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

[Caliber]

I assume by "location in regard to another" you're not concerned about distance? Because 1-1-1 does not do relative distance between battlemat features (including PCs) well at all. And, as I indicated in the OP, not only is that important to me, but it's important under 4E's own rules. (You cannot trust actual distance on the battlemat in 4E the way you can in 3.5. When it has an effect on the rules -- and for a ranger, that's almost always -- you need to count and often recount.)

It also matters in cases, e.g., in which an encounter area includes rooms on the diagonal. There can easily be cases in 4E where an ostensibly 25' square room literally cannot fit where it should be able to fit, because it's drawn on the diagonal.

I also find it odd that whether or not a Burst 2 effect fills a 5x5 room depends on whether that room is drawn on the diagonal. If it's not, the burst reachs wall-to-wall. If it is, the burst covers exactly half the area. In other words, a 5x5 room in 4E that's drawn on the diagonal is literally twice as large on the battlemat as a 5x5 room that's drawn on the straights.

That freaks me out.

For distance measurements, I've adopted the same strategy other posters have advocated: quickly eyeball which is longer, X or Y axis, simply count that. Fast and easy.

As for your second point, I'm not sure I'm visualizing how the 1-1-1 rule of 4E is any way superior to the 1-2-1 of 3.x here. I mean, it seems to me the problem is rooted in the abstraction of the grid itself, not in how diagonals are measured. Wouldn't you also have discrepancies under 1-2-1? Could someone mock up a visual here for me?

(To whit: It seems a 5x5 room should have the same number of "squares" no matter what. The problem comes in when trying to use the same grid for two rooms that do not orient in the same manner; this is a failing of using the grid overlay to me. Unless I misunderstand the issue ...)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

For distance measurements, I've adopted the same strategy other posters have advocated: quickly eyeball which is longer, X or Y axis, simply count that. Fast and easy.

In other words, "Don't go by representation of the minis and environment. Always go to the grid."

And that's the thing: as much as reasonably possible, I'd like to be able to ignore the grid. What I like about minis and battlemats (and pretty maps, etc) is that they provide a representation of relative locations and distances.

In 4E, they no longer do (in too many cases). And that really bugs me.

I mean, it seems to me the problem is rooted in the abstraction of the grid itself, not in how diagonals are measured. Wouldn't you also have discrepancies under 1-2-1? Could someone mock up a visual here for me?

You can easily do it for yourself. On a sheet of graph paper, draw two 4E 5x5 rooms, one on the straights, one on the diagonals.

Now do the same thing using 1-2-1 measurement.

The difference is dramatic.

(To whit: It seems a 5x5 room should have the same number of "squares" no matter what.

Yes, you'd think. But in 4E, a 5x5 room drawn on the diagonals contains twice as many squares as a 5x5 room drawn on the straights.

This has all kinds of weird implications under the 4E rules. Using Perception to search a full room, for instance, takes much longer if the room you're searching is drawn on the diagonals.

Can you handwave this weirdness? Of course. Should you? Probably.

But it bugs me. Everytime something like this happens in 4E, I stop thinking about my character searching a room and start thinking about the weirdness of 4E's geometry.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Jeff, as a skirmish player I'm surprised it bugs you that much.

Actually, this is one of the reasons I'm not a skirmish player any longer. (To be fair, it's the minority reason; the majority has to do with having read the writing on the wall, way in advance, with regard to who would be seizing control of the game.)

 

[Caliber]

You can easily do it for yourself. On a sheet of graph paper, draw two 4E 5x5 rooms, one on the straights, one on the diagonals.

Now do the same thing using 1-2-1 measurement.

The difference is dramatic.

Yes, you'd think. But in 4E, a 5x5 room drawn on the diagonals contains twice as many squares as a 5x5 room drawn on the straights.

This has all kinds of weird implications under the 4E rules. Using Perception to search a full room, for instance, takes much longer if the room you're searching is drawn on the diagonals.

Can you handwave this weirdness? Of course. Should you? Probably.

But it bugs me. Everytime something like this happens in 4E, I stop thinking about my character searching a room and start thinking about the weirdness of 4E's geometry.

Buh? I'm don't even get where 1-1-1 and 1-2-1 factor into drawing rooms at all. By 5x5 do you mean 5 squares to a side? Or do you mean something else? again.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But it bugs me. Everytime something like this happens in 4E, I stop thinking about my character searching a room and start thinking about the weirdness of 4E's geometry.

4E uses Cthulloid geometry! The angles are all wrong! Run for your lives!!

 

[ProfessorCirno]

It also matters in cases, e.g., in which an encounter area includes rooms on the diagonal. There can easily be cases in 4E where an ostensibly 25' square room literally cannot fit where it should be able to fit, because it's drawn on the diagonal.

I also find it odd that whether or not a Burst 2 effect fills a 5x5 room depends on whether that room is drawn on the diagonal. If it's not, the burst reachs wall-to-wall. If it is, the burst covers exactly half the area. In other words, a 5x5 room in 4E that's drawn on the diagonal is literally twice as large on the battlemat as a 5x5 room that's drawn on the straights.

