D&D 4E New Podcast: New DDM rules and their 4E origins

[Fifth Element]

Because it's far from accurate. As I noted in my first post, it's the difference between an Elf moving 35 feet on his move, and him moving just under 50 feet. And I'm sorry, but counting diagonals as 1.5 is not hard.

Obviously whenever simplicity is increased, accuracy must be sacrificed. And it's not a question of whether it's "hard", it's a question of whether it's worth the trouble. There are many people who find counting diagonals irksome and not worth the complexity; there's another thread on this subject.

Movement and positioning in D&D combat is abstract. There's no facing, all Medium and Small creatures occupy a 5-foot square, creatures can only move in 5-foot increments and must end their turn in a predetermined 5-foot square, etc, etc, etc. Really, this rule is more appropriate since it doesn't pretend that accuracy is very important in a system that uses very abstract movement and positioning rules.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Odd ... iTunes can't find this podcast. I've been subscribed for a while, and got up through 18, but no Ep 19. Says "Dungeons & Dragons Podcast does not seem to be a valid Podcast URL." It's still there are the itunes store ... but no episode 19. Wonder if that's an oversight (hasn't been uploaded) or if WOTC decided to stop uploading to iTunes. Personally I prefer the iTunes subscription ... I get it without having to go looking for it.

 

[JoelF]

Odd ... iTunes can't find this podcast. I've been subscribed for a while, and got up through 18, but no Ep 19. Says "Dungeons & Dragons Podcast does not seem to be a valid Podcast URL." It's still there are the itunes store ... but no episode 19. Wonder if that's an oversight (hasn't been uploaded) or if WOTC decided to stop uploading to iTunes. Personally I prefer the iTunes subscription ... I get it without having to go looking for it.

I'm having the same problem.

 

[JoelF]

As for diagonal movement, if you want to keep things simple with every square counting as 1, why not just say no diagonal movement allowed? That way diagonals count as 2 squares, which isn't as accurate as 1.5, but at least preserves that they are longer than non-diagonal movement?

 

[delericho]

Movement and positioning in D&D combat is abstract.

That would be a fine argument, except that the 7 squares of movement for the Elf is very exact, and makes the difference between 35 ft. and just under 50 ft., depending purely on how the battlemat lies. Likewise missile weapon ranges, spell ranges, and areas of effect.

I would (probably) be fine with this if the Elf's movement was listed as, say, 5 with the option to increase this with an Athletics skill check (and, added bonus, a penalty can then be applied for moving on a diagonal). Then, the biggest remaining issue would be straight-line ranges for spells and missiles, which can be solved by the use of a tape measure.

As it is, this (and the Initiative vs Pit Trap thing) takes me to the point where I have more definate House Rules for 4e than I ever used for 3e. A bad sign when the game hasn't even been released yet...

 

[delericho]

As for diagonal movement, if you want to keep things simple with every square counting as 1, why not just say no diagonal movement allowed? That way diagonals count as 2 squares, which isn't as accurate as 1.5, but at least preserves that they are longer than non-diagonal movement?

It's even less accurate than "diagonals equal 1 square". The real value for a diagonal square should be root-2 (approx 1.414) squares. The best workable approximation for that (assuming we're not going to entirely freeform movement measured with bits of string) is diagonals as 1.5 squares. The next best is diagonals as 1 square, followed by diagonals as 2 squares.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's even less accurate than "diagonals equal 1 square". The real value for a diagonal square should be root-2 (approx 1.414) squares. The best workable approximation for that (assuming we're not going to entirely freeform movement measured with bits of string) is diagonals as 1.5 squares. The next best is diagonals as 1 square, followed by diagonals as 2 squares.

Two square may be less mathematically accurate but if we're talking about gameplay, it's better for people to move LESS far on a diagonal than MORE far (or to not move diagonally at all). This is because it prevents people intentionally moving in idiotic and bizarre ways simply to get somewhere faster (it also makes some realistic movement less effective, but it's better than bloody turning D&D into Quake where everyone is strafe-running all the time, for pretty much the same reason).

 

[delericho]

Two square may be less mathematically accurate but if we're talking about gameplay, it's better for people to move LESS far on a diagonal than MORE far (or to not move diagonally at all).

I guess that's quite possibly true. In any case, I'm sticking with my preference for 1.5 as the approximation

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I guess that's quite possibly true. In any case, I'm sticking with my preference for 1.5 as the approximation

Me too. >.>

 

[Lab_Monkey]

I'm having the same problem.

As am I. Itunes doesn't recognize the URL.