Diagonal Movement - Better or Worse?

[WalterKovacs]

The 1-1-1 is a bit faster, overall. Movement is one thing, but finding blast/burst areas is very easy ... and when you add in 3 dimentional movement or calculations [flying creatures, and things in pits]. Being able to use a cube instead of a sphere or cone makes things easier.

 

[Creamsteak]

This thread reminded me of the 'fake-hex' grid that was posted some months ago when the topic came up. Essentially, it's a normal grid where every second row is off 1/2 square. It gives you a fairly normal grid, while still having every square adjacent to six squares instead of 8. It acts just like a hex grid, but the lines are easier to understand.

I forget if they actually made a flip-mat like that. I might buy one just for novelties sake if I can find it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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

Well, first up: how difficult do you really think such a place would be to navigate? If it's an amount such that you don't have enough to make every 2m square in the area difficult terrain, do you really think it should make any difference at all?

Imagine you're walking across the floor where 50% of it is unimpeded 2m squares. Do you really think it would cut you down to half speed?

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Yes, so they have a special rule that works in a few special circumstances, but does not always address the issue. For example:

. b .
. x .
. a .

It takes 4 moves for a to get to b. x is an obstacle because of the special rule.

. . b . .
. . . . .
. . x . .
. . . . .
. . a . .

It takes 4 moves for a to get to b. x is not an obstacle. Although the distance is double, the number of squares required is identical to the first example.

. . . . b
. . . . .
. . x . .
. . . . .
a . . . .

It takes 6 moves for a to get to b. x is an obstacle. The special rule increases the obstacle by 1 (6 moves instead of 5).

Obstacles really do not exist for long range orthogonal movement unless the DM puts in a lot of obstacles close to each other so that the special rule can come into play.

 

[malraux]

One of my players pointed out an odd effect of the 1:1 movement. Suddenly every square room is now round, as the walls are equidistant from the center.

Really though, I found just enough occations with the 1:2 movement wherein you had to count several times to optimize a path that I think the 1:1 movement is worth it. That said, I've got some outdoor encounters coming up, I think I'll flip my battle mat over to the hex side just to see how it works out.

 

[keterys]

One of my players pointed out an odd effect of the 1:1 movement. Suddenly every square room is now round, as the walls are equidistant from the center.

Nah, they're still square. For purposes of the combat you're just not sweating the fractions enough to care.

There are an awful lot of places where you do that - you don't track fractional damage/hp, ranges, bonuses, etc.

I mean - it would certainly be more realistic to have a running tally "-.2 because you've got mud on your shoes, -.2 cause you moved and you're on gravel, -.1 because your stomach is upset, -.3 because you're _slightly_ stunned by that hit you just took, and -.2 because it's your fourth encounter so you're getting tired, etc"

Remember, your characters aren't looking down on a gameboard twiddling thumbs waiting for their turn to be able to act. There is no initiative. There is no 'I can move exactly 6 squares'. They're moving back and forth constantly, in an active heroic combat. The rules just help you get there, but visualize how it makes sense as a story and you'll be better off.

 

[Nail]

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

Yep.

I thought I would hate 4e's "square circles". (Heck, I still have 3.xe's wire circle templates). I thought the diagonal movement would be noticibly unrealistic.

Turns out, the ease of the new diagonal counting VASTLY out-weighs the downsides. It's just much better.

 

[The Little Raven]

Obstacles really do not exist for long range orthogonal movement unless the DM puts in a lot of obstacles close to each other so that the special rule can come into play.

So, an obstacle isn't useful unless the DM sets it up to be a useful obstacle, such as placing enemies, traps, hazards, or other obstacles in a manner that makes the obstacle an impediment to movement?

A column in the middle of an empty room isn't really an impediment if there's no reason for me not to easily give it a wide berth... and that applies in-game as well as in real life.

 

[KarinsDad]

A column in the middle of an empty room isn't really an impediment if there's no reason for me not to easily give it a wide berth... and that applies in-game as well as in real life.

Who said anything about an empty room?

It's an obstacle for long range diagonal movement, but not long range orthagonal movement.

Your point?

 

[FireLance]

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...

We go back to starting at 1 square. Making the even diagonals cost two squares is merely a way of approximating how far you have moved in that round. If you can move six squares with a move action, you can move up to four squares diagonally. As long as you have moved less than that, you don't have to worry about counting the next diagonal as 2.

The only case where it might be an issue is for a very slow-moving creature (1 square or 2 squares of movement) moving diagonally, and that would not come up often in play.