1 square Diagonal Movement: Reaction from Players

[w_earle_wheeler]

I've been doing it this was since 3.5 came out. It saves a tiny bit of strain on the old processors of the brain. Not much, but every small bit counts.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Amen to that. Ever notice how most RPG systems that aren't D&D clones use only a single type of die? GURPS with its d6s, or White Wolf with its d10s? That's because the designers realized there's not really a good reason to require six different types of dice.

It would not be terribly hard to re-jigger D&D to use only d6s and d20s, as Jhaelen says... although it would be rather time-consuming. But we grognards have grown attached to our crazy dice collections, so they stick around.

 

[FadedC]

It is more relevant because you would think two fighters standing between a monster and a mage would form some kind of barrier. With 1-move diagonals you would be wrong.

This a world experience assumption that is much different than the iterative attacks which are a game assumption.

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.

 

[maggot]

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.

Do some research in the other thread, and come back and post your example. I'm sure it will be far more contrived that the simple ones that break 1-1-1.

 

[Asmor]

Amen to that. Ever notice how most RPG systems that aren't D&D clones use only a single type of die? GURPS with its d6s, or White Wolf with its d10s? That's because the designers realized there's not really a good reason to require six different types of dice.

It would not be terribly hard to re-jigger D&D to use only d6s and d20s, as Jhaelen says... although it would be rather time-consuming. But we grognards have grown attached to our crazy dice collections, so they stick around.

Is it a sacred cow? Perhaps. But I for one welcome this particular sacred cow. There's a reason they're called polyhedral dice, not monohedral.

And yes, I know monohedral would mean "single sided," not "one type of die," but it sounds good enough that I'm willing to make the stretch, dammit!

 

[Xethreau]

I am one of those who would truly prefer a hex system, and I never found the 1-2-1 system too annoying, but I certainly see why it was removed.

 

[FadedC]

Do some research in the other thread, and come back and post your example. I'm sure it will be far more contrived that the simple ones that break 1-1-1.

You'll forgive me if I don't feel like wading through over 300 posts in the other thread to find the example your referring to. I will be happy to go to a specific one if you'd like to link it though.

I've already mentioned some wierd situations with 1-2-1, one I've seen come up a lot with a conjurer is how it takes fewer 5 foot steps to escape the center of a cloud type effect if your moving diagnolly then if your moving straight. Then there's the fact that a monster with 10' reach required a specific rules exception giving him 15' reach on diagnals in order to keep people from running in from a diagnal to avoid an AoO.

 

[Colmarr]

The point isn't that they're surprised or anything like that. The point is under the old rules, one or two fighters can block a line of approach. Under the new rules, they can't.

Yes they can. If the PCs are on a diagonal from the monster, there is no way for the monster to bypass the defenders without using extra movement.

Effectively (and assuming there is no other mechanical solution already in place) creatures can no longer block approaches along the vertical/horizontal grid, but they are still able to block diagonal approaches.

 

[Ahglock]

We actually discussed this some time ago when looking at grids and combats, and even "goofed around" (for lack of a better term) with 1-1-1 diagonal movement.

It was a failure. The increase in speed of play was so marginal as to be virtually non-existent for us, and it was too versimilitude-busting for the players to get any enjoyment out of it.

Needless to say, it's not an improvement for my players.

I would say ditto, but in actuality it was even worse since it slowed the game down. Instead of the irritation of counting 1,2,1, I got the new and improved irritation of people trying to work out bizarre ways to stretch more distance out of there moves with diagonal movement virtually every freakin turn.

 

[The Little Raven]

Actually the implication was that anyone who can't use the rule is an idiot.

Actually, by saying IQ 70, you're implying they're mentally retarded, since that's the point at which you go from "borderline mentally retarded" to "mildly mentally retarded." Maybe you should find a better way to say that.