Diagonal wonkiness scenarios

[baberg]

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.

Now ask yourself, what effect does this have on gameplay? If they all charge towards you with Move 10, assuming you allow diagonal attacks, you'll get hit 3 times. It's the same that would have happened with 1-2-1 diagonal movement. The other 8 soldiers would bunch up behind the initial three, again, just like they would in 1-2-1 (although admittedly the 1-2-1 would probably be a bit more spaced out). But since your character can move diagonally too you can escape just as quickly as they can advance.

I see the logic problems with going to 1-1-1 diagonal movement. I see that some people will say "Hey, that's not how real life works!" But I can also see that WotC is trying to move towards the gameplay side of equilibrium and let's face it, 1-2-1 can get pretty confusing especially when you have a cone going out at a 45 degree angle.

 

[Li Shenron]

Perhaps it won't even be a problem of believability, but just one more reason for other people to think we're nerds.

"You play D&D? Ah the game whose players can't see the difference in length between a straight line and a diagonal!"

 

[Jack99]

Perhaps it won't even be a problem of believability, but just one more reason for other people to think we're nerds.

"You play D&D? Ah the game whose players can't see the difference in length between a straight line and a diagonal!"

If anyone says that, it just shows they are gamers (nerds) themselves. No sane normal person would know this, unless they are into gaming, in which case, they would be neither sane nor normal

 

[hong]

I think a major component of the problem is that people imagine the world to be laid out on a grid. The observable portions appear only during combat, but the grid is assumed to underlie everything. If you remove the universal grid, it becomes much easier to accept it as a temporary convenience.


Hong "think of it as phlogiston" Ooi

 

[Nightchilde-2]

You, too, eh?

I think the real question here is not the boobs, but rather...do they have nipples?

As for 1-1 vs. 1-2-1...I couldn't care less. I was always having to remind people of the 1-2-1 rule and the fewer things I have to remind people about in-game, the better, IMHO.

 

[Mr Jack]

I never liked 1-2-1, but my concern with 1-1-1 is that it makes circuitous paths much easier to use and thus battlefield control and hazards less useful. I'd consider a houserule that players moving more than their base move must take the straightest route available to them.

It's an abuse stopping problem, basically.

 

[delericho]

I was playing with my battlemat last weekend (no euphamism's please!) and have to begrudgingly admit... that it really won't make that much difference. How many times in a game does an all-diagonal move come up? How many times can that all diagonal move still get you where you want to go?

On Saturday, I was running a group through a one-shot adventure, using the Lizardfolk lair map from the MMIV, and in his first action in the forst round of combat, the group Fighter wanted to charge across the room to enter melee with the enemy. However, after eyeballing the map, the player decided he didn't have the movement required to do this, so did something else.

Funnily enough, under 1-2-1-2, he would have missed the target by 2 squares. Under 1-1-1-1, he had enough move to reach his target. (Unfortunately, had he attempted the charge, he would also have fallen in one of the (moved) pit traps in the room.)

In the third round of the same combat, the Elven Duskblade of the group decided to jump diagonally across one of the pit traps. He had a 3-square diagonal run, followed by a 2-square diagonal jump (15 foot running jump: DC 15). Under 1-1-1-1 movement, the same jump would have been DC 20 (2 square standing jump). Given the character's +9 Jump modifier and the player's roll of 8, the difference was rather significant.

It should be noted that these were the only two instances where the difference between 1-2-1-2 and 1-1-1-1 would have made a difference, out of six hours of play.

 

[Zander]

I've already decided to table-rule movement so that diagonals cost 1.5. Unlike 1-2-1, you don't need to keep track of the number of diagonals taken. You just keep a running (no pun intended) total. As with the rest of 4E, total movement halves are rounded down, e.g. 6.5 squares (2 orthogonals + 3 diagonals) is rounded down to 6.

 

[Dausuul]

My personal wonkiness is movement and cover on diagonals, because unlike the other places they treat diagonals differently.

Picture a wall running N to S. Two minis adjacent to each other next to the wall. No cover. One could move into the other's square (if that was allowed) for 1 square of movement.

Turn the picture 45 degrees. The wall is now a diagonal running NE to SW. (Or NW to SE, doesn't matter.) The impassible squares of the wall now grant cover (according to the DDM rule book). And you can't move directly to them you need to go "around the corner" so it's 2 squares of movement. (Also according to the DDM rulebook.) The DDM rulebook even has an illustration of just this case (the diagonal wall).

That would be horrifically stupid, if true. However, take a closer look at that diagram. You'll see that the sellsword actually does have a good claim to have cover from the yuan-ti; the wall ends before it gets to him, and he's partially sheltered behind the end of it.

The dwarf is in the same position as the sellsword, except that he doesn't have the end of the wall to hide behind. And, consequently, the dwarf does not have cover. That's the whole point of the example.

 

[nolifeking]

This is one of the very few things I don't like about 4e right now. I'm considering other things to try, though I will try the 1-1-1 first and see if it will actually be a problem. If it is, I'll probly try a hex grid or go back to 1-2-1.