Sammael
Adventurer
WotC published their alternative rules for hexes in Unearthed Arcana - here's the d20 SRD version:TwinBahamut said:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/hexGrid.htm
D&D 4E Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/hexGrid.htm
Mouseferatu
Hero
Hmm...
I'll say again that, having used both methods in the past, I've found the "1 = 1" method to be far faster, smoother, and easier in game play.
The reason I have no cognitive dissonance with that is because of the way I've always viewed minis and maps. (I'm not saying this'll work for everyone, but if it helps, fantastic.)
Just as hit points are abstract, and location is abstract (a human doesn't actually take up a full 5-ft. square), I've always felt that, as represented on a battle grid, movement is abstract. (This is true regardless of whether you use squares or hexes, or whether you treat diagonal movement differently.) After all, if the figure isn't really taking up the full squares it passes through, then the path it covers cannot be a literal interpretation of the movement.
Even if you have two characters side by side on the grid, both moving 6 squares in the same direction, that's abstract. What if one person only "really" occupied the north side of his square, while the other one occupied the south side of his square? If they both move 6 squares south, they've moved the same distance on the grid, but one of them moved a few more feet in the reality of the game world.
Thus, when I see a miniature move from point X to point Y on the grid, I know that the character is taking roughly, but not exactly, the path by which the mini actually travels.
So when using the "1 = 1" rule, do I think that characters are actually moving faster on a diagonal? No. I simply assume that, due to whatever terrain and obstacles are scattered across the floor, the constant movement of all combatants, and the character's actual location (as opposed to which square he's in), that the character found a faster or more efficient way to get where he was going.
Abstract? Yes. But AFAIAC, it's always been that way. Using the "1 = 1" rule simply takes advantage of that abstraction in a manner that greatly speeds up and simplifies play. And honestly, I don't even bother to think about it much; because I already know that I can justify it to myself, I rarely if ever feel the need to actually do so.
I'll say again that, having used both methods in the past, I've found the "1 = 1" method to be far faster, smoother, and easier in game play.
The reason I have no cognitive dissonance with that is because of the way I've always viewed minis and maps. (I'm not saying this'll work for everyone, but if it helps, fantastic.)
Just as hit points are abstract, and location is abstract (a human doesn't actually take up a full 5-ft. square), I've always felt that, as represented on a battle grid, movement is abstract. (This is true regardless of whether you use squares or hexes, or whether you treat diagonal movement differently.) After all, if the figure isn't really taking up the full squares it passes through, then the path it covers cannot be a literal interpretation of the movement.
Even if you have two characters side by side on the grid, both moving 6 squares in the same direction, that's abstract. What if one person only "really" occupied the north side of his square, while the other one occupied the south side of his square? If they both move 6 squares south, they've moved the same distance on the grid, but one of them moved a few more feet in the reality of the game world.
Thus, when I see a miniature move from point X to point Y on the grid, I know that the character is taking roughly, but not exactly, the path by which the mini actually travels.
So when using the "1 = 1" rule, do I think that characters are actually moving faster on a diagonal? No. I simply assume that, due to whatever terrain and obstacles are scattered across the floor, the constant movement of all combatants, and the character's actual location (as opposed to which square he's in), that the character found a faster or more efficient way to get where he was going.
Abstract? Yes. But AFAIAC, it's always been that way. Using the "1 = 1" rule simply takes advantage of that abstraction in a manner that greatly speeds up and simplifies play. And honestly, I don't even bother to think about it much; because I already know that I can justify it to myself, I rarely if ever feel the need to actually do so.
TwinBahamut said:
The next size is 12 hexes. After that is 19 hexes.
There is a slight peculiarity here. 1 hex is a hex. 3 hexes is close to a triangle. 7 hexes is close to a hex. 12 hexes a triangle (5x5x5 triangle but with the 3 vertex hexes cut off). 19 hexes a hex, etc. The reason for this is that like with squares, the space goes from "grid in the middle" to "intersection in the middle" back to "grid in the middle", etc. for each size increase. However, the alternating sizes are like "rounded triangles". Like hexes they are very similarly shaped to a circle and area effects (like for mists) are very easy to draw quickly and properly on the map.
