Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 877287" data-attributes="member: 259">??&nbsp; I can't figure out how to get any measurement beyond 60.&nbsp; You have to go up 10, and over 5.&nbsp; That means a total of 5 diagonals and 5 verticals. 5 diagonals= 5, 10, 5, 10, 5 = 35 feet.&nbsp; 5 verticals = 5, 5, 5, 5, 5 = 25 feet.&nbsp; 25 + 35 = 60.It doesn't matter the order in which you do your verticals and diagonals, either.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; C 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0 B&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0 That's kinda weird, ain't it?&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; 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.Danieledited to explain that the order of diagonals and verticals doesn't matter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pielorinho, post: 877287, member: 259"] ?? 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification