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

[N0Man]

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?

That's an example of what I meant by being shorted a square, but is one specific example and there are many more examples as well. As a couple easy examples I whipped up (that for movement would require a run action or a race or feat bonus to speed for movement but illustrate a concept which could apply to other situations such as ranged attacks as well).

• 7x + 4y. In 3E = 10. Mathematically = 8.06. You're cheated a square (and off by 1.94)
• 8X + 4y. In 3E = 10. Mathematically = 8.94. You're cheated a square (and off by 1.04)
• 8x + 6y. In 3E = 11. Mathematically = 10. You're cheated a square (off by 1).

So what I was suggesting is that if someone really used to 1-2-1 might find 1-1-1 particularly jarring because it's possible to have some cases where 4E is too liberal with giving a square or 2 more than the actual math, and 1-2-1 might short a square less than the actual math, making the difference between the 2 systems seem even greater.

More common would be having to stop with 1 square of movement left because because the next closest possible point (due to spaces being occupied, impassable, or undesirable) is a diagonal, and you've already used an even number of diagonals.

And finally (and some might disagree with this one) the situation where a tiny fraction of a square can prevent you from reaching your destination and you have to stop an entire square short of your full movement because the next X or Y squares or impassable, occupied, or undesirable. You might have to stop an entire square short of where you want to go when the actual math says that the line you want to travel is only 0.06 past your movement

I think it's very likely that these kinds of things have occurred and went beneath your notice. I've never seen players doublecheck their 1-2-1 moves with a calculator to make sure they were mathematically sound, they just have faith in it.

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.

Who claimed that 1-1-1 is mathematically superior? I only claimed that it's *usually* (except when angles approach 45 degrees) only inferior by an insignificant amount to 1-2-1 with a noticeable advantage of being more quick and intuitive for *most* players, and that 1-2-1 can be off in some situations as well.

They are both approximations, one that is generally (but not universally) more accurate, and one that is simpler and more user-friendly (but is too liberal in 45 degree angles).

I don't have a problem with people using 1-2-1, but I do have a problem with people making statements or implied statements that try to discredit those who prefer 1-1-1 as being somehow inferior, mathematically less skilled, whiners, following a flawed mentality, cheaters, and other things that are often implied (all not necessarily in this thread, but frequently on threads on this subject).

Really, it's a matter of taste.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Sure, you can chalk it up to me accurately representing you.

Ah, right. Totally ignoring that I was responding to what the users of 1-1-1, themselves, said they do. In this very thread.

Life's too short to waste on the dishonest.

/clunk

 

[Jeff Wilder]

As a couple easy examples I whipped up (that for movement would require a run action or a race or feat bonus to speed for movement but illustrate a concept which could apply to other situations such as ranged attacks as well).

Is that important? That these are cases that are pretty rare in the actual play of the game?

As opposed, say, to the problems with 4E, which (in just one session) produced at least two situations in which two minis which were actually physically closest on the battlemat were not closest under 4E's rules. Is that important? That these are cases that are pretty common in the actual play of the game? (At least for characters who have important class features based on "who's closest." Like my ranger.) It's important to me.

Who claimed that 1-1-1 is mathematically superior?

Who said anybody claimed that? What I said was that math isn't on 1-1-1's side, in any way, so I'm amazed that people continue to argue it. And you seem very willing to do that.

They are both approximations, one that is generally (but not universally) more accurate, and one that is simpler and more user-friendly (but is too liberal in 45 degree angles).

Change that to "almost always more accurate, and always erring on the margin within a character's listed speed," and we've reached agreement.

That's the second-biggest flaw in your argument that 3.5 "shorts" squares. (The first being that the situations in which it occurs require special circumstances, by your own admission.) When 1-2-1 "shorts a square," the actual scale distance traveled is still within the character's speed. 1-1-1's errors allow actual scale distance traveled well beyond the character's speed.

