Diagonals revisited

[DSRilk]

I think part of the reason they may have gone to 1/1/1/1 is to stop people from having to figure out how much someone actually moves if they get slid diagonally.

DM: The orc smashes the sledge hammer into your side, sending you sprawling. You get slid 1 square.

Player 1: I already moved 3 squares this turn, one of which was a diagonal. Do I get slid 1 square or 0?

DM: 1, because moving diagonally only counts as 1.5 if you are getting moved by a single source. Now, the wizard waves his arms around and chants something you don't understand, and you feel a force tugging you 3 squares, to this spot here.

Player 1: All 3 of those are diagonal. Do I really get moved 3? I know the orc is not the wizard, but he is an enemy. Do I count his one diagonal?

DM: No, just move 3. Now the second orc charges you.

Player 2: I charge to intercept the orc, shifting Bob 1 square diagonally this way so he can't be attacked.

Player 1: So I get slid 1 diagonal even though I already moved a diagonal, right? Because it's not me moving again?

DM: Yes, just move 1. The third orc is tired of your questions, so he moves to attack you as well.

Player 1: I use my tumbling evasion ability to move here. That's another diagonal. Wait. How many diagonals have I moved already?

Player 2: <sigh> 1. I think.

Player 1: Ah, right. So, wait, does that mean I can't move the diagonal because I already moved myself 1 diagonal this turn?

DM: No, it means that from now on, every freakin' diagonal counts as 1 square. Can I kill you with the orc yet? No, seriously, get me some chips or I'm killing you with this orc.

 

[Zaruthustran]

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.

Yes, see, in my example (which you quoted!) I point out that D&D 4E doesn't care about feet. It cares only about squares.

A square that measures one square on a side also measures exactly one square diagonally across. To argue otherwise is to demonstrate ignorance of the way 4e measures distance.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I am a hex man.

If you mostly have your fights in classic dungeon crawl mode in smallish rooms, 1-1 is the way to go.

If we are talking about mediumish or bigger spaces, say, greater than forty fe-, excuse me, eight squares, I am not convinced this will not slow things down. If you give players many options that measure as the same distance, you are begging them to form a habit of thinking through more possible paths before moving...

 

[delericho]

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

In 4e, they don't. In 3e half of them did, although the male and female diagonals were in constant motion.

I thought that was obvious from the movement rules?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In 4e, they don't. In 3e half of them did, although the male and female diagonals were in constant motion.

I thought that was obvious from the movement rules?

Noooooooo!
D&D 4 is dead to me now!

 

[nem z]

It sounds to me like the problem then is not that you can move diagonally but that every other thing in the area will be shoving you a square or two every round.

So 4e combat is a combat exercise that involves more shoving than actually attacking... but why would I be interested in playing a junior high playground fighting sim?

 

[Arnwyn]

Yes, see, in my example (which you quoted!) I point out that D&D 4E doesn't care about feet. It cares only about squares.

A square that measures one square on a side also measures exactly one square diagonally across. To argue otherwise is to demonstrate ignorance of the way 4e measures distance.

Probably... and rightfully so.

So are pits "2 squares deep"? Is a wall "4 squares high"? Is a person "1.2 squares tall"? I think both ignorance and confusion as to how distances are measured in 4e is a pretty reasonable reaction, if the above is true.

But I highly doubt that it is. A game that doesn't measure distances in feet (or a "known" measurement) is on shaky ground as it is. Thankfully I can't believe that's the case.


(As for 1-1-1... it might indeed be the simplest to use, with all this sliding around stuff. I'm curious as to how ingrained that will all be...)

 

[Thyrwyn]

But I highly doubt that it is. A game that doesn't measure distances in feet (or a "known" measurement) is on shaky ground as it is. Thankfully I can't believe that's the case.

You can use whatever you want to measure distances, but if you aren't using a battlemat, it has the same value as using squares - it gives you a relative frame of reference with which to caompare different ranges or effects. The vast majority of RPGs function perfectly well despite lacking an absolute frame of reference for combat (ie - a battlemat).

AD&D and Basic D&D used "inches" which meant 10 feet indoors and 10 yards outdoors, and I don't know of any "known measurement" to which that corresponds. Most of the people who played those games managed without a battlemat, too.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

AD&D and Basic D&D used "inches" which meant 10 feet indoors and 10 yards outdoors, and I don't know of any "known measurement" to which that corresponds. Most of the people who played those games managed without a battlemat, too.

Oh, that's easy...it confirms to the fact that in a dungeon, your movement speed was reduced to a third due to you moving cautiously, carefully, and with an eye on traps, monsters in shadows and other dangers, all in a shadily illuminated surrounding and without a clear line of sight for more than a few yards most of the time. This allowed for saving throws, surprise checks and mapping while still moving around. Outdoors, your movement rate tripled because the general terrain and conditions allowed a greater speed while keeping the same kind of caution. The "known measurements" were either "feet/turn" or "yards/turn", depending on the surroundings. Well-known enough, I'd say, and an easy way to describe the difference between cautious dungeon movement and cautious wilderness movement with one and the same number.

 

[Thyrwyn]

So, characters were "moving cautiously, carefully, and with an eye on traps, monsters in shadows and other dangers" in combat? And - of course, there was an option to move in "yards" if you were willing to take more risks?

And, if you are willing to accept that inches can mean "x number of feet" and "3x number of feet", are you also willing to accept that "square" can mean "5 feet" or "7 feet"?