Diagonal Movement - Better or Worse?

[Skyscraper]

Edited to remove non-constructive post.

Sky

 

[Bleoberis De Ganis]

I like the ribbon idea - it makes sense - I'm just wandering how much more accurate it is. It doesn't solve the problem of area effects though, but I suppose you could mock something up.

Math junkies don't like the 1:1 system because it is less accurate and less simulational, but D&D is soooo abstract distance and movement rules should be way way down their list of things that need to be "fixed".

The thing is - the other variaties are only marginally more accurate and with the draw back of being a major pain in the backside (well not 'that' much of a pain, but still a pain.)

How about circles. No - I'm not actually being sarcastic. When using custom maps the circles can be arranged in any way the designer wishes. On a large area they can be formed into a hex pattern. A winding tunnel can go all migledy pigledy all over the place. A corridor 2 wide - they can be placed in a paralell way like squares. Small rooms, where diagonals are less of an issue, can be placed in a square like pattern.

Just a thought. It will take more imaginative design when doing battlemaps, but if you give it some serious thought you may realize that the idea isn't as stupid as it might sound.

Basically - design the map first - add the circles later - touch up the map after so the circles can be jostled for better, more logical, placing.

1 Move = 1 circle.

Remember - the grids are there for easy use when moving, ranges and deciding if entities are caught in area effects. They are not there for accuracy - they aren't trying to make a fantasy ordinance survey map.

EDIT - Just wandering what is so great about having a fixed grid. Even when using squares - why not have the squares go diagonally when a corridor is going diagonally. As long as the joins between different orientations are well placed, what would be the problem. Why not have hexes and squares. Of course, area effects would have a varying number of effected squares between hex and square, but I'm wandering just how much of a real effect it would have. It is worth experimentation at least.

 

[Saeviomagy]

EDIT - Just wandering what is so great about having a fixed grid. Even when using squares - why not have the squares go diagonally when a corridor is going diagonally. As long as the joins between different orientations are well placed, what would be the problem. Why not have hexes and squares. Of course, area effects would have a varying number of effected squares between hex and square, but I'm wandering just how much of a real effect it would have. It is worth experimentation at least.

Again - convenience. Is it easier for the map drawer to slap down a uniform grid, or to create a custom grid that lines up with each portion of the map?

That said, I'd prefer that map creators totally ignored the grid when creating maps, and it was thrown down after they'd finished.

Incidentally: I was going to suggest tape measures in jest, because it seems obvious to me that such a system would dramatically slow down the game. The fact that the 1.5 system requires any extra work would, to my mind, require that it actually added something to the game that made that work worthwhile. Personally I can see zero benefit, except satisfying someone's feeling of geometric incorrectness.

 

[Asmor]

Math junkies don't like the 1:1 system because

Yay! I finally get to rail against the whole generalizations thing!

<-- Math major

 

[darkadelphia]

Again - convenience. Is it easier for the map drawer to slap down a uniform grid, or to create a custom grid that lines up with each portion of the map?

That said, I'd prefer that map creators totally ignored the grid when creating maps, and it was thrown down after they'd finished.

Incidentally: I was going to suggest tape measures in jest, because it seems obvious to me that such a system would dramatically slow down the game. The fact that the 1.5 system requires any extra work would, to my mind, require that it actually added something to the game that made that work worthwhile. Personally I can see zero benefit, except satisfying someone's feeling of geometric incorrectness.

I generally prefer 1:1, the thing that does bug me is it's a little less intuitive to design maps. If you have a large room with an obstacle in the middle, it's probably not an obstacle at all since the PCs can go around it. Also, you can't have scattered squares of obstructed squares, since the PCs can just dodge around them--any difficult terrain has to be fairly large blocks.

I made a room where various items were scattered on the floor and they were meant to obstruct movement in the room, but everyone just zigged and zagged around the room with no difficulty.

 

[HighTemplar]

Haha this thread is funny.
I'm a physics Ph.D student and I couldn't tolerate 1:1 movement

I didnt like 1-2-1-2 real much either because my players were always playing smart with the smarter monsters which I dont have time to lose to anticpate their future movements.

