Diagonals revisited

[Geron Raveneye]

I hereby nominate diagonal movement as the 'Tempest in a Teapot' change of 4th Edition. No effect on roleplaying, miniscule effect on combat, and easily houseruled by those who don't like it.

Yep, as long as you simply handwave geometric inconsistencies away (or are able to imagine playing in a non-euclidean world) and view a complete overhaul of positional and movement advantages based on relative direction towards the enemy as minuscule. As for "easy houseruling"...I think the rogue preview shows that the 1for1 rule will be a lot harder to houserule out without effectivel cutting off a lot of class options. Not what I'd call easy.

And it's not about making everybody play the same way either. Making fun of the concerns of those who speak up against this new rule doesn't change the validity of those concerns. It's about as impolite as people starting to make fun of those who can't or don't want to keep count of the amount of diagonals they moved in 3.X. :\

 

[Pssthpok]

Apparently, people do use the word "Euclidean" while moving their pewter elves across their mom's dining room table.

Now, that was snarky. People being confused as to why it's a big deal is not, and people who get too defensive about this (deal with it) meaningless rules change are trying way too hard to be h4ters.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Yep, as long as you simply handwave geometric inconsistencies away (or are able to imagine playing in a non-euclidean world) and view a complete overhaul of positional and movement advantages based on relative direction towards the enemy as minuscule.

Non-euclidian world? In a world in which both a 5d6 explosionfireball and a 15d6 explosionfireball have absolutely no effect beyond the same certain, immutable range - even though the intensity (damage) of said explosion varies significantly - using 1-1-1 movement instead of 1-2-1 is "handwaving geometric inconsistencies"? In a world in which circles cannot exist (any given square is either affected or it is not), we are "playing in a non-euclidean world" by implying square areas or ranges of effect?

There are arguments for and against either system, but claiming that only one or the other is non-euclidian is baseless. Find a better 'talking point'.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The only game I know of that reasonably simulates absolute movement over finite time is Star Fleet Battles... and I won't touch that game if it's the last game on Earth.

For my money, this attitude pretty much invalidates all your points. SFB isn't a hard or horrid game to play, it just has the reputation of one thanks to thickies misunderstanding the rules, and/or freaking out because simple (and it is very simple) math is involved.

Put another way, my wife gets confused and frustrated counting 1/2/1/2 movement (no comments, please) and thus getting rid of them makes my gaming experience better.

Oh yeah? Well, my wife gets annoyed and irritated by a system that purports to consist of 5'x5' squares allowing diagonal movement for the same cost as straight movement. So there! (And no I am not making this up).

I mean sheesh, MY wife knew it was 1.41 before I mentioned that. So the math ability/inability of spouses is not, perhaps, a good way to determine what rules work, eh? I know all my players can handle 1-2-1-2 or "All diagonals count as 1.5, no you can't use the last 0.5 for anything". It's not hard, it really isn't.

 

[Terramotus]

Ahh, a Hybrid player I see!

What the heck is that? It's in English... but it's not. It reminds me of Timecube.

 

[Steely Dan]

For my money, this attitude pretty much invalidates all your points. SFB isn't a hard or horrid game to play, it just has the reputation of one thanks to thickies misunderstanding the rules, and/or freaking out because simple (and it is very simple) math is involved.



Oh yeah? Well, my wife gets annoyed and irritated by a system that purports to consist of 5'x5' squares allowing diagonal movement for the same cost as straight movement. So there! (And no I am not making this up).

I mean sheesh, MY wife knew it was 1.41 before I mentioned that. So the math ability/inability of spouses is not, perhaps, a good way to determine what rules work, eh? I know all my players can handle 1-2-1-2 or "All diagonals count as 1.5, no you can't use the last 0.5 for anything". It's not hard, it really isn't.

What a load of elitist tripe.

Sorry, everyone, especially the mods, but this is so condescending and awful; I just had to say something.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Non-euclidian world? In a world in which both a 5d6 explosionfireball and a 15d6 explosionfireball have absolutely no effect beyond the same certain, immutable range - even though the intensity (damage) of said explosion varies significantly - using 1-1-1 movement instead of 1-2-1 is "handwaving geometric inconsistencies"? In a world in which circles cannot exist (any given square is either affected or it is not), we are "playing in a non-euclidean world" by implying square areas or ranges of effect?

There are arguments for and against either system, but claiming that only one or the other is non-euclidian is baseless. Find a better 'talking point'.

Ah, it's easy to see why 4E will be a simplified version. The "it's magic, don't question it" argument applies to movement quirks now as well as to pressureless explosions, flying overweight lizards with flame breath, vertical lightning and weird races without consistent ecologies.

If you read the original thread, you'll see plenty of posts saying 3.X isn't strictly euclidean either, but the much better while still easy to use approximation, and that the miniature rules for 3.X are an attempt to translate reality onto a 5'-square grid, while 4E is going to shape reality by that grid, which is quite a difference. YMMV, obviously.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

What a load of elitist tripe.

Sorry, everyone, especially the mods, but this is so condescending and awful; I just had to say something.

Wait...you mean as elitist as this?

Apparently, people do use the word "Euclidean" while moving their pewter elves across their mom's dining room table.

Now, that was snarky. People being confused as to why it's a big deal is not, and people who get too defensive about this (deal with it) meaningless rules change are trying way too hard to be h4ters.

Or worse? I can't decide. Anyway people, lets get down from the high horses and stop it before people sling mud and call names and get the thread closed. Henry recently remarked he felt the forum had become a bit nicer again, lets not prove him wrong here.

 

[Storminator]

Ok, that's fine. You are just generating a relative net value rather than an absolute one. All I did differently was Value(x)/Complexity(x) - Value/Complexity. For the provided numbers, the net value of the change from y to x would be 1/.5 - 1/1 = +1.

Which is a fundamentally incorrect way to compare, unless you like negative values.

Now, suppose Value = 0.

I'm having a hard time imagining a rule that actually has value = 0. Does that mean that the rule adds nothing, yet detracts nothing as well? Does it mean that the rule can never be used? Does it mean that the rule is so bad that the entire game is rendered unplayable? Is it Highlander II of rules?

If for your valuation function, Value('1-1-1-1') > 0, then sure.

Which is the only reasonable stance to take.

PS

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What a load of elitist tripe.

Sorry, everyone, especially the mods, but this is so condescending and awful; I just had to say something.

Elitist

1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

Condescending

Displaying a patronizingly superior attitude: "The independent investor's desire to play individual stocks may well worry some market veterans, but that smacks a little of Wall Street's usual condescending attitude toward small investors" Tom Petruno.

Um, I don't think elitist is the word you're looking for, unless you care to explain how, hopefully without further resorting to insults? Nor is condescending, as I am not patronizing anyone. Superior, maybe? Smug? You could try that, though I don't think it's a perfect fit. Elitist and condescending I ain't.