1-1-1 breaks the visual model of scale distances, within the "1 space equals 5 feet" rule that exists in both games. (Contrary to the claims of some folks in this thread.) 1-2-1 doesn't.

But you're absolutely right. It's a matter of taste. As I said well upthread, the main reason I enjoy using battlemats is that I like an accurate scale depiction of my PC's environment. The failure of 1-1-1 to provide that, in various common circumstances, is the basis for all of my objections to the rule. If that's less important to a player, and ease of play is more important to the player, that's fine with me. I just wish that's where the argument would stop, because it's the only good argument for 1-1-1.

 

[Eridanis]

Nifft, Jeff - back to your corners. Enough.

 

[Infiniti2000]

More common would be having to stop with 1 square of movement left because because the next closest possible point (due to spaces being occupied, impassable, or undesirable) is a diagonal, and you've already used an even number of diagonals.

Jeff, Herremann, this is essentially what I was referring to with respect to "inhibiting movement." I'd be a little more broad, however, and simply state that to move diagonally in the 1-2-1 system, you almost always end up not going diagonal. The system literally forces to you to zig-zag such that you don't "lose" a square of movement. Perhaps the calculations might show it to be less than 5 actual feet (or more?), but the fact is that you lose a square (just move 5 squares--25ft--each round). This will never happen in 1-1-1, obviously, as you instead gain squares.

We haven't been playing 4e as long as we did 3.X, but I have yet to run into any diagonal movement weirdness. Even on the outdoor maps and our 12-piece tactile set we still don't get such huge area combats where moving a long way on the diagonal ever occurs. In 3.X on the other hand, the "lost square" came up all the time. I'm sure everyone has seen it, at least once per combat. You just don't pay attention to it because taking that last square not on the diagonal seems so natural.

 

[Arkhail]

So, if I am playing 4E and decide that 1-2-1 is how i want to go, what does that mean for races with a move speed of 5?

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Go metric?

5 = 1,5 X 5 = 7,5 meters per round.

Move is 1,5 X 3 X 1,5 if you walk diagonally.

 

[N0Man]

Is that important? That these are cases that are pretty rare in the actual play of the game?

As opposed, say, to the problems with 4E, which (in just one session) produced at least two situations in which two minis which were actually physically closest on the battlemat were not closest under 4E's rules. Is that important? That these are cases that are pretty common in the actual play of the game? (At least for characters who have important class features based on "who's closest." Like my ranger.) It's important to me.

Honestly, I feel the same way about the insistence on bringing up 45 degree angles. Pure 45 degree diagonal movements are only a small number of all the total possible movements. Despite this fact, and despite the fact that I've said from the start that pure 45 degrees is the least mathematical accurate example possible, that's the example that everyone fixates on.

The cases were brought up as examples because you asked where I came up with the idea of shorted distance from 1-2-1.

Who said anybody claimed that? What I said was that math isn't on 1-1-1's side, in any way, so I'm amazed that people continue to argue it. And you seem very willing to do that.

I am? Where did I argue that math was on 1-1-1's side? In fact, where is a single person that argued this?

Change that to "almost always more accurate, and always erring on the margin within a character's listed speed," and we've reached agreement.

That's the second-biggest flaw in your argument that 3.5 "shorts" squares. (The first being that the situations in which it occurs require special circumstances, by your own admission.) When 1-2-1 "shorts a square," the actual scale distance traveled is still within the character's speed. 1-1-1's errors allow actual scale distance traveled well beyond the character's speed.

Again, you are defending the examples I gave where 3E can have flaws by saying they require special circumstances, despite the fact that your arguments also require special circumstances (such as pure 45 degree angles being singled out exclusively, or the possibility of deciding to design rooms at a 45 degree angle which distorts distances).

Also, am I understanding you correctly in that you are saying that it's ok for 1-2-1 movement to short range, but it's bad for 1-1-1 to be too liberal with range?

