Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reaper Steve" data-source="post: 4068511" data-attributes="member: 51528">As the OP of the Non-Euclidean geometry rant, I shall take the liberty of revisiting the topic but will spare you from bringing that 600+ post back to necromantic unlife.I must say that my opinion has changed. For 4E, 1:1 is the way to go. I have many justifications:1) Most important, for issues of game balance, I recognize that a model MUST be able to move to any adjacent square (including diagonal) for a cost of 1.2) After that, maintaining 1:1 is much easier and faster than 1-2-1-2. This doesn't always guarantee a loss of accuracy, only in extreme corner cases.2a) I have no basis for this other than a feeling, but I think we will see some rule, power, etc that allows defenders (or anyone) to intercept a model attempting a crazy path to avoid it. If so, bonus! If not, it still does not invalidate this point or any others.3) Like everything else in the game, movement is abstract. Applying an absolute movement scheme in a game where everything else is abstract is a bigger anomaly than perceived 'diagonal acceleration.'4) Distance per time arguments hold no merit when all the other movements are factored in. Shifts, slides, pushes, pulls, and places--all additional movement that can happen during or out of turn--destroy this concept. By the time a model moves on its own, it pushed by A, pulled by B, slid by C, and placed by D, greater rifts to the Far Realms have been opened than the one caused by 2 'extra' squares when traveling purely diagonal. And I'm fine with all of those, would never question them, so I can't be concerned by the diagonal.5) I looked at many other respected games that use squares and many of them use 1:1 diagonals. Most notable for me was Descent: Journeys in the Dark by FFG. 1:1 works fine for them.I think I had a couple more points in favor, but I forgot them during my slow typing. I'll add them if I remember them.Bottom Line: It took me a while, but now I am firmly behind 1:1 movement. There is much more to it than 'preserving geometry.' In fact, it's not about geometry at all.</blockquote>

Verification