1 square Diagonal Movement: Reaction from Players

[TwinBahamut]

Simple solution. The whole area used to be controlled by a lost empire of bee people.

Alternatively, everyone just builds circular buildings in your campaign world (which can be reasonably approximated by hexagons), and most corridors go radially outward in six directions, or maybe just three. Easy.

Or maybe you can just use amorphous caves with irregular natural walls instead of rectangular ancient ruins?

Certainly, using something other than rectangular architecture on occasion is good for any campaign, especially if you want a particular place to seem different and out-of-the-ordinary.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

My thoughts exactly. Players immediately see the simplification. The dramatic changes that it makes in tactics will wait until demonstrated.

For my part, I didn't notice the tactical possibilities when I read the DDM 2.0 rules. I realized them in my first DDM 2.0 game. I'm counting out movment, thinking, based on common sense and prior DDM experience that having been forced to set my pieces up behind four squares of staggered difficult terrain, they will arrive at the battlefield slowly. I start counting out the movement and suddenly realize that none of it slows my pieces down at all. They dodge the terrain on the Y axis and get the exact same movement on the X axis that they would have gotten anyway. Then the next round, when I'm looking for charges, I realize first that, I can charge to pretty much any square I feel like (move first to make the square I want one of the three nearest squares then charge in a zig-zag line to avoid AoOs). Play a few games and in which you take advantage of the tactical possibilities and see how the players realize it when you show them that it is next to impossible not just to protect an ally from attack but even to prevent multiple enemies from charging into flanks on that ally.

The simplification is obvious and will generate immediate response. The dramatic tactical changes will have to be demonstrated in play before most players notice them.

Players will like it until they are hosed by a monster than runs around the fighter straight toward the mage without losing any movement.

 

[FadedC]

Yeah it's one of those things you will have to just play and experience to see if you like it. There may be people who say they will hate it who actually like it when they play with it and there may be people the other way around.

For me I didn't mind 1-2-1 for movement, but I hated it when drawing out AoE's (not all of which perfectly follow a fireball template). It also creates some wierd situations, such as how 10' reach had to be specifically ruled to go out 15' on diagnals to keep people form avoiding it simply by moving diagnally. Or how under current rules if your stuck in the center of a solid fog and moving 5' a turn, you can get out of it more quickly going diagnally then straight.

 

[Grog]

It can be explained in one sentence, and most people with an IQ above 70 can follow it. Count an extra square for every 2 diagonal spaces you move. How hard is that?

Harder than you'd think when you have a move of 70 feet and have to plot out multiple paths to find the best one to the destination you're trying to reach, and doing it while other people are moving minis around on the board so you'll be ready to go on your turn.

And my IQ is well above 70, thanks for the insulting implication.

 

[Generico]

It's not hard, it's annoying.

Just like your implication that anyone who doesn't like the rule is an idiot.

Actually the implication was that anyone who can't use the rule is an idiot. If you want to argue that, be my guest.

The rule is not complicated, it better simulates a believable grid-based movement system, and the change does not significantly speed up combat. I think those are justifiable reasons to leave it alone. "It annoys me" is a pretty lame reason to change it, because that's purely the opinion of a few people. I'm annoyed by the fact that my monsters run out of hit points. Maybe that should be changed too. Sure would speed things up if I didn't have to track HP.

I find it annoying that Wizards wants to abstract movement to such an extent that it's controlled entirely by the grid, and not actual 2d space. Second base and first base are not the same distance from home plate, and I see no reason to make it so they are just because a few people are annoyed by it.

 

[Voss]

As far as firecubes go, well, the current templates look really bizarre to my eyes now. And the 3e cones are freakishly wide.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I look forward to the 40' x 40' x 40' cube "Fireballs".

 

[Generico]

Harder than you'd think when you have a move of 70 feet and have to plot out multiple paths to find the best one to the destination you're trying to reach, and doing it while other people are moving minis around on the board so you'll be ready to go on your turn.

And my IQ is well above 70, thanks for the insulting implication.

You can follow the rule correctly, so I wasn't actually insulting you. I'll insult you for your poor reading comprehension to make up for it. You're welcome.

You have a speed of 14 squares. Subtract an extra square from your used movement every time you move 2 diagonals and stop when you get to 0. Or add an extra square for every 2 diagonals and stop when you get to 14. Sorry I don't think that's hard.

Lots of folks are reporting this post as a problem - and rightfully so! We've handled it down-thread. Many thanks to folks who flagged it for us. ~ PCat

 

[hong]

You have a speed of 14 squares. Subtract an extra square from your used movement every time you move 2 diagonals and stop when you get to 14. Sorry I don't think that's hard.

But boring.

 

[Generico]

For a spicier movement experience, add a dash of Tumble!