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

[Mathew_Freeman]

We use 5-10-5-10.

 

[Marimmar]

Why diagonals aren't 5'

The problem with considering a diagonal move a 5' step is that fireballs would be square not round.


|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|o|o|o|o|_|_|_| |_|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|_|
|_|_|o|o|o|o|o|o|_|_| |_|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|_|
|_|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|_| |_|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|_|
|_|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|_| |_|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|_|
|_|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|_| |_|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|_|
|_|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|_| |_|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|_|
|_|_|o|o|o|o|o|o|_|_| |_|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|_|
|_|_|_|o|o|o|o|_|_|_| |_|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|_|
|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|


See the difference? No simplified diagonal movement for me, I use the good ol' 5-10-5-10-5 step system.

~Marimmar

 

[orbitalfreak]

Another user of the 5-10-5-10 rule. Of course, you could abandon all concepts of grids, whether square or hexagonal, and rely on rulers and such. More accurate, but more work as well, so I'll stick with the 5-10 rule.

 

[Quasqueton]

I think I see the problem now, and I don't think it is a problem with the diagonals, really. It is whether you see the battlefield as "one inch = five feet" or "one square = five feet".

If you go with the inch/feet measurements, then using a squre grid (even a hex grid) becomes problematic and inaccurate. [Why use a grid at all, then?]

If you go with the square/feet measurements, then a square grid is a perfect match (and a hex grid matches for hex/feet measurers) with no problems. [Why bother making real-world measurements on the grid, then?]

I've always used the square/feet measurement, so I see:

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

B is 14 squares (measurement units) away from A. C is 10 squares (measurement units) away from A.

Using the inch/feet measurement, how do you measure the distance from A to D in the below diagram? You have to count some straight, and some diagonal squares to measure this.

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 D 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



So, it seems that if you use the square/feet measurements for all battlefield distances, it really doesn't give any advantage to using diagonals. Yes? The "advantage" just comes when you try to apply inch/feet measurements to a square/feet measured grid.

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

[. . . Edited out . . .]

[Edited in: Nevermind this post. Trying to count and forgetting if the last count was 5 or 10.]

Quasqueton

 

[d12]

We have a six inch ruler (30 feet!), 12 inch ruler and a yardstick. Any little bit of error is 5 feet at most so we don't worry about it.

 

[Pielorinho]

I just tried to measure the distance between the above A and D using the 5-10 counting method. I get at least three different measurements (60, 65, 70 feet) depending on how many diagonals you take to reach it. Seems like the 5-10 method makes for more figuring and metagame thinking to me.

Quasqueton

?? I can't figure out how to get any measurement beyond 60. You have to go up 10, and over 5. That means a total of 5 diagonals and 5 verticals. 5 diagonals= 5, 10, 5, 10, 5 = 35 feet. 5 verticals = 5, 5, 5, 5, 5 = 25 feet. 25 + 35 = 60.

It doesn't matter the order in which you do your verticals and diagonals, either. You can do all the verticals first, or all the verticals last, or alternate verticals and diagonals (the most reasonable way to do it, since it most closely approximates moving in a line). As long as you alternate your diagonals between 5' and 10', you'll get the same result.

The problem with your 1 square=5' theory is that it represents a major change to geometry, inasmuch as the shortest distance between two points is no longer a straight line. If A wants to run to B, he can either make a straight run, or stop off at C, and either way takes the same amount of time:

A 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
B 0 0 0 0

That's kinda weird, ain't it? Now, normally this won't be a problem, but imagine there's some free action that can happen at point C (e.g., a cleric has moved to point C and readied a cure serious wounds to cast on A once A reaches that square). Further imagine that A has a movement of 40.

If you use the 1 square=5' rule, then A can move 20' to point C, receive the spell, move 20' to point B, and attack an enemy there.

If you use the 5-10-5 rule, then A can EITHER move and attack the enemy at point B, OR can take the long way around, moving 30' to point C (to receive the spell) and then moving 30' to point B, ending his turn.

This seems logical to me, that it should take longer to move A-C-B than to move A-B.

Daniel
edited to explain that the order of diagonals and verticals doesn't matter.

 

[Voadam]

I thought about using hexes instead (I have the Chessex Megamap), but the problem there is the D&D game is based around allowing 8 characters around a square to attack rather than just 6, so I'd imagine there'd be a balance issue involved.

Robert Gamble

Not really a big issue, how many times are you swarming your pcs with more than six medium sized opponents at the same time?

Six is even a little generous for picturing effective meleeing.

We flip between a hex map and a square map all the time and do not really worry about it. The hex map makes circular area effects easier to diagram out as well as conical ones, but we generally just eyeball effects anyway so square mapping has not been a big deal.

 

[Pielorinho]

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

Not really a big issue, how many times are you swarming your pcs with more than six medium sized opponents at the same time?

Six is even a little generous for picturing effective meleeing.

While it's true that we don't have swarms like that very often, keep in mind that if you have eight opponents surrounding you, your combat space is a 15' square. There's a good chance that that's a space bigger than the room you're in right now, and I have no trouble imagining eight opponents surrounding me in such a space.

Daniel

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Why diagonals aren't 5'

The problem with considering a diagonal move a 5' step is that fireballs would be square not round.

"I used to know a marvellous spell. Now how did it go again? Let's see, firebox... firebox..."

-Hyp.