So we're actually playing 2-1-2-1 and the resulting equidistant curves really are very close to circular. Plus noone can shift diagonnally.

My battles are very strategy bases and so this becomse important. Anyways none cares about firecubeballs ^^

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I generally prefer 1:1, the thing that does bug me is it's a little less intuitive to design maps. If you have a large room with an obstacle in the middle, it's probably not an obstacle at all since the PCs can go around it. Also, you can't have scattered squares of obstructed squares, since the PCs can just dodge around them--any difficult terrain has to be fairly large blocks.

I made a room where various items were scattered on the floor and they were meant to obstruct movement in the room, but everyone just zigged and zagged around the room with no difficulty.

That would be the main downside. Movement around obstacles in large room become a bit bizarre.

Rather than using obstacles painted along the gridlines, I would suggest drawing them along diagonals. Diagonal obstacles will behave closer to what you would intuitively expect.

 

[jbear]

I generally prefer 1:1, the thing that does bug me is it's a little less intuitive to design maps. If you have a large room with an obstacle in the middle, it's probably not an obstacle at all since the PCs can go around it. Also, you can't have scattered squares of obstructed squares, since the PCs can just dodge around them--any difficult terrain has to be fairly large blocks.

I made a room where various items were scattered on the floor and they were meant to obstruct movement in the room, but everyone just zigged and zagged around the room with no difficulty.

My understanding was that you cant do a diagonal move through corners, and I applied this to objects as well. So if there was a 2x4 sarcophagus in front of you, you have to step to the side of it and move forward, no cutting corners. If it was a large one square crate I imagined it would be the same, no cutting corners through them either, at least not without an athletics check or acrobacy to nimbly leap over it. Anyway, maybe I have misinterpreted that rule but that's how I'm personally dealing with objects in a room, the same as corners of a wall.

 

[Bleoberis De Ganis]

Yay! I finally get to rail against the whole generalizations thing!

<-- Math major

No insult or generalization intended. I actually like maths and really love physics, but I also really love logical thought (philosophy) and it comes down to a balance - a ratio of effort to reward. I see very little reward for the effort of any other system than a simple 1:1.

In fact, when posting on the WOTC boards way before 4E came out, I was pushing strongly for 1:1 and expressing movement in squares because the overly complicated movement/distance rules were a pain. It isn't difficult to convert from squares to feet and it will very rarely, if ever, come up.

One thing I keep meaning to mention - a character, when moving, isn't just moving from one place to another at a specific speed. They are waiting for the right moment to do so. They have a lag between deciding to move, or realizing they should move, and actually moving. They will be moving at various speeds throughout the move sequence, pausing, walking (perhaps while rifling though their bags), jogging out of the way of an oncoming arrow, sprinting sideways out of the way of a falling rock or a flash of fire. 1:1 is the least of the problems of movement to a simulationist.

There is almost absolutley no benefit using any other system than a 1:1. It is a strong logic thing as much as a lazy or stupid thing. D&D, and all PnP RPGs, are very abstract. Worrying about 1.2.1 and all that isn't going to help. In fact the inconsistancies of the 1:1 add an element of movement randomness that can help take into account the varying speeds I have expressed above, so from a simulationist viewpoint you could say it is a more accurate model.

 

[darkadelphia]

My understanding was that you cant do a diagonal move through corners, and I applied this to objects as well. So if there was a 2x4 sarcophagus in front of you, you have to step to the side of it and move forward, no cutting corners. If it was a large one square crate I imagined it would be the same, no cutting corners through them either, at least not without an athletics check or acrobacy to nimbly leap over it. Anyway, maybe I have misinterpreted that rule but that's how I'm personally dealing with objects in a room, the same as corners of a wall.

Right, the specific circumstances was that there was an armory with gear scattered on the floor--weapons, shields, etc.--things that it would be hard to convince the players they couldn't cut the corner on