1 square Diagonal Movement: Reaction from Players

[Steely Dan]

Tried it out in a one-off combat between a Hezrou and 3 vrocks against a party of 5 characters (a psion, spirit shaman, barbarian/ranger, psychic rogue and a fighter/divine bard/hammer of Moradin), and it worked out just lovely, especially with the withdraw rule from Saga and the new charge rule from DDM – lots of ebb and flow juiciness.

 

[JahellTheBard]

hey 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.

I think this rule can be very dangerous, and if skillfully used will make the tactical game very difficult and challenging for most players ... anyhow it opens great possibilities for very expert players ... surely not for everyone .. i feel fighting movements will take more and more time ... this is the kind of rule that will soon let the game go out of control ...

To avoid this problem, change of direction in the same turn should be limited, or at least penalized with a loss of speed ... but game should be easier in this way? I don't think so ...

An easy rule made for simplification can sometimes turn in a dangerous Pandora's Box ... this is the case ...

 

[Asmor]

My biggest concern with this change is the tactical implications...

But who's to say the tactical implications haven't been dealt with already? For example, maybe there's a defender power which allows you to take an attack aimed at an adjacent ally. Then it wouldn't matter that enemies can get around the fighter without provoking AoOs, because the fighter still gets to do his job: take the hits so the squishy caster doesn't have to.

I suspect I'll re-institute the 1-2-1-2 rule (though in the other thread someone suggested just doubling movement rates and making every straight move cost 2 and every diagonal cost 3, which would make it vastly simpler since you don't have to remember if you're on an even or odd diagonal).

 

[Wormwood]

Tried it out in a one-off combat between a Hezrou and 3 vrocks against a party of 5 characters (a psion, spirit shaman, barbarian/ranger, psychic rogue and a fighter/divine bard/hammer of Moradin), and it worked out just lovely, especially with the withdraw rule from Saga and the new charge rule from DDM – lots of ebb and flow juiciness.

Out of curiosity, would you say that this rule affected the actual *amount* of movement in combat? More? Less? No change?

 

[Steely Dan]

Out of curiosity, would you say that this rule affected the actual *amount* of movement in combat? More? Less? No change?

It was nice in that everyone could get around a little more - the players and my bad-dudes.

But often, as you said, it wasn't particularly noticeable, as a character didn't always need to move that much.

What I really want to do now, is figure out how to drop the full attack action in our current 3.5 (well, 3.75) campaign. Monsters would take the biggest hit in that department – any ideas?

 

[Jhaelen]

I had a (new) player once ask "Which dice do I have to roll?". Does that mean that having multiple dice is too complicated and slow down the game unnecessarily?

Yes! For a beginning player it definitely does. One of my players still manages to confuse his dice using a d8 instead of a d10, etc.

I'd be perfectly happy with a system that uses just d6 and d20, for example.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It was nice in that everyone could get around a little more - the players and my bad-dudes.

But often, as you said, it wasn't particularly noticeable, as a character didn't always need to move that much.

What I really want to do now, is figure out how to drop the full attack action in our current 3.5 (well, 3.75) campaign. Monsters would take the biggest hit in that department – any ideas?

Just give them the 4E Pit Fiends special ability that allows him to make two attacks with a single standard action. That seemed to me as if it was the 4E approach to multiple attacks per round.

The difficult question is now how to fix the balance for warriors again (and how to do so in a simple and straightforward manner). Maybe the Star Wars approach of adding 1/2 level to damage? (Is that enough?)

 

[RigaMortus2]

Sure would speed things up if I didn't have to track HP.

Funny you should say that...

 

[RigaMortus2]

Which is my point: I'm willing to sacrifice a little verisimilitude for a little simplicity.

Counting out 1,2,1,2 isn't *difficult math*, but the minute a player has to ask, "is that my second diagonal or my third?", then the rule is nothing more than a waste of time and another irritating reminder that you are counting out moves on a game board.

I get it. I just don't think it's necessary.

Sounds more like the player simply lost count of how many times he moved. If a player loses count on how many squares he moved, that has nothing to do with how diagonal movement is calculated. You can just as easily lose count on how many squares you moved when moving in a straight horizontal or verticle line.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I personally don't like it. I see no need to change that rule. 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? On top of that, it's more realistic and more believable.

Round 1 you make a diagonal movement to your opponent. A total of 3 squares (which costs you 4 really, 1+2+1). You stop at the third square, attack your opponent, and down him.

Your allies and the rest of the enemies then take their turn.

Round 2 you go again and want to continue moving diagonally. How many squares does it cost you to move that first diagonal in the 2nd round?