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

[Herremann the Wise]

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.

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.

For those that just want to have a simple, easy to use gameboard, rather than a semi-realistic miniaturisation of the "action", then this will cause no issues whatsoever. For those of us that want the latter, then yes 1-1-1 causes us issues. To each their own.

You're missing the point. I said multiple times that the closer to a 45 degree angle, the less accurate 4E becomes, so in the literal 'corner case', it is off noticeably. I'm not arguing that 4E is more mathematical, but rather than it's not mathematically inferior to such a degree that it matters much in the majority of the cases.

The evidence you provided showed that mathematically, the 1-2-1 case was equal or best in all but one case. To me this is a significant nod of approval to the 1-2-1 over the 1-1-1 for those of us that worry about such. I'm not missing your point, I'm disagreeing with your analysis. However, can you see my point that the issues with diagonals is what causes those gamers who worry about such things the most grief? The 2 pdf attachments I have provided on this thread should emphasize this.

Honestly, it's I find it way more easy to eyeball movement now than before. It might make 45 degree angles deceptively close, but it also prevents frustration of not quite reaching a distance because you have 1 space more to move and your last diagonal costs 2 more.

Not making the distance is not something that frustrates me - if my character can't get to where he needs, so be it. He'll get there next turn and suffer the consequences. The 45 degree angle thing does frustrate me though as it cheats the spatial relationships that I'm seeing when I look at the miniatures on the battlemap. As Jeff has said, this pulls me out of the "game" rather than drawing me in.

Best Regards
Herremann the wise

 

[Jeff Wilder]

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.

FYI, your illustration shows a 6x5 (straight) versus 5x5 (diagonal). If anything that emphasizes the point even more, but I figured I'd point it out.

 

[jeffwik]

How many medium-sized people can fit in a 25'x25' room? 25 if it's drawn normally, but more (possibly WAY more) if it's drawn on the diagonal, regardless of the method you use for counting distances.

Drawing walls on the diagonal creates triangular half-square spaces (and potentially quarter-square spaces; does a 25'x25' room "drawn on the diagonal" under the 1-2-1 moiety run three squares diagonally, or three and a half? I'm assuming three and a half). While geometers can ignore this and just talk about total square footage, in the game, either these triangular half-squares are legal spaces for a miniature to occupy (in which case a 1-2-1 5x5 diagonal room has thirty spaces a figure can occupy) or they don't (in which case there are only 18 spaces available). In neither case does the 25'x25' room contain 25 spaces.

Of course, the 1-1-1 "25 foot by 25 foot drawn on the diagonal" contains sixty or forty spaces, so it's hardly better.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

FYI, your illustration shows a 6x5 (straight) versus 5x5 (diagonal). If anything that emphasizes the point even more, but I figured I'd point it out.

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. I've kept the 6 x 5 for posterity though.

Best Regards
Herremann the (Wise) Mathematically Challenged

 

[Herremann the Wise]

How many medium-sized people can fit in a 25'x25' room? 25 if it's drawn normally, but more (possibly WAY more) if it's drawn on the diagonal, regardless of the method you use for counting distances.

Drawing walls on the diagonal creates triangular half-square spaces (and potentially quarter-square spaces; does a 25'x25' room "drawn on the diagonal" under the 1-2-1 moiety run three squares diagonally, or three and a half? I'm assuming three and a half). While geometers can ignore this and just talk about total square footage, in the game, either these triangular half-squares are legal spaces for a miniature to occupy (in which case a 1-2-1 5x5 diagonal room has thirty spaces a figure can occupy) or they don't (in which case there are only 18 spaces available). In neither case does the 25'x25' room contain 25 spaces.

Of course, the 1-1-1 "25 foot by 25 foot drawn on the diagonal" contains sixty or forty spaces, so it's hardly better.

Possible idea for the diagonal 1-2-1 5 x 5 space. A medium sized person can stand in a triangular space as long as any adjacent triangular spaces are unoccupied. In this way you could fit between 23 and 25 people, depending upon how they position themselves. This might be taking it a little too far though... I could see some of my player's eyes starting to glaze over a little; although this triangular occupation rule would seem to be reasonable.

I suppose the counterpoint to all of this diagonal orientation stuff is provided by those who use the dungeon tiles rather than a battlemap. For them, your 5 x 5 room will be as such regardless of orientation, be it 30, 45 or x degrees to the horizontal.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[N0Man]

I'll let other people address other stuff, but it surprises me that nobody addressed this.

These are not equivalent. Not even close.

The hypothetical character has a speed of 6. Your statement.

4E allows him to move an actual distance of 7.21. 3.5 does not. 4E lets the speed 6 PC cover 7 squares (35 feet). 3.5 does not.

That's the difference, and it's much, much larger than a 0.79 versus 1.21 difference indicates.

It was brought up already, and I already addressed this. Again, it doesn't matter if the fraction that 4E is off is a larger fraction than the fraction that 3E is off, because both of them end up being 1 square off from what the closest square that would be derived from by doing the math yourself.

If we played with 2 decimal point accuracy on the tile map, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

 

[Nikosandros]

tion rule would seem to be reasonable.

I suppose the counterpoint to all of this diagonal orientation stuff is provided by those who use the dungeon tiles rather than a battlemap. For them, your 5 x 5 room will be as such regardless of orientation, be it 30, 45 or x degrees to the horizontal.

Ha! I knew it! Simplification had nothing to do with it... it was all an evil plot by WotC to sell more Dungeon Tiles!

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I suppose the counterpoint to all of this diagonal orientation stuff is provided by those who use the dungeon tiles rather than a battlemap. For them, your 5 x 5 room will be as such regardless of orientation, be it 30, 45 or x degrees to the horizontal.

And in one of the earliest articles after 4E's diagonal movement change was announced (I believe it was a Greenbriar Chasm Dungeonworks or something like that), there's a map included that has rooms oriented diagonally to the rest of the dungeon ... at a glance.

But then you look closely, and ... waitasec, these rooms have straight squares, too!

So then you have to look closely to notice where they grafted the orientations together ... basically, in mid-corridor the squares stopped going this way and rotated 45 degrees that way.

I found that amusing way out of proportion to any actual humor value.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

It was brought up already, and I already addressed this. Again, it doesn't matter if the fraction that 4E is off is a larger fraction than the fraction that 3E is off, because both of them end up being 1 square off from what the closest square that would be derived from by doing the math yourself.

If we played with 2 decimal point accuracy on the tile map, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

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.)

3.5's error doesn't matter, and it's not because it's less of an error mathematically. It matters because 3E says, "Hey, you've only got a speed of 6. You can't move that far in actual distance."

The degree of error isn't important (whether it favors 3.5 or not), because this is a binary case: a speed 6 character should not be able to move 7 squares of actual distance. 4E allows it and 3.5 doesn't.

 

[jeffwik]

I don't see how "you can never move more than THIS far" should be privileged above "you can barring being slowed or something always move THIS far if you want to," a test which the 3.X version of movement fails in the case you're describing.