Diagonal wonkiness scenarios

[Will]

The look on my players' faces when a monster uses wonkiness to sidestep some logical formation they've set up will be priceless.

So will their abandoning of ever attempting to imagine the gamemap again.

 

[Kobu]

Fallacious argument since swiping the painting would be a standard action--an action the non-looting character could be using to move farther into the next room.

No, a minor action. Variably the character could open or shut a door, flip a switch, light a wall hanging on fire with a torch, or take any number of actions that fall under the minor category.

Easily minimized if not outright eliminated by making the area of poisonous plants a little larger or repositioning it slightly.

It limits the DMs design options. The poison area has to be close enough or wide enough so that diagonals do not let them make a diamond path around it for free as they approach. In a smaller area, the DM will have less to work with. For example, say kobolds have dumped a bunch of caltrops all over the center of a 7x7 room. They are shooting from behind the caltrops expecting them to slow down the adventurers. A character with a 6 move starting at the bottom center of the room can bounce off either wall and be next to the kobolds for a standard action with no impedance at all. As a DM, I have to throw out the room I built and make it bigger with more caltrops to accommodate diagonal movement.

Neither of these "proves" anything we don't all already know--1:1 diagonals are marginally less realistic than 1:2 diagonals. Nobody has ever argued anything differently--but both of these scenaqrios can easily be mitigated simply by the DM designing dungeons with the 4E movement rules in mind and adjusting differences accordingly.

That is my point. The DM has to design with diagonals in mind all the time. Certain layouts will be taken advantage of otherwise, and maps converted from earlier editions might have major flaws in them.

I think you're drasticvally overestimating the effect of 1:1 diagonal movement, and that's speaking as someone who has many, many years experience playing variou editions of D&D using both 11 and 1:1 rules for diagonals. A typical character gets about 2 extra squares per move action--hardly game-breaking.

They get the same number of squares--actual distance gets warped.

 

[hong]

That is my point. The DM has to design with diagonals in mind all the time. Certain layouts will be taken advantage of otherwise, and maps converted from earlier editions might have major flaws in them.

The DM is the one who decides when the battlemat is used. Therefore the DM is the one who knows when to accommodate the diagonal abstraction, and when it can be ignored.

 

[AZRogue]

I'll give the 1:1 a shot. I can't promise more than that. My players have stated that they don't care, which is comforting, even if it means that I'm the only anal one in the group. :/

 

[Blackrat]

Hmm, all these diagonal threads have managed to convince me that ultimately, my way is the best way .

 

[kuonji]

I look at it this way, with all the abilities/spells/items in 3.5 that grant fast movement, flight, teleportation, etc., (not to mention tumble) was it ever really that hard to get from point A to point B while avoiding "bad stuff" (traps, monsters, whatever) in one move in the first place? At low level, yes, but after about level 5 it's not particularly difficult to get around the battle mat while dodging trouble. I don't think the diagonal movement rules will make that much difference, but I'm also prepared to be wrong and go back the the 1-2-1 movement.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

When it comes to pulling off fine tuned tactics, such as these, it is far more likely for the players to outscore the DM than the other way around.

The DM has one brain, typically with 3-6 NPCs to mind. Each of your players has exactly one PC, and often nothing better to with their time than to do than to optimize movement around static barriers.

 

[Cadfan]

Alright, now we all know that diagonal movements cost the same.

*takes map of brigand hideout with brigands escorting prisoners and PCs approaching on an orthagonal with poisonous plants in the way*

*edits so that PCs are approaching on a diagonal with poisonous plants in the way*

 

[el-remmen]

As someone who uses terrain and encounter environment to make battles more fun and memorable (and challenging) the 1-1-1 diagonal thing would be the first thing I house-ruled if I were to run 4E. But I would also be houseruling the cover rules to have various levels of cover, penalties for firing squares where allies provide cover for the bad guys due to positioning, and add a chance to "hit friend" in those situations.

 

[Will]

Kuonji:
The TT campaign I'm in, with 9th level gestalt characters, movement is still vitally important. We might have a lot of it, but knowing when (and where) we can charge, single moves, reach... there have been plenty of times when we come 5' short of where we want to go, or have to figure out (even with Haste!) how to wind through enemies without taking AoOs.

What bothers me is that glancing at a battlemap will no longer give me an easy 'what's going on.'

For example, if you are 50' from a straight front of soldiers, all side-by-side? With 1-1-1, you are equidistant to 11 of them. So... I guess it's sort of like they are actually in an arc in front of you.

Except, there's your ally, 50' from them the other way. Also equidistant from 11 guys in a line. So it's like they are in an arc in front of him, curving the other way...

It makes me feel like I'm staring at Special Relativity.