Diagonals revisited

[DSRilk]

I figure it's safe to assume that if you were not planning on playing 4e, then this argument is moot. And if you are going to play 4e, then it is somewhat safe to assume that you are either on the side of "the play's the thing" or on the side of "too much irrationality in movement."

This question is for the "too much irrationality in movement" crowd. It's obvious to me why 1/1/1/1 bothers you. In theory, it's easy to house rule 1/1/1/1 movement to 1/2/1/2 movement. However, if you are unwilling to move to "the play's the thing" camp, how do you address the following situation? (Note, this is a serious question - I'm none too keen on the 1/1/1/1 thing and thought about just house ruling it, but then I thought about this and said to myself -- "if I'm playing 4e, movement is simply going to have to be very abstract, so why bother making 1/1/1/1 into the more complicated - for some - 1/2/1/2.")

A character has a speed of 5 squares a round, giving him a top running speed of 20 squares a round. He chooses to run during his entire turn, so he's now moved as fast as he can possibly move. Now, he gets attacked along the way (perhaps because of AoOs, perhaps because monsters attack him, perhaps both). The monsters start using powers that slide the character. Let's say 5 orcs (much more common when using the 4e "multiple enemies" methodology) attack him, each using an ability that slides him one square. He's now moved 25 squares -- 25% more than is humanly possible for him. Heck, let's say he needs to reach an enemy, but moving full out, he is still one square away -- can he have his allies attack him to "slide" him the rest of the way there? I know what my answer would be as a DM: no to the second, and a minor cringe (until I get used to it) from the first as I don't feel like removing every power that moves people around the combat grid. What's your answer?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Somehow I get this picture of an adventurer running like the devil's after him across the room, not heeding the orcs he passes and in turn getting kicked in the ass by each with an iron-capped boot so hard he gains some speed from each kick...and then, when he nearly reaches the target, his buddy the warlord gives a deafening shout and hurls his warhammer into his tailbone, bowling him forward a few steps by the sheer force of the hit.

The funny part is that our intrepid adventurer, now having not only used up ALL his actions this round, but also suffering a few enemy attacks AND his friend's push, stands right in front of the enemy with no chance to do anything anymore but suffer whatever he's got coming.

Bloody brilliant maneuver, I'd say, if said adventurer was carrying a Delayed Blast Fireball along.

 

[Michael Morris]

For me the Eureka moment was when I realized that all distance in 4e is measured in squares, not feet. "Square" is the basic unit of measurement.

If you have a move of 6, you have a move of six squares. You do not have a move of 30 feet.

So you count your squares. One, two, three, four, five, six. That's how far you move. There's no "advantage" for moving diagonal because the unit of measurement is "square", not "feet".

The problem put as simply as possible is this. A square that measures 5' on the side is not 5' diagonally across. To argue otherwise is to demonstrate ignorance of trigonometry. A diagonal line crossing opposite corners of a square is also a hypotenuse to two right angles. We know from the Pythagorean theorem that the squares of the two sides of any triangle that intersect at a right angle can be added together to find the square of the side of the triangle that does not. In a square that is 5' on a side the diagonal distance is the square root of 50, a distance well beyond 5' (It's slightly larger than 7 - the square of 7 is 49 and most square roots are irrational numbers like pi and can't be expressed in decimal without approximation).

Squares are a two dimensional unit of measurement for measuring area. You don't express distance in squares anymore than you express volume in squares for the reason given above.

 

[DSRilk]

You don't express distance in squares

In D&D you do. And it's no less an absurd unit of measure than the length of a king's foot. That said, the Pythagorean theorem applies regardless of unit of measure. However, I have yet to see a post arguing otherwise. It's much more a matter of "I don't care" versus "I do." No one's arguing the math, some people just don't care about the math because they find it no more difficult to ignore than they do ignoring the fact that no one actually moves simultaneously once combat begins in D&D. This whole thread is simply a matter of how much can you take bending reality for the sake of ease of play - which is why this thread really isn't going anywhere. Which does lead me to question why I'm replying in it... I think I have a problem letting go

 

[hong]

The only question left to consider is whether diagonals have breasts.

 

[Zelc]

The only question left to consider is whether diagonals have breasts.

Yes. The artists have to have some way of distinguishing between male and female diagonals.

 

[WhatGravitas]

The only question left to consider is whether diagonals have breasts.

Yes... but they're square-shaped.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

The only question left to consider is whether diagonals have breasts.

Definitely an important question. And the other question is -- if diagonals do have breasts, how many threads will be started in this forum about it?

 

[Lanefan]

Could we drop the whole using the fickle-wife argument? Somebody's wife might want unicorns and talking cats to be playable races in the PHB.

Er...that'd be mine...talking gryphons, actually.

It's not a compelling reason for the general audience to accept a change.

Agreed.

Designed rules that don't make logical sense (e.g. 1-1-1-1) fall into the same category.

If a Rogue's shift ability moves something 10 feet in a given direction that may or may not line up with the squares at all, then move it 10 feet in that direction; and if it happens to break every law of gamist physics by *gasp* ending that movement straddling the line between two or more squares...well, so what? Use some imagination and deal with it!

3e's 10x10' horses fall into the same silly-rule category.

Lanefan

 

[Will]

You know, lots of numbers and charts aside, I boil it down to:

I want to move 10 feet that way. I move two squares.

I want to move 10 feet that way, but someone is in front of me.
a) 1-2-1-2: I have to move 15 feet, because I have to go around the guy. Or I could tumble 10 feet.
b) 1-1-1-1: I go around the guy... but it's still 10 feet.


B, frankly, makes my head explode.


The problem with 'just houserule it' is that I'm worried that, with all the talk of slides and environments, that 1-1-1-1 will have subtle, deep-rooted connections to the basic mechanics.

Granted, I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it until I see the rules; hopefully I can houserule with no other effects.