Diagonal Movement - Better or Worse?

[Umbran]

There's a lot of suggestions of, "if you don't like doing it my way, then you're stupid," going on in here, as if the choice cannot be a matter of convenience or personal preference. Such insults are not appropriate for these forums.

Next person to make such a suggestion can expect to be given a vacation without warning.

If you want to discuss why, please take to e-mail with one of the mods - our addresses are in a post stickied to the top of the Meta forum.

 

[Henry]

Speaking as someone who was speaking out against the 1:1 diagonal thing prior to trying it, it DOES speed up table actions among our group dramatically, as does the simplified spell areas. Our group has actually resorted to homemade templates for cones, circles, etc. in the manner of the Steel Squire templates prior to 4e -- and we still use them for our 3e games. For the 4e games, we've dropped a LOT of the play aids that we picked up over the years because in 4e there's no need for them.

As for changing the table realities too much, I have found that it's made very little difference. People talk about the problem of moving further on diagonals, but I realized in most cases that it really doesn't matter on a battlemat. You've moved further diagonally -- what does it matter if your target is directly north or east of you? You'd still need to move horizontally to get back to your destination, anyway. The only time it does matter is when your goal is diagonal to you, and doesn't make more than 1 or 2 squares difference per move.

 

[El Mahdi]

I run a houseruled 3.5E game, but I don't like the 3E or the 4E model for diagonal movement. I took a page from the wargamers' books and use cloth ribbons, cut into 6" lengths with marks every inch, and use them on my 1" square battlemat - characters stop in the square the end of the ribbon lies in. This allows characters to not only move the same distance for straight and diagonal moves, but also allows non-linear movement (i.e.: zig-zag movement, curved movement, etc.) that is equal in length. I've been using it with my current group of 2 (one has played for a few years, the other is a brand new rookie) and it works great (both for the players and for NPC's/Monsters).

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I play with the rules as written in 4e and no-one's cared so far, or mentioned it at all. I'd suggest sticking with it - particularly in regards to Push/Pull/Slide powers.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I prefer hexes or 1.5 diagonals. Personal taste.

But I certainly do believe that 1:1 grid is better for most people most of the time. Size matters. The more confined the space, the more convenient 1:1 is and the less the distortion matters.

When you are fighting in a 10' corridor, using 1:1 is almost purely advantageous -- a little zigzagging is just not an issue in such a restricted area, and I cannot see how a hex grid would be any help.

IME the majority of D&D combats are in space where 1:1 works well enough.

The real downside of 1:1 is in large areas with interesting terrain. Then zooming around diagonally bizarrely distorts obstacles.

 

[My Lego]

Our group settled for flat hexes or brick shaped squares. Works great in most cases, we even got our blasts and burst in shape. The hardest part of of hexes is how many squares a large creature is going to take (a triangle).

 

[SteveC]

I'd say that Henry has the right of it: diagonals seemed like they would be a huge issue at our table, and a couple of the players really got into how horrible this rule sounded.

Once we started playing, not a peep. I'd recommend everyone actually try the rules first before getting too upset at them.

--Steve

 

[Sebby]

I can relate to anyone who's geometrically bothered by the 1:1 move rule. I thought it was unnecessary and excessive simplification, did not believe the "it's faster" arguments, and thought it would cause so much glaring weirdness it would be impossible not to notice and get used to.

I participated in debates, mainly on Wizard's forums. With other posters I did lots of maths, not so much because this 1:1 vs. 1:1.5 thing is serious buisness, but because I like doing math, and defended it. Because I make it a point to always allow for the possibility that I may be wrong in any debate I participate in, I said I would try 1:1 before deciding if we should go back to 1:1.5. Can't base a whole argument on science* without doing all the science, and that includes the experimentation.

And now that we've tried it?

1) We did not notice the weirdness;
2) In the various maps we've had fights on, we almost never did any long diagonal moves, the kind of moves that would have had the largest error vs. 1:1.5 or correct euclidian movement;
3) It did speed up play a bit because there's never any recount. I can't say how much time is gained, though, as other changes from 3.5e to 4e also contributes to the speed-up;
4) No one had problems adapting;

I don't think 1:1 is better, but it's disadvantages are far less than I had anticipated, so small in fact as to be unnoticeable. Now I think it's not an issue worth losing any sleep over. I might change my mind again as we start using large AoE attacks that are too obviously square, but for now, 1:1 is fine.

So, I suggest you give it a try before deciding, like I and many here have done. Right now, you're convinced it's a stupid rule, and I completely understand you. Try it, and then you'll know, one way or the other.


*Can you believe it? "The science of D&D movement." That sounds so silly now.

 

[jbear]

As a DM teaching a group of friends who had never played role before the 1:1 system is wonderful. I was introducing them to dnd 3.5 when 4th edition was announced. They all much prefer the simplified 1:1 system and I think there is enough in the game for them to wrap there head around as it is. We all just play dnd to get together and have a good time, and everyone is really enjoying 4th edition. Must admit there are no mathematicians in the group, but I have a good friend who now has a phd in some kind of hard core maths who once tried to explain that it was possible to prove 1+1 does not equal 2 so... 1:1 is cool with me

 

[Asmor]

Oh, just one more bit of anecdotal evidence...

My biggest issue was the worry that monsters and PCs alike could heedlessly charge past the frontline and attack the squishies directly.

For a lot of reasons, that is not often the case and when it is the defender is still able to do his job thanks to marking. Even if the mooks are next to the cleric, they gotta think twice before attacking him over the fighter.

So basically my biggest problem with this from a gamist standpoint turned out to be a non-issue.