Diagonals revisited
- Thread starter Reaper Steve
- Start date
Counting squares is so complicated, moving miniatures on a grid so cumbersome. I hope in 5E they quit with all the movement counting at all. It's so abstract anyway. Why keep wasting time since squares mean nothing and also everything we want? Moving a square means 5ft, 10ft, 2 meters? The creature occupies a square but it isn't a square? The rider is an electron? The big square on the grid is actually a circle?
Just make a move roll.
For humans:
11-20= You reach the place you wanted to go
1-10 = You don't reach the place you wanted to go.
Faster creatures gain a bonus, slower creatures gain a penalty.
For area spells, roll a dice to see how many enemies are caught in the area. Since the battlefield is so abstract anyway, like an electron cloud, I see know problems with that right?
Oh but we all like tactical combat, don't we? Well let me tell you something:
More abstraction = less tactics.
How much tactics are you willing to give up to gain simplicity by abstratcion?
Can't we make it simpler and faster without losing the tactical element? It's so easy to make it simpler by adding lots of abstraction, but couldn't be there a better choice?
Just make a move roll.
For humans:
11-20= You reach the place you wanted to go
1-10 = You don't reach the place you wanted to go.
Faster creatures gain a bonus, slower creatures gain a penalty.
For area spells, roll a dice to see how many enemies are caught in the area. Since the battlefield is so abstract anyway, like an electron cloud, I see know problems with that right?
Oh but we all like tactical combat, don't we? Well let me tell you something:
More abstraction = less tactics.
How much tactics are you willing to give up to gain simplicity by abstratcion?
Can't we make it simpler and faster without losing the tactical element? It's so easy to make it simpler by adding lots of abstraction, but couldn't be there a better choice?
The rogue preview confirms my suspicion that the change was made because 4th edition has an increased number of smaller movements. In the 3.5 system, where diagonals cost first 1 then 2 then 1 then 2, you couldn't move 10 feet on a diagonal. That was okay, since there weren't that many situations where you would measure 10 feet. In one of the few common situations where that mattered, 10 foot reach, the designers introduced a "hack" that let a 10 foot reach cover two diagonals. The awkwardness did extend to a few other things, like 10-foot radius spells. Notably, you could be directly adjacent to a person with a spell like "circle of protection from evil" and not be affected (see attached diagram).
In 4th edition, it seems a number of things will move 10 feet. We've seen Deft Strike, plus potentially Positioning Strike and Tumble. Plus there's other ways, like using two move actions to shift in a turn, where you would end up moving 2 squares. Noticeably these are measured in squares, so the idea that you couldn't move 2 squares diagonally since that's actually 3 squares is a little silly.
I certainly see that the 3.5 system is more accurate over longer distances, but when you're only measuring 2 squares of distance, both systems are exactly as accurate, with the weird complication that you just can't measure a 2-square distance diagonally in the 1
1:2 system. So, if the idea is to make combat more dynamic by letting characters move shorter distances more often, the 1
1 system works better, even though it is notably inaccurate over long diagonal distances.
In 4th edition, it seems a number of things will move 10 feet. We've seen Deft Strike, plus potentially Positioning Strike and Tumble. Plus there's other ways, like using two move actions to shift in a turn, where you would end up moving 2 squares. Noticeably these are measured in squares, so the idea that you couldn't move 2 squares diagonally since that's actually 3 squares is a little silly.
I certainly see that the 3.5 system is more accurate over longer distances, but when you're only measuring 2 squares of distance, both systems are exactly as accurate, with the weird complication that you just can't measure a 2-square distance diagonally in the 1
1:2 system. So, if the idea is to make combat more dynamic by letting characters move shorter distances more often, the 11 system works better, even though it is notably inaccurate over long diagonal distances.Attachments
Storminator
First Post
Celebrim said:
You've misdefined AddedValue(x) and Complexity(x). Since you are comparing two rules, you should use relative quantities for each:
AddedValue(x/y) = Value(x)/Value
Complexity(x/y) = Complexity(x)/Complexity
Then a rule with no improvement in value gets AddedValue = 1/1 = 1.
A rule with complexity reduced by half gets Complexity = .5/1 = .5
And the resulting NetValue = 1/.5 = 2
And it's possible to have a rule that is worse in AddedValue, yet better in Complexity, and is therefore better overall.
Like 1-1-1-1 diagonals.
PS
ainatan said:
Yes, whenever necessary. Just don't count movement at all and place your character wherever you want. Check for interception on any zones or areas that are controlled by the enemy and you pass through. The more of distance you want to cover and the more of hostile areas the easier it is that they will intercept you and make you stop.
Benimoto said:The rogue preview confirms my suspicion that the change was made because 4th edition has an increased number of smaller movements. In the 3.5 system, where diagonals cost first 1 then 2 then 1 then 2, you couldn't move 10 feet on a diagonal. That was okay, since there weren't that many situations where you would measure 10 feet. In one of the few common situations where that mattered, 10 foot reach, the designers introduced a "hack" that let a 10 foot reach cover two diagonals. The awkwardness did extend to a few other things, like 10-foot radius spells. Notably, you could be directly adjacent to a person with a spell like "circle of protection from evil" and not be affected (see attached diagram).
In 4th edition, it seems a number of things will move 10 feet. We've seen Deft Strike, plus potentially Positioning Strike and Tumble. Plus there's other ways, like using two move actions to shift in a turn, where you would end up moving 2 squares. Noticeably these are measured in squares, so the idea that you couldn't move 2 squares diagonally since that's actually 3 squares is a little silly.
I certainly see that the 3.5 system is more accurate over longer distances, but when you're only measuring 2 squares of distance, both systems are exactly as accurate, with the weird complication that you just can't measure a 2-square distance diagonally in the 1
Excellent post. Bravo!
