Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kennew142" data-source="post: 4069706" data-attributes="member: 18490">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.</blockquote>

Verification