Diagonal wonkiness scenarios

[Ourph]

So then, that means a few things. One, where is my real straight line then? If that wasn't a straight line, there must be a shorter path that neither of those people took. Where is it?

It doesn't exist according to the rules of the battlemat universe. Both people took the shortest possible path.

Why can't I take it?

You can't take it because, according to the rules of the game, it doesn't exist. It's the same reason you can't go directly from Baltic Avenue to Marvin Gardens in Monopoly, the rules don't allow it.

Also, iif I have a spell that shoots in a straight line, it won't shoot in a straight line on the battlemap?

The spell travels along the path specified by the rules, which is a straight line, as seen by you, when mapped onto the battlemat. The fact that it isn't actually a straight line according to battlemat geometry doesn't make any difference in any meaningful way. The rules tell you how your spell acts, that's all you really need to know, isn't it?

I'm thinking even the other pro 1-1-1-1-1 people wouldn't want to wrap their heads around a straight line not being straight. If that doesn't make your head explode and 1-2-1-2-1 does, your brain is wired very differently from mine (admittedly possible)

It's not necessary to wrap your head around it, because ultimately, as long as you are following the rules, understanding the concept isn't necessary in order to use the rule appropriately. In fact, 1-1-1 diagonal movement is really quite easy to implement as a game rule. At least as easy as following any other rule of the game and easier than using the 1-2-1-2 rule for a lot of people. Worrying about and explaining the discrepancies between gameworld and battlemat geometry might be a fun discussion to have, but it certainly isn't necessary in order to play the game.

 

[Ourph]

That valid asumption is invalidated by the way they handle Area effects. There's no movement there. No erractic non-straight movement. In spell areas all you get is: "Diagonal = Orthogonal. Deal with it!"

Area effects are handled by the squares into circles phenomenon. Any square on the battlemat, when translated into realworld geometry, becomes a circle.

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

Stuff

You just ruined your case with your "That's the bottom line, 'cause The Rulez say so"

We KNOW the rules say so. If you didn't notice, we are discusing if what the rules say is right or wrong or logical or ilogical or wonky... etc.

 

[SlagMortar]

I said it violates the triangle inequality in Euclidian spaces.

Thanks for the clarification. I've never heard of using a distance metric from one space in another space, so I'll have to claim ignorance on that. I'd be curious to know more about that, but this is probably the wrong forum.

According to wikipedia, Minkowski space (which I admittedly just heard of) does violate the triangle inequality for its own distance function. As such, I'd say Euclidean space is more similar (abusing terminology) to Chebyshev space than Minkowski space so saying one needs a Minkowski space to accurately represent 4E movement overstated your position.

Thanks for the tangent.

To bring myself back on topic, I have not seen it brought up yet that if there is a situation with a fighter protecting a wizard:
wizard - fighter -------------------------------------enemy
And the fighter moves toward the enemy but can only get half way.
wizard -------------------fighter-------------------enemy
Then the fighter has actually moved himself father away from some of the shortest paths the enemy could take to the wizard. This can happen a little in 1-2-1-2 as well, but is much less common and harder to come by.

 

[Ourph]

You just ruined your case with your "That's the bottom line, 'cause The Rulez say so"

We KNOW the rules say so. If you didn't notice, we are discusing if what the rules say is right or wrong or logical or ilogical or wonky... etc.

That's not what I wrote, let me see if I can be clearer. The rules of the game define the physics of the battlemat universe. Those physics don't match up with the gameworld or the realworld, but they are perfectly functional for adjudicating the game accurately and they are perfectly internally consistent.

Are the rules right? I'm not sure what criteria you would use to answer this. The rules don't model the real or imagined world on a 1:1 basis. If that's what you want, then the rules are wrong. However, it's worth it to note that the 1-2-1-2 rules of 3.5 are also wrong.

Are the rules logical? Yes. The rules, as far as we know them, are pefectly internally consistent. Applying them will not lead you to a fallacious result or a paradoxical situation during gameplay.

Are the rules wonky? Yes. The battlemat universe isn't consistent with realworld geometry or any other postulated geometry, but if you apply them correctly they produce consistent results, which is all that's really necessary for a set of game rules IMO.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Ehhhh, not quite. The way you describe this makes me think you don't know what the triangle inequality is. Just in case, the triangle inequality is not some bad thing that can 'appear'--it's a good guy and we want to have it (4E violates it):

You're right, I didn't before I saw it in your post. I Wiki'd it and misread the first line... rushed because I was at work, doh!

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Exactly. However, the thing to note is that there can be appropriate triangle inequalities within the "battlemat geometry", there's just no way for someone who is not also subject to those rules to actually draw that triangle on the battlemat.

Perfectly put. I think Rystil Arden is assuming that the 'lines' connecting the points of occupation on the battlemat are straight lines subject to the laws of Euclidean space (or the 4D Minkowski space). Because these lines don't obey the theorem of triangle inequality (of course they don't!), he assumes 11 is flawed. He's not realising that the lines are abstract paths between the nodes (i.e. spots that PCs can occupy) of the graph (the battlemat) and not actually part of the measurable space of the battlemat. Ourph, are we on the same wavelength? Rystil, have I correctly interpreted your misinterpretation?

 

[SlagMortar]

Rystil, have I correctly interpreted your misinterpretation?

I don't think you have. I believe Rystil understands quite well how the rules would be adjucated if he were playing in a non-Euclidean space. However, he does not want to play in a non-Euclidean space. I can't say I blame him. Thinking in a non-Euclidean space is hard, and thinking in a hybrid of Euclidean and non-Euclidean space leads to contradictions like those discussed so far.

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

Area effects are handled by the squares into circles phenomenon. Any square on the battlemat, when translated into realworld geometry, becomes a circle.

So you are saying that the room in the left reshapes into the room in the roght when a Wizard casts a Burst 2 spell centerd on him? Damn, spellcasters ARE powerful.

 

[Ourph]

So you are saying...

Read the posts by Rystil and myself on the previous page if you're unclear what I mean by the "squares into circles" phenomenon.