1 square Diagonal Movement: Reaction from Players

[Delta]

Nothing in there about how you reset the count back to 1 at the beginning of the new round. One could read this and assume that you start counting (and keep track you what square you are on) at the beginning of combat all the way until the end of combat.

I predict that a poll would show >95% only count within one turn or action.

Do you have a point, or are you just being argumentative?

 

[Asmor]

If the reason they are changing 1-2-1 to 1-1-1 is because it is annoying or because it can be confusing math, then I hope they also change how crit multipliers work, because THAT has to be the most annoying thing and the most math-confusing thing in D&D. If they do not change how you add up crit multipliers, then I do not accept "to make it easier" in the case of changing to 1-1-1 movement.

Can't say I've ever heard anyone complain about how multipliers stack. My only complaint about it is that it's a fairly important rule that's pretty easy to overlook.

 

[delericho]

Okay, just to show up the sorts of errors we are dealing with, I have done an analysis of the various movement options.

The options:

• Freeform movement. In this option, 1 'square' diagonally is equivalent to root-2 'squares'. I have approximated to three decimal places in my calculations.
• 1-1-1-1. A diagonal square costs 1 square of movement.
• 1-2-1-2, resetting. The first diagonal square costs 1 square, the second 2, alternating. Each round, the count resets.
• 1-2-1-2, accumulating. The first diagonal square costs 1 square, the second 2, but it does not reset at the end of the round. If in round one you move 1-2-1, then in round 2 you move 2-1-2. Where a fractional number of squares is given, the actual rate alternates. Whether the first or second round gets the 'extra' square varies.
• 2-1-2-1, resetting. As 1-2-1-2, except that the order is reversed. Each round, the count resets.
• 2-1-2-1, accumulating. Likewise, but accumulating each round. Where a fractional number of squares is given, the actual rate alternates. Whether the first or second round gets the 'extra' square varies.
• 2-1-1-1, per round. This is the proposed rule that the first diagonal costs double, but thereafter a square is a square. This one applies the tariff once in the round, so a character taking a double move only pays the price once.
• 2-1-1-1, per move. As above, except that a character taking a double move pays 2 for the first square in each move.
• 2-2-2-2. As in SWSE, a diagonal square costs 2.

The calculation has been done for movement speeds of 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 feet per round, these being the most likely speeds to be dealt with in combat. It assumes that the character takes a double move each round, moves as far as he possibly can each round, and moves only on a diagonal. Naturally, this is unlikely to be the case in actual play. These figures can therefore be rightly considered a 'worst case'.

Distances travelled are listed in squares. The error is calculated by subtracting the 'freeform' distance from the listed distance - a positive means the character moves further than he should, a negative means he falls short by the listed amount.

(At this point, I was going to draw out the table, but I don't know the correct flags. So, instead I'll point you to the attached file. Yes, it's Excel. Sorry if that's difficult for you.)

What does all this mean?

Well, it shows that while the 2-1-1-1 rule is closer to accurate than 1-1-1-1, it still has a relatively high % error. This error gets progressively worse as movement rates increase, tending towards 41% (ish) as movement tends to infinity. If using that rule, I recommend applying it per-move rather than per round.

Finally, it would hypothetically be possible to use a 'Gregorian' movement scheme, where we alternate 1-2-1-2, accumulate fractions over rounds, and considered every nth '2' to be a '1', thus reducing the rounding errors even further (as is done with leap years in the Gregorian calendar). However, doing so is almost certainly more trouble than it would be worth - moving to one more step of accuracy would take you from ~6% error to somewhat less than 1%, at a cost of counting something like 10 diagonals.

 

[delericho]

Unless the PHB says differently, the SRD does not say this exactly.

I was answering for how I run things. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Actually, one could roll a dice at the start of each turn: 1-50% move 1-2-1-2 this round; 51 - 100% move 2-1-2-1. That would pretty much eliminate all rounding errors from the abstraction - they would be much less significant than the random factor thus introduced.

Actually, one could even make the roll with each square: 1 - 41% this square costs 1; 42 - 100% it costs 2. Over the course of the campaign, this is most likely an almost completely accurate option, provided you don't mind rolling lots more dice.

Still, it's not for me.

 

[HeinorNY]

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?

It's broken because the distance between the ranger and the moster is the same in squares.
The ability of the ranger to PBS the monster remains but the ability of the monster to reach the ranger is hindered.
And not because the ranger "took advantage of obstacles", but because he took advantage of the alignment of the grid.
If the ranger did the same under 1-2-1-2, or even in the real world, he would gain no advantage by moving like that.

 

[Lackhand]

Finally, it would hypothetically be possible to use a 'Gregorian' movement scheme, where we alternate 1-2-1-2, accumulate fractions over rounds, and considered every nth '2' to be a '1', thus reducing the rounding errors even further (as is done with leap years in the Gregorian calendar). However, doing so is almost certainly more trouble than it would be worth - moving to one more step of accuracy would take you from ~6% error to somewhat less than 1%, at a cost of counting something like 10 diagonals.

"More trouble than it's worth" is extremely subjective, and we don't know (yet) what 'worth' is in 4e, given (as other posters have mentioned) the amount of sliding and shifting moves that will be available.

 

[delericho]

"More trouble than it's worth" is extremely subjective,

True.

It's more trouble than it's worth to me. YMMV.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

In both diagrams the Blue dot(ranger) can Point Blank Shot the X monster...

Nope, no line of sight; the defender is in the way.

 

[FadedC]

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.

Ah so that's what your going for. Still in the second scenario the blocker actually blocks the monster from reaching the archer. That seems like a good thing. The only real issue is that the blocker doesn't actually block when they are on a straight line and that's something that will only come up in a perfectly setup scenario like that. Move anyone 1 square in any direction and that the no block examples either falls apart or is unchanged from 1-2-1.

But yeah there will certainly be cases when 1-1-1 breaks believability a bit, just like there are cases when 1-2-1 currently does.

 

[HeinorNY]

Nope, no line of sight; the defender is in the way.

Nice joke, you almost got me.