Diagonals revisited

[AllisterH]

Even if I accept the arguments in the first post that this rule meets the third criterion, it still fails the first two miserably. This rule smacks me in the face with logical impossibility, and I'd much rather count 1-2-1-2 (not strictly accurate either but much closer) than deal with that. (It helps that I find doing so simple and intuitive, and seem to be good at teaching it to others.)

Which still beggars my question.

How do you deal with the rogue's shift power and most likely OTHER movement powers when you try to move along a diagonal more than 1 space? Do the initiators simply lose a square of movement?

Of course, there's another interesting rules question. Admittedly, a what if scenario. If Solo creatures like the dragon can react to attacks/movement on the player's turn, what happens if say the dragon's tail reaction slap causes a knockback on a diagonal that you already had moved on?

Do you restart the count or do you actually have to remember what the count was?

 

[ruleslawyer]

I can see why you would, from a physics perspective, have problems with pressureless fireballs, but I see nothing non-Euclidean about them. They violate no tenet of basic geometry. (Clarification: I am referring here to your 5d6 vs 15d6 point. The "no circles" bit seems like a strawman - it's just how the game approximates a circle, and it's as close as it can be given that the rules just aren't that fine-grained. Or rather, the 3.x version of it was.)

See, I think this "side note" of yours actually hits the nail on the hand as to why 1-1-1-1 diagonals aren't a bad idea. Squares are an approximation of normal movement to begin with; A creature that occupies a 10' x 10' space is usually not a gigantic cube, and the way that a spread or burst affects creatures in squares along its edge is basically an abstraction. So is movement; I probably move within my square when making a Reflex save, and I certainly don't move in exact multiples of 5'.

So it's an abstraction. The question is really: How much of an abstraction can you tolerate? Is it okay that you can't move two squares diagonally if you have 10 feet of movement, or not? Is it okay that a monster can as easily move around a blocking fighter to get at the wizard as that same monster can move straight at him? (Which actually isn't even the case, since going 3 squares diagonally and 3 back precludes the option of a charge.)

As I said, I'll probably just avoid this entire issue by using line measurements, but I think either way is a legit option. I will say that creatures effectively being unable to move 10' diagonally is a bit of a problem if the game incorporates more 10' blocks of movement, but others probably don't have that issue.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Which still beggars my question.

How do you deal with the rogue's shift power and most likely OTHER movement powers when you try to move along a diagonal more than 1 space? Do the initiators simply lose a square of movement?

Of course, there's another interesting rules question. Admittedly, a what if scenario. If Solo creatures like the dragon can react to attacks/movement on the player's turn, what happens if say the dragon's tail reaction slap causes a knockback on a diagonal that you already had moved on?

Do you restart the count or do you actually have to remember what the count was?

To me this seems like silly buggers, or shennanigans or whatever it's called in the US. It's easy enough to say that the "1-2-1-2" only applies to "normal" movement (i.e. move, run, charge, etc.) and just forget it for shifts or similar 1-2 square moves, isn't it? That ups the abstraction level, but it doesn't have the brain-melting (for me) aspect of being able to attack two max-range targets, one of whom is palpably further away, or do that wierd dodging around stuff without, y'know, using wierd dodging around abilities.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I too have seen the 1-1-1-1 light. I am no longer adverse to this, especially since I don't know exactly how the 4e rules will synergize with 1-1-1-1 diagonals.

 

[Thyrwyn]

(Clarification: . . .The "no circles" bit seems like a strawman - it's just how the game approximates a circle, and it's as close as it can be given that the rules just aren't that fine-grained. Or rather, the 3.x version of it was.)

No Strawmen here - You are accusing one rules set of ignoring Euclid's geometric laws. I am saying that either they both do, or (more accurately) they both approximate Euclid's laws differently.

In 3.5, the game 'approximates' circles as 'crosses'; in 4e it uses squares. Neither uses circles (which are geometric), therefore the "non-euclidian" charge could be levelled against each of them. Therefore, the difference is a matter of degree, not of kind.

Speaking of strawmen - rules of motion are an area to which the discipline of geometry has precious little to say. Physics on the other hand. . .

As for Logical Impossibilities - see my post here for my thoughts on that. There is no loss of immersion unless you insist upon it

 

[Geron Raveneye]

How do you deal with the rogue's shift power and most likely OTHER movement powers when you try to move along a diagonal more than 1 space? Do the initiators simply lose a square of movement?

And this is the point where it won't be "easy" anymore to houserule 1-2-1-2 back into 4E. Also a point that shows that at least some parts of 4E won't easily work without the new 1-1-1-1 rule.

 

[kennew142]

See, I think this "side note" of yours actually hits the nail on the hand as to why 1-1-1-1 diagonals aren't a bad idea. Squares are an approximation of normal movement to begin with; A creature that occupies a 10' x 10' space is usually not a gigantic cube, and the way that a spread or burst affects creatures in squares along its edge is basically an abstraction. So is movement; I probably move within my square when making a Reflex save, and I certainly don't move in exact multiples of 5'.