The 12 hex dimension might be a bit tough for some people unused to it to see at first. One has to take the 9 adjacent hexes to the 3 hex size. It's pretty easy to see once someone is used to it, but if people had a problem with this, they could always cut out a cardboard base to put a gargantuan sized mini on.
Sammael said:
Good link. That shows people exactly how it works for creatures.
WotC defaulted the area effects spells to not include the middle hex. That's a good solution as well, although there is an alternative solution which might not be for everyone.
Last edited:
rjdafoe said:
They measure distance in square now for the sakes of simplicity. One square still represents 5 ft.
If my character asks the ranger: "Hey Legolus, how is the maximum distance you can hit an enemy with the point blank precision."
The ranger can't answer "Ten squares" It would look strange, and I hope you agree with me. He is gonna say "30 ft."
Using R'lyehan Geometry, the ranger would say "30 ft if I shot on this direction, but if I turn my aim 45º to this direction I can shot even farther with the same precision. So i think we should keep this direction until we get out of the Forest of Chaos."
Last edited:
Wolfspider
Explorer
ainatan said:
*snorts*
I think your example shows perfectly what is wrong with this entire setup.
frankthedm
First Post
Thank you for the diagram. It shows one of my main beefs with diagonal = 1, besides the fireboxainatan said:The first and most obvious problem I can think of when using the 1-1-1-1 diagonal rule:
Blue is the Wizard.
Green is the Fighter.
'X' is the monster, his speed is 30 ft. or 6 squares.
In 3.5 the monster, in order to attack the Wizard in the same round, needs to go through the Fighter.
Using 1-1-1-1 rules, it can go around the Fighter, probably provoking an 'opportunity attack',
Or he can just go really around the fighter, provoking no 'opportuniy attacks'!!!!
Man, it's gonna be hard to be a defender in this game...
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
UngeheuerLich said:
That's not how the minis rules work--the only thing that us peons who don't have advanced copies of the rules have to go by.
To quote the minis rules (p28), "A creature charges as an attack action. It moves up to its Speed and then makes a basic attack with a +1 bonus. To charge, the creature must have line of sight to its target.
The creature must move at least 2 squares from its starting position and must finish its movement in the nearest square from which it can attack the enemy. It doesn't have to move in a straight line, but it has to end its charge in the nearest square adjacent to the enemy.
Creatures can charge through allies and through squares containing difficult terrain. A creature can't move again on its turn after charging."
Taken together those would seem to explicitly allow charging around someone. 1/1 diagonal movement (and the fact that the charge simply must be to the nearest square (of which there will usually be at least three choices)) makes that easy. In fact, you will note that while the charge has to be to the nearest square from which an attack is possible nothing requires the creature to take the shortest route to get to that square while charging. To reach a square two squares down, a monster could, by the rules, back up two squares, go down and diagonal two squares away and then diagonal down two squares back, spending six squares of movement to charge a square two squares away. Often, it will even make sense to do so in order to avoid opportunity attacks.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
That will be news to the people who put two cone templates in the 2.0/4th edition miniatures rules.
Imban said:
If it was only about justification, I could go to sleep and dream with dryads.
The problem is that the 1-1-1-1 rule interferes in the game play, it creates strange situation that gives counter intuitive and uncalled advantages and disadvantages depending on how the grid is positioned.
A grid, which is a completely metagame abstraction, determing especific tactics. It's just wrong.
By the 1-1-1-1 rule, the X monster is 6 squares aways, or '30'ft. away from both characters. There is a pillar between each character and the X monster, and both pillars are 3 squares away form him. He can attack the Blue guy in the same round he moves, but he can't attack the Green guy.
The problem is that the 1-1-1-1 rule interferes in the game play, it creates strange situation that gives counter intuitive and uncalled advantages and disadvantages depending on how the grid is positioned.
A grid, which is a completely metagame abstraction, determing especific tactics. It's just wrong.
By the 1-1-1-1 rule, the X monster is 6 squares aways, or '30'ft. away from both characters. There is a pillar between each character and the X monster, and both pillars are 3 squares away form him. He can attack the Blue guy in the same round he moves, but he can't attack the Green guy.
