Squares make for very ugly circular rooms and diagonal corridors in dungeons. You're almost forced to end up with lots of partial squares laying around.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Diagonal Movement - Better or Worse?
- Thread starter vhailor
- Start date
Squares make for very ugly circular rooms and diagonal corridors in dungeons. You're almost forced to end up with lots of partial squares laying around.
James McMurray
First Post
True, but IMX straight lines along the axis are more common than curves and diagonals both in real life and dungeon architecture. Especially dungeon architecture I draw on a square mat. 
I'll never try drawing a dungeon on a hex grid again, whereas I don't mind the sacrifices needed to make a decent square map. Although I supposed if I was designing some sort of giant bee hive it'd be perfect, and would give me an excuse to unwrap that hex mat.
Besides, you can't fit a circle on a hex map without leaving partials either.
I'll never try drawing a dungeon on a hex grid again, whereas I don't mind the sacrifices needed to make a decent square map. Although I supposed if I was designing some sort of giant bee hive it'd be perfect, and would give me an excuse to unwrap that hex mat.
Besides, you can't fit a circle on a hex map without leaving partials either.
When I go back to DMing, I will be using hexes. The reason is that I can basically ignore room edges completely. I'll just draw the room. If it is oval, it's oval. Diagonal to another room, diagonal. Square, square. Irregular, irregular.
Hexes have several advantages here over squares (although you can do the same irregular drawing with squares):
1) Obstacles are obstacles once again. It takes more movement to move around a one hex (or larger sized) obstacle than it does if the obstacle did not exist.
2) I use a 1/3rd hex rule. If it is 1/3rd or less, it's unusable. If it's 2/3rds or less, it's a squeeze. If it's more than 2/3rds, it's usable normally. I find that it is easier to visualize whether a hex is in one of these 3 states than a square, basically because a hex is closer to a circle than a square. And if a room edge is drawn near the edge of a hex or through the middle, it's crystal clear.
3) A PC that is flanked diagonally with squares can shift one square and be 10 feet away from both opponents. This does not happen with a PC flanked orthogonally with squares or a PC flanked in a hex system. I don't prefer the same action having different results based on grid orientation.
As a DM, I also don't like the concept of being forced to create dungeons that are all 90 degrees and all with room and corridor dimensions with exact multiples of 5 feet. I like irregular shaped and sized caves and corridors. Hexes allows me to do that easier than squares (IMO, YMMV).
James McMurray
First Post
Squares don't force you to make 90 degree angles, it's just easier. I don't think I've ever drawn (or possibly seen) a map (except perhaps for a small apartment) that had no cuves or diagonals on it.
Skyscraper
Explorer
Since everyone is throwing academic backgrounds around...
I did mechanical engineering. There is a concept when you make a product that is called tolerance. Tolerance is how precise you need to be when you cut, say, a flat surface on a metallic cube. If you have a tolerance of 0,001 millemeter on a surface, then that surface's distance from a reference baseline must not vary of more than 0,001 mm.
Now if you have two interacting surfaces on moving parts A, B and moving part A surface has a tolerance of 0,001 mm while the moving part B surface has a tolerance of 0,1 mm, then moving part A is uselessly precise in that the imprecisions in moving part B will by far overwhelm those of moving part A. In other words, if you have bumps of 0,1 mm on the moving part B surface, those will be 100 times larger than the largest bumps on the moving part A. You'll not even notice those of mocing part A.
Likewise, D&D has many approximations. Diagonal 1:1 movement is one of them. IMO, other approximations influence the game much more than diagonal 1:1 movement. Obvious examples are hit points, damage from weapons, healing, heck it's clear that D&D is not a simulation by any means. I think that refusing to use 1:1 diagonal, while acceptable if it rocks your boat, is being uselessly precise about something that will not change the final product you have since the other approximations are much more important.
Sky
I did mechanical engineering. There is a concept when you make a product that is called tolerance. Tolerance is how precise you need to be when you cut, say, a flat surface on a metallic cube. If you have a tolerance of 0,001 millemeter on a surface, then that surface's distance from a reference baseline must not vary of more than 0,001 mm.
Now if you have two interacting surfaces on moving parts A, B and moving part A surface has a tolerance of 0,001 mm while the moving part B surface has a tolerance of 0,1 mm, then moving part A is uselessly precise in that the imprecisions in moving part B will by far overwhelm those of moving part A. In other words, if you have bumps of 0,1 mm on the moving part B surface, those will be 100 times larger than the largest bumps on the moving part A. You'll not even notice those of mocing part A.
Likewise, D&D has many approximations. Diagonal 1:1 movement is one of them. IMO, other approximations influence the game much more than diagonal 1:1 movement. Obvious examples are hit points, damage from weapons, healing, heck it's clear that D&D is not a simulation by any means. I think that refusing to use 1:1 diagonal, while acceptable if it rocks your boat, is being uselessly precise about something that will not change the final product you have since the other approximations are much more important.
Sky
I hated the diagonal rules from 3.X
The only real result was that it took longer to move for counting out movement if a player is plotting their route.
There are so many things in 4ed that are in 'just because' to make it go quicker and smoother.
Why can a fighter only do a certain sword swing once every 8 hours. Just because.
I fully agree with Skyscraper. Some things will cause more work and headache then the effort will give you.
The only real result was that it took longer to move for counting out movement if a player is plotting their route.
There are so many things in 4ed that are in 'just because' to make it go quicker and smoother.
Why can a fighter only do a certain sword swing once every 8 hours. Just because.
I fully agree with Skyscraper. Some things will cause more work and headache then the effort will give you.
It is funny how 4E is supposed to be a more "mobile" game where movement and positioning matter more, then at the same time it makes obstacles and creatures trivial to circumvent with no penalty. Going from 2 squares in front of a fighter to two squares behind without going through any adjacent squares costs 8 squares of movement with 1.5 diagonals and a mere 6 with 1. Likewise a pillar in your way has no impact on distance you can move with 1-cost diagonals.
1, and I was also pretty upset with the new 1
1. But with the fisrt session i DMed i never thought again in the now ugly and weird 1
Obryn
Hero
It absolutely is a mobile game where movement and positioning matter more.
Because there is more movement per round, and because there are vastly more ranged and area effects, the developers also decided to simplify the range- and area-counting. It's a tradeoff, sure, but a smart one in context.
As for the pillar... Because ranged combat happens so much more often, that pillar is still critical for line-of-sight and cover purposes. But if you want to slow people down, you need more than a single pillar or a single fighter standing in the middle of a wide open room.
-O
