Diagonal wonkiness scenarios

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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.

He might, but his posts thus far lead me to think the opposite, but I don't have the background in mathematics and topology that he seems to have, so I could be misinterpreting what he's saying.

Anyway, I think the point is that 4E's non-Euclidean space is so close to Euclidean space that for all intents and purposes it can be treated as a Euclidean space. It's 'non-Euclideanness' makes movement in 4E space easier to calculate.

 

[hong]

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

You put a RULER on the map, and you RULE out a straight line.

That's a ruler, as in a physical wooden, metal or plastic object. "Physical" means something you, the player, hold in your hand. "Player" means you, the person with the dice and the character sheet, not the elf you're pretending to be.

Why is this claptrap coming around again?

 

[SlagMortar]

Anyway, I think the point is that 4E's non-Euclidean space is so close to Euclidean space that for all intents and purposes it can be treated as a Euclidean space. It's 'non-Euclideanness' makes movement in 4E space easier to calculate.

I can think of one important property (there may be more) of Euclidean space that 4E space violates.

In Euclidean space, there is only one shortest path between two points. In 4E space, there can be many. If you wish to place an obstruction between a character and a monster - like a wall, stinking cloud, caltrops, defender - then it must block all those shortest paths in order to cause the monster to have to move farther.

This is counter intuitive, though probably not game breaking in most scenarios.

Edit: 1-2-1-2 also violates this property. However, there are in general fewer shortest paths in 1-2-1-2 than there are in 1-1-1-1.

 

[hong]

I can think of one important property (there may be more) of Euclidean space that 4E space violates.

In Euclidean space, there is only one shortest path between two points. In 4E space, there can be many. If you wish to place an obstruction between a character and a monster - like a wall, stinking cloud, caltrops, defender - then it must block all those shortest paths in order to cause the monster to have to move farther.

This is counter intuitive, though probably not game breaking.

Edit: 1-2-1-2 also violates this property. However, there are in general fewer shortest paths in 1-2-1-2 than there are in 1-1-1-1.

Most examples that have been posted of people going around obstacles generally put the obstacle midway between attacker and target. This problem goes away once you have the obstacle next to the target. This can easily be intuited as saying that if you want to guard someone, you stay next to them.

 

[Ourph]

I can think of one important property (there may be more) of Euclidean space that 4E space violates.

In Euclidean space, there is only one shortest path between two points. In 4E space, there can be many. If you wish to place an obstruction between a character and a monster - like a wall, stinking cloud, caltrops, defender - then it must block all those shortest paths in order to cause the monster to have to move farther.

This is counter intuitive, though probably not game breaking in most scenarios.

Edit: 1-2-1-2 also violates this property. However, there are in general fewer shortest paths in 1-2-1-2 than there are in 1-1-1-1.

I completely agree with this. If I hadn't spent quite some time playing WFRP (which uses 1-1-1 diagonals) over the last couple of years (enough to realize that these instances go unnoticed by me and the people I play with) I would most likely be highly concerned about this aspect of 4e too.

 

[SlagMortar]

Most examples that have been posted of people going around obstacles generally put the obstacle midway between attacker and target. This problem goes away once you have the obstacle next to the target. This can easily be intuited as saying that if you want to guard someone, you stay next to them.

I agree. That does cause its own problems in a world of area effects.

It also makes it so that a defender moving straight toward a single opponent moves the defender away from the opponent's shortest path to the person being defended, which is very much different from real life experience. This provides the opponent an opening even if the opponent is slower than the defender, which seems strange at best.

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

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

I kinda understand what you were saying, and it actually applies in an infinite, featureless grid that resembles the abstraction of combat (a la Final Fantasy games?) but what if the actual room where the characters are fighting IS a perfect 25' x 25'? Is the corner of room affected? If so, How? Or is it not a square when you translate it to a grid?

I don't think movement is big issue balance-wise. But distances, areas and that stuff is in conflict with what we really see and is negated by the rules.

 

[hong]

I agree. That does cause its own problems in a world of area effects.

That is not a "problem". That is a side-effect that results in changed gameplay. If you like area effects, you're happy. If you don't like area effects, you're not so happy. Changed gameplay is not, in and of itself, a "problem".

It also makes it so that a defender moving straight toward a single opponent moves the defender away from the opponent's shortest path to the person being defended, which is very much different from real life experience. This provides the opponent an opening even if the opponent is slower than the defender, which seems strange at best.

That is not "real life experience". That is "side-effect brought up by people with too much spare time that will have barely any effect on actual play". If you engage someone, then they have to disengage, and the mechanical hassles of doing that will quickly push idle contemplation of metrics and other mathematical constructs to one side.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I kinda understand what you were saying, and it actually applies in an infinite, featureless grid that resembles the abstraction of combat (a la Final Fantasy games?) but what if the actual room where the characters are fighting IS a perfect 25' x 25'? Is the corner of room affected?

The room is 5 squares by 5 squares, and the spell area (burst 2) affects the centre square and all squares within 2 of that square.

So the corner of the room is affected.

-Hyp.

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

I know what the rules say about it. I'm arguing if it is intuitive and logical for us, the players whatching this nonsense happening on our game tables.