Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 4851489" data-attributes="member: 31734">The argument about 25'x25' rooms on the diagonals when using 1-1-1 is a strawman argument because it doesn't maintain the same aspect ratio of 5 squares along the vertical and horizontal and diagonal axes.&nbsp; Of course there are more squares!&nbsp; The diagonals (which are aligned to the grid) are way longer than 5 squares.The other thing that someone briefly mentioned earlier but it wasn't addressed by anyone who is pro-1-2-1 is that 1-2-1 does inhibit character movement.&nbsp; By this, I mean that if you are moving strictly diagonally, you will end up losing out on 5' of movement.&nbsp; You'll have 1 more square left, but are at the point of the &quot;2&quot; in 1-2-1, and thus can't continue.&nbsp; It's ironic that the less often this comes up implies that the less useful 1-2-1 becomes (because then you're not going diagonally enough for the low fidelity of 1-1-1 to matter).&nbsp; So, the more you need/like 1-2-1, the more you'll screw over the characters of movement.Finally, my suggestion for the OP's main problem is simply to be more flexible (or rather have the DM be flexible).&nbsp; By this I mean simply decide &quot;who's closer&quot;, visually even.&nbsp; We're not wargaming with rulers here, so obviously what you intend is far more important that what you actually moved.&nbsp; For example, &quot;My ranger moves towards that boulder such that so-and-so is my closest target.&quot;&nbsp; Who really cares if you're off by 1 square in your assessment of who's closest?&nbsp; No, really?&nbsp; Who cares?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Infiniti2000, post: 4851489, member: 31734"] The argument about 25'x25' rooms on the diagonals when using 1-1-1 is a strawman argument because it doesn't maintain the same aspect ratio of 5 squares along the vertical and horizontal [B]and diagonal[/B] axes. Of course there are more squares! The diagonals (which are aligned to the grid) are way longer than 5 squares. The other thing that someone briefly mentioned earlier but it wasn't addressed by anyone who is pro-1-2-1 is that 1-2-1 does inhibit character movement. By this, I mean that if you are moving strictly diagonally, you will end up losing out on 5' of movement. You'll have 1 more square left, but are at the point of the "2" in 1-2-1, and thus can't continue. It's ironic that the less often this comes up implies that the less useful 1-2-1 becomes (because then you're not going diagonally enough for the low fidelity of 1-1-1 to matter). So, the more you need/like 1-2-1, the more you'll screw over the characters of movement. Finally, my suggestion for the OP's main problem is simply to be more flexible (or rather have the DM be flexible). By this I mean simply decide "who's closer", visually even. We're not wargaming with rulers here, so obviously what you intend is [I]far[/I] more important that what you actually moved. For example, "My ranger moves towards that boulder such that so-and-so is my closest target." Who really cares if you're off by 1 square in your assessment of who's closest? No, really? Who cares? ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification