"4E, as an anti-4E guy" (Session Two)

[Herremann the Wise]

Could you demonstrate this? I'm not seeing it.

If I move 6 "squares" diagonally in 1-2-1 movement, I've moved 5.65 squares of actual distance. I'm losing .35 squares. 12 squares is a loss of .69 squares. In both cases, it's better to round down because six (or 12) squares is the upper limit by the Speed rules; allowing another square breaks that limit, while disallowing another square does not.

If this isn't what you mean, I'm missing what you're saying.

Let's say you move 14 "squares" diagonally. As the crow flies, this is about 19.8 squares of distance and will take 21 squares of 1-2-1 movement. Effectively, you have been forced to use an extra square of movement. This is against the extra 5.8 squares of movement that moving 1-1-1 has sped your character by in only taking 14 squares to traverse the same distance.

While neither is perfect, 1-2-1 would appear by any fair analysis to be substantially more accurate/fairer.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Let's say you move 14 "squares" diagonally. As the crow flies, this is about 19.8 squares of distance and will take 21 squares of 1-2-1 movement.

So ... you lose a square of movement if your Speed is at least 35 feet, and you double-move the full distance, and you're moving only diagonally?

I can honestly say taht has never happened to me in a 3.5 game.

Any idea what the "3.5 players are so used to getting shorted a square that they don't even notice" thing is about? It can't be the above, surely?

Effectively, you have been forced to use an extra square of movement. This is against the extra 5.8 squares of movement that moving 1-1-1 has sped your character by in only taking 14 squares to traverse the same distance.

While neither is perfect, 1-2-1 would appear by any fair analysis to be substantially more accurate/fairer.

Obviously.

The "1-1-1 is simpler" is a much better approach. Math is simply not on 1-1-1's side, in any way. "I prefer simpler to more realistic," on the other hand, is perfectly reasonable. Not to our taste, depending on the balance, but reasonable.

 

[Gimby]

Theres another way of looking at it, whereby the abstraction isn't in the distances on the mat but in the speed of the characters.

"6 squares" or even "30 feet" (or if you like, "six seconds") can be seen as an approximation to the actual speed of the characters - clearly not all characters move at exactly the same rates. If you "lose" a square maybe you stumbled slightly, if you "gain" a square maybe you moved down a slight incline or found an extra burst of speed.

I'll agree that this isn't ideal (as such effects are repeatable due to the orientation of the grid) but it might help rationalise a little.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

So ... you lose a square of movement if your Speed is at least 35 feet, and you double-move the full distance, and you're moving only diagonally?

I can honestly say taht has never happened to me in a 3.5 game.

Any idea what the "3.5 players are so used to getting shorted a square that they don't even notice" thing is about? It can't be the above, surely?

Combined with the whole limit thing, yeah?

Perhaps I can provide an example from our gaming group that might enlighten. Most of us in our group accept that if for whatever reason, something does not quite work be it missing a DC by 1, not quite making it into the desired square, or just not dealing enough damage to kill off an enemy before he kills one of the party; then we just accept it. We tip the hat and say, close but not enough to get the cigar. However we also have a player who I'll call Dave. Dave whinges and whines and tries to "wheeze" to try and circumvent a fail that was almost a success. Every time it happens - even if it is not his turn or character. There is something in his makeup that can't abide a loss that was almost a win. I think winning is important to Dave. The rest of us just accept failure.

Perhaps then our mentality is one where we're resigned to occasionally being 1 square short as it were. Or perhaps on the other hand it is just easier to humour Dave and let him win. To my mind, such wins are hollow because deep down, you know you failed but heh... if everyone else want's to win???

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Spatula]

I've knocked up something in illustrator to show you what Jeff's talking about. The 5 x 5 square has 25 square units of area - unless it is drawn on the diagonal in 4e, then of course it has 50 square units of area.

Except the diagonal room isn't 25'x25'. Turing the actual 25'x25' room on the diagonal results in a room that is 7 squares from N to S and W to E, not 10 squares as you drew.

 

[N0Man]

So for those arguing 1-2-1 superiority, out of curiosity, how do you feel about the fact that 1-2-1 movement allows circumventing of threatening reach by approaching from the corners?

Does that seem realistic to you?

 

[FireLance]

See sig.

That said, my group uses 1-1-1-1 in actual play, and on the occasions when using 1-2-1-2 instead would have made a difference, I've found that I'm usually too busy thinking about something else to notice.

 

[Rolflyn]

So for those arguing 1-2-1 superiority, out of curiosity, how do you feel about the fact that 1-2-1 movement allows circumventing of threatening reach by approaching from the corners?

Does that seem realistic to you?

No, it doesn't seem realistic, and that's why there is specifically a rule for this in 3.0 and 3.5, and I would suppose anyone using 1-2-1-2 would carry that rule over to 4e.

 

[Jhaelen]

You're missing the point.

4E's error matters ... the PC actually moves farther (actual distance) than his 6 speed should allow. (Specifically, 7.21 in actual distance.)

Except actual distances do not matter. We're talking about combat movement here which is measured in squares. There doesn't have to be any relation to actual distances since combats are an abstraction anyway.

That's also why the example with diagonal rooms totally falls flat:
How I divide a room into squares is completely arbitrary, unless I'm interested in a division that is easiest to use for an abstracted combat system like the one in 4E. Then it makes sense to divide every room in such a way that I don't actually have diagonal rooms.

I realize this is all about personal prefernces, but even in my 3E games I never bothered with actual, accurate measurements. I like using poster maps and dungeon tiles which often don't have the 'correct' size. Why should it matter?

When I'm describing rooms in a dungeon I don't give exact dimensions either. I mean, it's not as if the pcs are taking their time using rulers to measure a room down to fractions of an inch.

Actually, by measuring combat movement and distances in squares exclusively you have an incredible advantage: You can always ensure the encounter area has an appropriate size for the encounter. Who cares if you're using 4 feet per square for one room and 7 feet per square for another?

About the only thing that might get tricky with such a 'fuzzy' approach is placing secret rooms in an adventure without providing any kind of clues they exist except a suspicious 'gap' in your dungeon map.
But since that's not representative of the kind of adventure design I enjoy these days, it doesn't bother me in the least.

 

[Pickles JG]

I do not think there is much point arguing the superiority of one system or the other, the reaction seems to be mostly on what feels right to the parties involved.

In contradiction of that I would say that it seems a funny thing to get too hung up on as it is so easily house ruled. To me squares on the battle mat relate to the character's geography in the way that hit points relate to their physical well being.