Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N0Man" data-source="post: 4852232" data-attributes="member: 64066">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).<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">7x + 4y.  In 3E = 10.  Mathematically = 8.06.  You're cheated a square (and off by 1.94)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">8X + 4y.  In 3E = 10.  Mathematically = 8.94.  You're cheated a square (and off by 1.04)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">8x + 6y.  In 3E = 11.  Mathematically = 10.  You're cheated a square (off by 1).</li> </ul>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 movementI 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification