Diagonal Movement - Better or Worse?

[balard]

As a DM and as a player, I didn't have any problems with 1 : 2 : 1, and I was also pretty upset with the new 1 : 1 : 1. But with the fisrt session i DMed i never thought again in the now ugly and weird 1 : 2 : 1. It really speeds up play.

Im a convert. Now I see the ways of 1 : 1 : 1.

 

[Thanee]

I prefer the 1.5 (1-2-1-2) distances, and so do all the others I know, so that's how we (still) play it.

Bye
Thanee

 

[fba827]

I like the concept of diagonals costing more movement squares. But, personally, it ends up being more trouble than it's worth.

And, even personal opinion aside, our group's game time is limited -- we meet maybe once a month on average. We don't have time to evaluate and form a concensus on everything. So simplicity often wins out for the group as a whole as well.

 

[eamon]

If I were to change to 1:1.5 or to hexes I'd take the time to work out alternate shaped for blasts and busts such that the area remains the same, and work out alternate movement speeds such that the potential number of sqaures reached remains roughly same.

I like "realism", but I don't feel this particular enhancement is really worth the bother, however. Both counting methods are inaccurate, and the discrete distinction between difficult terrain and non-difficult terrain is quite inaccurate, and the similarity in speed between characters is a little off, and the relative irrelevance of heavy armor is a bit off...

It's unfortunate, and if you can think of a better system at no cost to complexity, that'd be great. Otherwise, it's a trade-off of believability and consistency vs. simplicity. If you want to change the details of that trade-off, you're automatically losing a lot - to be fair, you'd need to rebalance large sections of the game.

For example, even if you adjust speeds and areas such that they cover the same number of (possible) squares, you'll still need to deal will pulls and pushes - they'll now permit many more odd paths if you use the same rules. You'll need to address charging, which will be much less flexible than it currently is. I bet there are more things, and then you'll be left with indirect consequences - what do you do to classes that do a lot of movement, or have a lot of area effects, or that do a lot of charging, or pushing or pulling if each of these basic effects has been rebalanced?

So I think it's doable, but it's a serious undertaking if you want to change the distance counting measure. If you change the measure because it's "more accurate" but then fail to look at all the consequences and potentially adjust those, you're buying fake accuracy with a dash of unbalancing game breakage for your time investment...

Having said that, if you do systematically look at the consequences, I'd be very curious to see the analysis posted. Good gaming, anyhow!

 

[Thanee]

I think it has absolutely no notable effect on game balance, really.

Bye
Thanee

 

[RigaMortus2]

To those that prefer 1-2-1 diagonal movement...

Lets say on Round 1 you move three squares diagonally, costing you 1, 2, 1. You stop and attack your foe. On Round 2, you continue to move diagonally. Does the starting move cost you 2 (since that would be next in line) or does it reset to 1, since it is the beginning of your movement for the next round?

If you say that it would cost you 2 squares, then don't you think that could be a little bit difficult to remember than just starting back at 1 movement? When you have to wait a whole rounds worth of people's actions and interruptions before it gets back to you?

If you say that it would reset and start back as costing 1 square of movement, then doesn't that counter the "suspension of disbelief" arguement? If you argue that 1-2-1 is more "realistic" mathematically, then you should technically count the next diagonal as 2 (not 1), right?

Edit: FWIW, in 3E we would reset the count back to 1 square...

 

[The Little Raven]

Likewise a pillar in your way has no impact on distance you can move with 1-cost diagonals.

I take it you haven't read the rules for obstacles on page 284 of the PHB, where it explicitly states that an obstacle which fills a square prevents you from entering that square and moving diagonally across the corner of that square.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

To those that prefer 1-2-1 diagonal movement...

Lets say on Round 1 you move three squares diagonally, costing you 1, 2, 1. You stop and attack your foe. On Round 2, you continue to move diagonally. Does the starting move cost you 2 (since that would be next in line) or does it reset to 1, since it is the beginning of your movement for the next round?

No, no, no! You should really track this in proper and precise Cartesian coordinates.

Movement would be (0.707, 0.707), (1.412, 1.412), (2.121, 2.121), etc.

Now your question never comes up. Only the slovenly make silly approximations like you suggest!!!

In all seriousness, there main advantage of the "realistic" movement options is that you eliminate the possibility of bizarre-looking paths around some tactical obstacles. Getting it "right" down to the half square from round to round is of minuscule benefit towards this end, and unlikely to be worth the added bookkeeping.

 

[Walknot]

Point for DM's who use the 1 diagonal = 1 square of movement rule: To change it up for your players, if you draw or print out your own maps, then you might consider rotating the grid 45 degrees.

In a "typical" encounter with the good guys on one side and bad guys on the other side, if you re-align by 45degrees, then you will see some interesting effects for movement.

With the 1=1 rule, and when the overall axis is aligned with the straight sides, a group naturally fans out into a line. But re-align the axis to the diagonals, and you naturally fan out into a wedge. This makes flanking take an extra round. An object in the center divides the group. Etcetera...

 

[Danceofmasks]

You could also dispense with a grid entirely.
Stick some transparent circles under the minis ..
Use string to plot out movement and measure range.

But 1:1 is the fastest.

Not only that, if we accept that everything in D&D works in 1:1, then the characters wouldn't see anything strange about it.
It's just the way space works for them.