As a DM, how do you handle movement on a square grid?

[Liolel]

Like many people have said the group I'm in use 5, 10, 5, 10 restartiting it each round to keep it simple.

 

[Quasqueton]

If we didn't use it, there'd be a ton more diagonal movement in the game, and positioning yourself would become a game of taking advantage of diagonals whenever possible (move two squares this way and your spell will travel 20 feet further... woohoo!).

Maybe I'm just stupid, or something, but I really can't figure this out. How does diagonal movement or range counting skew distances so much?

For instance:

OOOOOBOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOAOOOO

OOOOBOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOAOOOOOOO

OOOBOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOAOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOB
OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOAOOOOOOO

How can you "take advantage of diagonals" to close the distance or count the range from A to B? I've always just counted them all as 5' (or 1 square). I've always read the grid as "there's X number of squares between the two points". I've never seen anyone "abuse" the diagonal to get extra movement or range.

I'm really confused by this. I just don't see a difference. (I understand how *areas* get skewed on a square grid, but this has never caused any real problems either.)

Quasqueton

 

[Pielorinho]

And Elves can move as far as they like in any direction...

(Whereas Elvis is limited to one square.)

-Hyp.

I hate it when my obscure puns are missed, so:

Props for a terrible obscure pun!
Daniel

 

[KDLadage]

How can you "take advantage of diagonals" to close the distance or count the range from A to B?

Because the distance from the center of one square to the next along a diagonal is 1.414 (or approximately 1.5) times the distance from the center of one square to the next in the columns and rows. For example:

B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


On this hypothetical grid (assume the 0 is a square on your grid), the distance from A to B is 10 squares. The distance from A to C is also 10 squares.

Now measure these in inches (assuming each square is an inch) and you get 10 inches versus 14.1 inches. Thus, a cleaver player can easilly take advantage of a 40% reduction in effective range if you do not do something to counter this.

 

[Arnwyn]

The way I do it...

The first square is 10 feet, the next 5, the next 10 again, and so on.

Our group does it this way as well (first diagonal square is 10', the next is 5', etc.).

 

[Quasqueton]

Now measure these in inches (assuming each square is an inch) and you get 10 inches versus 14.1 inches. Thus, a cleaver player can easilly take advantage of a 40% reduction in effective range if you do not do something to counter this.

Yes, I understand how "real distances" and "grid distance" don't match up on the diagonal. But explain to me how this can be abused or taken advantage of in a game.

In your grid example, say B and C are two orcs. The archer, A, must choose which to shoot. They are both 10 squares away (50') on the grid. Or say A is a monk wanting to charge an opponent. Or say A is a mage wanting to magic missle one of the orcs. How would a "clever player" make a decision on which to attack? What difference does it make on the battlefield/grid?

I'm feeling dumber by the minute, because I really just don't see a problem.

Quasqueton

 

[KDLadage]

Yes, I understand how "real distances" and "grid distance" don't match up on the diagonal. But explain to me how this can be abused or taken advantage of in a game.

In your grid example, say B and C are two orcs. The archer, A, must choose which to shoot. They are both 10 squares away (50') on the grid. Or say A is a monk wanting to charge an opponent. Or say A is a mage wanting to magic missle one of the orcs. How would a "clever player" make a decision on which to attack? What difference does it make on the battlefield/grid?

I'm feeling dumber by the minute, because I really just don't see a problem.

Quasqueton

Simple and off the top of my head. Suppose you are the player at A, suppose that B is an ORC charging you. Suppose there is another one on the row, 10 squares below C. C is a target you need to hit with a ranged weapon. The target is 50 ft. away (if you cound all squares as 5 feet, even the diagonals). You have now managed to get yourself into a position where you are as far from both charging orcs as possible, while maintaining a nice short firing range.

Now, count this as diagonals, and the firing distance is now (depending on how you count it) 75 feet instead. Depending upon the weapon you are using, this could be a significant change in your chances to hit.

Just a thought.

 

[el-remmen]

We break everything down into boxes of movment

30 foot movement equals 6 boxes - a diagonal move counts as a box and a half - and half-box movement left over is simply lost

Also, I often make ad hoc ruling about how much movement a certian environment "eats up"

Characters fighting in knee high muck mght be told that each box in that area counts as a box and a half - thus diagonal movement there counts as 2 boxes.

 

[Quasqueton]

Now, count this as diagonals, and the firing distance is now (depending on how you count it) 75 feet instead.

But that's just it, if you count each square equally, as 5', 10 squares is 50'. Always. Whether the target is B or C.

If one square equals five feet, regardless of its orientation, how can movement/ranges be abused or taken advantage of by a "clever player"?

I see the biggest problem coming from measuring squares differently depending on the positioning of the two points. B is 10 squares away = 50'. C is 10 squares away = 70'. Or if D is between B and C, 10 squares is now 60'.

Quasqueton

 

[Pielorinho]

Yes, I understand how "real distances" and "grid distance" don't match up on the diagonal. But explain to me how this can be abused or taken advantage of in a game.

Let's look at a different diagram:

B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Note that, if you measure in inches and figure that each square represents one inch/5', A is 14 inches/70 feet from both B and C.

Now let's say that A has a movement rate of 30. If you figure distance by the 5-10-5 rule, A cannot charge either opponent: both work out to be farther than 60 feet away.

But if you figure diagonals by the 5-5-5 rule (i.e., no increase of distance for going diagonally), A can actually charge opponent C, even though that opponent is 70' away.

Whether this counts as abuse depends on whether squeezing an extra 10' of movement out of a charge counts as abuse. It's not a big issue, but it does lead to some weird metagame decisions. PCs should recognize distances, not square grids -- but if you count diagonals without using the 5-10-5 rule, PCs faced with two equidistant opponents will probably attack the one along the diagonal, since they can move faster when approaching that one.

Daniel