Now, if you had said that you are bothered by the fact that when 4E is wrong, it is possible for it to be wrong for significantly more than 1-2-1, then I wouldn't disagree with that fact. However, to say you prefer ranges to be shorted rather than to be extended because it prevents ranges from going over their rated range or speed values seems rather arbitrary.

1-1-1 breaks the visual model of scale distances, within the "1 space equals 5 feet" rule that exists in both games. (Contrary to the claims of some folks in this thread.) 1-2-1 doesn't.

Well first of all, I don't recall that claim being made. Secondly, "breaking the visual model" is subjective. It would be more accurate to say that it breaks your visual (or mental) model.

But you're absolutely right. It's a matter of taste. As I said well upthread, the main reason I enjoy using battlemats is that I like an accurate scale depiction of my PC's environment. The failure of 1-1-1 to provide that, in various common circumstances, is the basis for all of my objections to the rule. If that's less important to a player, and ease of play is more important to the player, that's fine with me. I just wish that's where the argument would stop, because it's the only good argument for 1-1-1.

I agree with most of your statement. Ease of use is the best reason to use 1-1-1. I even conceded that the best reason to use 1-2-1 is if you felt accuracy is more important than ease of use.

The only thing I have argued is that *both* systems have flaws. They have different flavors of flaws. One gives too many squares too often, then other shorts squares sometimes. I've even conceded that there 1-2-1 has less mistakes than 1-1-1 does.

However, to say that 1-2-1 is "almost always more accurate, and always erring on the margin within a character's listed speed" just isn't really true. It's more accurate than 1-1-1 roughly about half the time. If had said "more or equally accurate", that would be far closer to the truth. Even that isn't "almost always", but at least in a clear majority.

Maybe I'm failing to make my point clear. The point I'm trying to make is that 1-2-1 is more accurate, but that the degree of greater accuracy is exaggerated or overstated.

 

[N0Man]

I have a few sincere questions for those who have such strong feelings for 1-2-1.

1) Obviously using actual distance calculations (such as, SQRT(X_Distance^2 + Y+Distance^2) is too much trouble to bother with, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion. So, if there was another system that yielded even more accurate results than 1-2-1, but without the actual mathematical calculation, would you use it if it were a little more complicated?

2) Which is better, a system that is more accurate on the average but can have greater degrees of inaccuracies, or one that is less accurate on average but has a smaller degree of inaccuracies?

3) For a fair comparison of accuracy, would you say it's better to compare the 3E and 4E values against a mathematical distance that is rounded to the closest whole number, to always round down, or always round up?

4) What percentage of average accuracy would you estimate that you'd desire for a range determination system to be considered to be accurate enough?

Obviously there's a difference in how some of us value accuracy vs gameplay, I'm just curious how far this preference goes.

 

[Jhaelen]

Player's Handbook, page 283:

"Your speed is measured in squares on the battle grid, with each 1-inch square representing a 5-foot square in the game world. A character who has a speed of 6 can move up to 6 squares (or 30 feet) on the battle grid by using a move action."

Why do people contort so hard, to the point of simply making up rules, rather than simply sticking with "I like 1-1-1 movement because I find it easier"? It's very strange.

That's not the point I was trying to make. Maybe I didn't express myself well. I wrote:
"There doesn't have to be any relation to actual distances since combats are an abstraction anyway."
I know, that the 4E rules do provide the equivalent of sqaures to an actual distance. I was trying to point out that they could have easily chosen otherwise, and I would have considered it a good thing.

Why is it so important for you that someone with speed 6 shouldn't be able to move a distance of 35 feet or 40 feet? Does it really matter that much?

Now, how do you feel about running in 4E?
Doesn't it bother you that it adds a mere 2 squares to your movement when it could quadruple your speed in 3E?
Because that's actually something that _I_ find difficult to accept in 4E.

Edit: apropos of nothing: Alignment is another one of the things they didn't go far enough for my taste. It's one aspect of the game that really should go the way of the dodo. Imho, it doesn't add anything positive to the game.