1 square Diagonal Movement: Reaction from Players

[AllisterH]

I draw it for you
On a gridless game, the red monster can attack characters 30 ft away from him. So he can attack the blue guy but not the green guy.
If you put a square grid below the minis, now the red monster can also reach the green guy.

Actually, I think this is the reason WHY WOTC might have changed. Look at the grid and using the 1-2-1 method, the red monster would have to be 2 spaces closer on the diagonal. However, if the red monster moved 1 diagonally back, even with his 30 move, he wouldn't be able to hit the green.

So the monster gained 2 spaces and it looks "weird" but I suspect in a game with not just diagonal movement but terrain costs and elevation, it would start to get much more hairier to keep track of not just how many diagonals you moved but also where you actually did the diagonal.

As for two fighters protecting the mage, diagonal costs have NOTHING to do with the 1-2-1 or the 1-1-1 movement. This is an aspect of the turned base system and NOT the movement cost. In a RTS, even with 1-1-1 the fighters are able to stop any run around.

For example, if you wish, construct a scenario where the monster diagonally moves past the fighters without suffering AoO using the 1-1-1 method and I will show it ALSO occur in the 1-2-1 system by simply bumping up the monster's movement rate.

 

[delericho]

So the monster gained 2 spaces and it looks "weird" but I suspect in a game with not just diagonal movement but terrain costs and elevation, it would start to get much more hairier to keep track of not just how many diagonals you moved but also where you actually did the diagonal.

That's why you must count the squares as you go, not try to move and then retroactively work out the costs. It's also why switching to a 1-1-1-1 scheme doesn't help much - as soon as you add variable costs for moving through different terrains (something that is apparently to become much more common in 4e) you have to deal with varying costs anyway.

 

[hong]

That's why you must count the squares as you go, not try to move and then retroactively work out the costs. It's also why switching to a 1-1-1-1 scheme doesn't help much - as soon as you add variable costs for moving through different terrains (something that is apparently to become much more common in 4e) you have to deal with varying costs anyway.

... Except now you don't have to count the squares as you go.

 

[delericho]

... Except now you don't have to count the squares as you go.

No, you still do, unless you're dealing with a flat and featureless terrain. Otherwise, it matters if your route took you through a 2-cost square, or a 3-cost square, or whatever. It's fine as long as you have plenty of movement available, but if you are close to your limits, and especially if you're also trying to avoid AoOs as you go, it will just get insanely complex very quickly.

I should note that none of that is any different from 3.5e, of course.

 

[hong]

No, you still do, unless you're dealing with a flat and featureless terrain. Otherwise, it matters if your route took you through a 2-cost square, or a 3-cost square, or whatever.

No, this means you have to _choose your route_.

It's fine as long as you have plenty of movement available, but if you are close to your limits, and especially if you're also trying to avoid AoOs as you go, it will just get insanely complex very quickly.

No. Now you keep track of squares moved and movement points. You do not have to keep track of squares moved, movement points, _and_ whether the next diagonal is a 1 or a 2.

The insanity comes from that last bit.

 

[delericho]

No. Now you keep track of squares moved and movement points. You do not have to keep track of squares moved, movement points, _and_ whether the next diagonal is a 1 or a 2.

The insanity comes from that last bit.

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.

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.

 

[kennew142]

I've been lurking for a while on the threads dealing with this subject because I'm not sure how I feel about the new rule. We're going to give it a try this weekend in our two games, to see how it works out. But I do have a few thoughts:

Fire Squares vs. Pixilated Circles

I don't particularly care for either one. The firesquare is less realistic (if that term has any meaning in an FRPG), but it may stop some players (one in our group) from playing around with the template to get it to fit snugly around his fellow adventurers and to cover the maximum number of enemies. My wife has suggested buying some circular macrame hoops and using them for AoE spells. We can just have the GM make a ruling on corner cases. I was already on the verge of taking a move action from players who fiddle with the templates on their turn, or a standard action from any character whose player starts fiddling with it when someone else casts a spell (and probably a standard action from anyone who lets them help out in such a way). If firecubes make this problem go away, I will probably be happy.

Squares vs. Hexes

I hate hexes. I hate the way they look.

That said, I like to use preprinted maps and tiles. If DDM (and associated products) started using hexes, I would go with it. I ran GURPS and Champions for years. I can deal with my almost visceral aversion to hex maps.

Relevance of the Grids to the Reality of the Campaign World

I have always used the grid squares (or hexes) as a tactical tool to help out in the game. I never allow them to represent the physical reality of the scene. I don't even guarantee that they are 5 feet in my game. They are just a tool for moving around in a tactical situation. I always tell my players that a square is about 3-5 feet. The squares are there only for making it easier to determine who's in the AoE of a spell, or whom a character can reach and attack in the same round. If that means that a character's move isn't always a full 30 feet, or that spells do not always produce an exact 20 foot radius sphere, We're okay with that.

We've been using miniatures from the earliest days of D&D, but we don't treat it as a tactical exercise - not even combat. There are entirely too many ways in which the battlemap can distort the action or impede the story, whether it is a square grid or a hex grid. IMO, the important thing is not to allow it to do so.

 

[Steely Dan]

I
I have always used the grid squares (or hexes) as a tactical tool to help out in the game.

We've been using miniatures from the earliest days of D&D

I/we only started using miniatures/markers and a grid/battle-map with 3rd Ed.

 

[howandwhy99]

This is not an issue in my mind. It's dead simple to house rule back in the 1-2-1 diagonal, it's not even funny. I hope they put it in as a suggestion even.

We actually use the 4e system in our OD&D game and it is easier. I think it makes non-miniatures combat easier too.

 

[Delta]

You know, with regard to finding circular spell areas, I do something spectacularly easy that I don't see anyone else doing. I went to Staples and got a drawing compass, something like this:
http://www.staples.com/webapp/wcs/s...catalogId=10051&productId=85569&cmArea=SEARCH

So when a spell goes off I just use an erasable ink pen in the holder of the compass and draw the area. Advantages:
(1) One tool expands to any size area on the fly.
(2) No need to cover or move miniatures as with templates (compass just draws over the figures' heads)
(3) Drawn circle stays on the battlemap while spell is in effect, erase when gone.
(4) Can use different color pens for different effects (red = fire, green = entangle, black = web or tentacles, etc.)