required to get to that space.

And I actully don't think it's more realistic. What you gain in realism of movement, you lose in incosistency of AoE and reach type mechanics.

 

[Lackhand]

And I actully don't think it's more realistic. What you gain in realism of movement, you lose in incosistency of AoE and reach type mechanics.

Argument for another day. "Truer to a euclidean metric of threespace", perhaps, is a better phrasing of what I'm trying to say

 

[AllisterH]

And this, ladies and germs, is why the 1-2-1 counting is a complex rule:

Square/Total in 1-1-1    Total in 1-2-1
1 (5)                            1 (5)
2 (10)                           3 (15)
3 (15)                           4 (20)
4 (20)                           5 (25)
5 (25)                           7 (35)
6 (30)                           8 (40)

See? There were 5 diagonal moves, 1 orthogonal move -- 5 * 3/2 = 15/2 = 7.5, +1 orthogonal = 8.5, round down, 8 squares.

It's definitely more realistic. It's also easy to get wrong

Which is probably one of the reasons WHY WOTC changed. If a simple example can lead to confusion, and the gain in realism isn't that important, why stick with realism?

That said, I'm not sure why in the first example the monster didn't stick one square closer, are we assuming that the fighter (defender) has a reach weapon? Since a different route with one less diagonal means a movement of only 7 squares.

 

[hong]

I count diagonals as 1.5 (and round fractions down, as with everything else in 3.5e). I only have to count squares moved and movement points. I don't see how that is any different from the new rules.

Please, no fractions. Trust me, I'm a statistician.

If we actually applied a 1-2-1-2 rule, then moving on a diagonal across difficult terrain would have a 2-4-2-4 movement cost, which is clearly ridiculous.

Exactly.

 

[HeinorNY]

These are illogical or bizarre situations?

In both diagrams the Blue dot(ranger) can Point Blank Shot the X monster, but in the second diagram the X monster needs to move 30% more squares because the Blue dot took advantage of 1-1-1-1 rule. If that's not broke...

I didn't draw those diagrams as a guide for 1-1-1-1 minmaxing, I was trying to show how 1-1-1-1 is inconsistent and broken in just a simple situation.

Are those corner cases? Is the rule going to harm the game? Is it going to make your game less fun? Is it better than 1-2-1-2 regarding your group? That's all subjective. I was not trying to answer any of these questions, i was just showing how easily the 1-1-1-1 breaks, regarding believability and functionability.

Trying to show that 1-1-1-1 is better than 1-2-1-2 for any other reason than "added simplicity" is like trying to explain the unexplainable. 1-1-1-1 may be a faster rule depending on the group. Period.

I just don't understand why do we have two threads discussing the same thing BTW.

 

[hong]

In both diagrams the Blue dot(ranger) can Point Blank Shot the X monster, but in the second diagram the X monster needs to move 30% more squares because the Blue dot took advantage of 1-1-1-1 rule. If that's not broke...

Why is it broken? So the ranger is smart enough to move so as to take advantage of obstacles on the battlefield. What, exactly, is the problem here?

Not to mention, wasn't someone else saying the exact OPPOSITE, namely that 1-1-1-1 makes it easy for people to ignore obstacles?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I just don't understand why do we have two threads discussing the same thing BTW.

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