So it's an abstraction. The question is really: How much of an abstraction can you tolerate? Is it okay that you can't move two squares diagonally if you have 10 feet of movement, or not? Is it okay that a monster can as easily move around a blocking fighter to get at the wizard as that same monster can move straight at him? (Which actually isn't even the case, since going 3 squares diagonally and 3 back precludes the option of a charge.)

As I said, I'll probably just avoid this entire issue by using line measurements, but I think either way is a legit option. I will say that creatures effectively being unable to move 10' diagonally is a bit of a problem if the game incorporates more 10' blocks of movement, but others probably don't have that issue.

All of your reasoning above pretty much matches my own. I like the 1-1-1-1 diagonal movement because it is easier and because my maps are often filled with enough obstacles that characters are forever moving diagonal to get around them. The situation with a character moving a longer distance in a diagonal than in a straight line seldom occurs. Few moves can be completed without making a few diagonals.

As for the square fireballs, they honestly didn't bother me when we used them, even if they are less realistic. However, my wife found some circular macrame hoops we can use as templates for 10', 15' and 20' radius spell effects. We'll probably use those and just give a bonus to anyone not completely within the hoop (maybe half damage).

IMO, the argument fails when trying to extrapolate the 1-1-1-1 diagonal movement to anything other than movement. The battle mat doesn't model the geometry of the real universe very well. Just because diagonal movement uses the 1-1-1-1 model doesn't say anything about the physical or metaphysical nature of reality. Circles are still possible in your game world, and strategic (as opposed to tactical) movement is unaffected. Such extrapolations are an example of attempting to argue from reductio ad absurdam and only work if everyone accepts the axiom that the grid map has greater implications for the whole universe.

For the record, I see both sides of the issue. I've always used the 1-2-1-2 diagonals and have no difficulty doing so. I use the pythagorean formula to compute ranges and conic sections to compute spell effects for cones (from a flying caster). None of this seems terribly difficult to me. But when we tried the new 1-1-1-1 method for movement, many of my players (including some I would not have suspected) were just ecstatic. For me, it's an issue of player preferences rather than one system being objectively better than the other.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There is no loss of immersion unless you insist upon it

That's simply false. It's not a matter of "insisting" on it, it's a matter of how your mind works. Some people can easily ignore the illogic, others can't. Neither is superior. I've read what you say, and it doesn't make any sense to me, because it's not "one character this, another character that", as you misleadingly suggest it is, it's absolutely constant and solid: you can always move faster and shoot further on a diagonal. Always.

I don't know why you can't accept that for some people, that just doesn't make sense on an intrinsic level, and why you feel that an inaccurate, almost entirely unrelated thing about "27 for one, 32 for another" in some way "wins" you the argument and allows you to suggest that people who find it illogical are simply "insisting on it". They are not, and the post you link to completely fails to demonstrate any such thing.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

No Strawmen here - You are accusing one rules set of ignoring Euclid's geometric laws. I am saying that either they both do, or (more accurately) they both approximate Euclid's laws differently.

In 3.5, the game 'approximates' circles as 'crosses'; in 4e it uses squares. Neither uses circles (which are geometric), therefore the "non-euclidian" charge could be levelled against each of them. Therefore, the difference is a matter of degree, not of kind.

Wrong. In 3.X, a circle is treated as a circle of the specified radius. What is "approximated" is where in this circle a character is affected by the effect described by the circle. If the border of the effect includes the far corner of a square, everything within the square is affected, if only the near corner is included, nothing in that square is affected. Which might be a bit wishy-washy, and could as well have been handled by allowing a static bonus to the save (and probably raised the howls of the already bonus-ridden ), but it preserves the close approximation of the geometry on the 5'-square grid. It paints a bit of a wonky picture of how magical effects work sometimes ("Hmmmm, standing at this angle and distance, the fireball seems to have a cold pocket. Interesting.")

4E simplifies geometry in a way that a "circle" with a radius of 20' will equal a square of 40'x40'. That's not an approximation anymore...or rather, it's about as much an approximation as you can, if you want, approximate a cat in freefall as a rotating cylinder. In its highly abstracted form it both serves to greatly simplify calculations, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with reality as it is. So either reality in a D&D world is wonky, or it shifts to wonky when battle begins, and back to normal when battle ends. Either way, wonky.

Both editions had an error in the distance of a diagonal of a 5' square though, I grant you that. 3.X was 6% too severe, and 4E is 30% too lax. How much error (and wonky consequences) you are willing to tolerate in exchange for easy of play is, of course, up to every individual player.

 

[Grossout]

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?

QFT!
I submitted a post quite a while ago mentioning how cumbersome I find miniatures and squares to be. I like battles as much as the next guy, but I'd just rather roll some dice to find the answers rather than representing exactly where characters/monsters are on a game board. There's adventuring to be done and a story to tell. Now lets roll some dice and see who kills who!

*In fairness, I've been out of the game for a long time (looking to get back in), so I don't know how much my opinion matters!