That freaks me out.

On the bright side, that means 4e naturally includes non-euclidean architecture!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

4E uses Cthulloid geometry! The angles are all wrong! Run for your lives!!

And do it diagonally, you'll be faster that way!

---

Jeff, is the grid is the biggest problem, you should eventually "fix" it. But if that's the only big issue with the game, I would not worry too much about, certainly not 3 pages long. (Off course, that's not your doing. )

For me, the major gain of the rule was speeding up determining how far movement and range is resolved. I seldomly need to know if something should be closer or farther, I need to know whether if something is in range or an attack or movement. And that goes a lot easier if I just determine the longer range along one axis instead of counting every 2nd diagonal square double. That's even - or especially ? - true if I have to move around corners and switch direction, since I don't have to keep the number of diagonal squares moved so far in my mind.

The change is not for verisimiltude or simulation or anything. It's to speed up gameplay.
If it confuses your long-learned instincts in counting 1-2-1 diagonals, it's obviously failing in that regard. But it's certainly working for me.

 

[cdrcjsn]

In a game where people are fighting at full capacity at 1 hit point and then unconscious and dying 1 hit point later, does it really matter?

The 1-1-1 rule is just to speed up play. Nothing more. Nothing less.

A wound system that affects character effectiveness in combat would likewise be more realistic, but I prefer the hit point mechanic because it makes the game faster.

1-1-1 is not realistic. But it does make the game faster. I've probably DMed hundreds of 3e/3.5 tables using 1-2-1 and from personal experience, the change is for the better if your main goal is ease of play.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I assume by "location in regard to another" you're not concerned about distance?

You assume correctly. I see it as an abstract representation, not a direct physical correllation.

Because 1-1-1 does not do relative distance between battlemat features (including PCs) well at all. And, as I indicated in the OP, not only is that important to me, but it's important under 4E's own rules. (You cannot trust actual distance on the battlemat in 4E the way you can in 3.5. When it has an effect on the rules -- and for a ranger, that's almost always -- you need to count and often recount.)

We haven't experienced this problem. And the ranger in our group started quarrying the 3 closest targets when he hit 11th level.

It also matters in cases, e.g., in which an encounter area includes rooms on the diagonal. There can easily be cases in 4E where an ostensibly 25' square room literally cannot fit where it should be able to fit, because it's drawn on the diagonal.

I've always seen this as a problem of drawing on the diagonal. It's not a new problem to 4E or 1-1-1 movement.

I also find it odd that whether or not a Burst 2 effect fills a 5x5 room depends on whether that room is drawn on the diagonal. If it's not, the burst reachs wall-to-wall. If it is, the burst covers exactly half the area. In other words, a 5x5 room in 4E that's drawn on the diagonal is literally twice as large on the battlemat as a 5x5 room that's drawn on the straights.

That freaks me out.

Most people don't draw their rooms in "number of squares" though. A 25' x 25' room is the same size whether drawn with the grid or skewed. A burst 2 in a skewed room still fills most of the room (it loses the corners because the corners of the burst pass outside the area of the room).

But it still doesn't matter to me because it is just an abstract representation of the game and everyone follows the same rules. IMO, fireballs are not perfect squares (4E), top-view step pyramids (3E), or even perfect circles (pre-3E). A fireball is a whirling mass of flames without shape, the rules just help us figure out who gets burnt.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

You assume correctly. I see it as an abstract representation, not a direct physical correllation.

So it's a game-board, not a simulation of game-reality? Okay. But that's really not what I want. (Or, to be more precise, I obviously want the balance between "game-board" and "game-reality" closer to "game-reality" than you do.)

We haven't experienced this problem. And the ranger in our group started quarrying the 3 closest targets when he hit 11th level.

I don't understand. Are you saying, "The ranger is our group doesn't make judgments on which foe is nearest by which mini is nearest; he counts the squares"?

If so, that's great for you, but my point is that one of the biggest benefits I've always gotten from using a battlemat is that I can simply look at the location and spacing of the minis and tell that This Guy is closer than That Guy. The ability to do that is of value to me, and 4E takes that ability away ... in many of the situations in which it's most useful.

I've always seen this as a problem of drawing on the diagonal. It's not a new problem to 4E or 1-1-1 movement.

Uh ... it's not exactly a "new" problem, I guess, but it's a problem 4E has that 3.5 doesn't. Again, this is dramatically demonstrable: draw a 25 foot square room on the diagonals, and then draw it on the straights.

A 25' x 25' room is the same size whether drawn with the grid or skewed.

Not on the battlemat, it's not. It's exactly twice as large (in 4E) when drawn on the diagonals. It is of twice the area. It contains significantly more full squares (not twice as many, because many of them will be half-squares.)

A burst 2 in a skewed room still fills most of the room (it loses the corners because the corners of the burst pass outside the area of the room).

No, it fills half the room. (Have you actually looked at these situations? Because it's geometrical reality, not a matter of opinion.)