D&D 4E Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I can't believe this.

I completely agree with Ainatan.... this is a terrible idea.

Actually, it's the single worst rules-related decision I've heard of in 4E.

I think the points about the orientation of the grid producing wildly varying outcomes are just irrefutable. 1.4/1 is a huge difference.

And, they're getting rid of cones? Please tell me this is wrong. What is dragon's breath now, a line?

I hope this doesn't herald 4E design philosophy. I am willing to give up a small amount of versimilitude for faster gameplay, but not this much.

Ken

 

[Mouseferatu]

you want to move west, either

• consider yourself to be standing a bit north of your cell's center, move north-west, and consider yourself standing a bit south of your new cell's center, or
• consider yourself to be standing a bit south of your cell's center, move, south-west, and consider yourself standing a bit north of your new cell's center.

Someone earlier made the claim that diagonal movement being equal to horizontal movement wasn't strange because each square contains a lot of room to move. A character could be standing in one corner of the square and then move diagonally.

Okay, you know what? These are both absolutely fair points. In fact, they're the exact same point I made earlier in regard to squares. I have no idea why I haven't been able to make the leap to hexes. (And even though I acknowledge this fact, it's still taking me some effort. But that may just be the momentum of 25 years of square-based maps.)

I still don't have a major problem with a "1 = 1" setup. And I'll likely continue to use squares most of the time, just because most of the maps, boards, grids, and Master Maze that we use in my current group is square-based.

And I don't expect future editions to change to hexes, again for reasons of pure simplicity. It's so much easier and faster--for most people, I'm sure there are exceptions--to abstract the notion that "a Huge monster takes up a 3 x 3 space," or even "a fireball blast takes up so many squares on a side" than to worry about hex templates. And for most people--myself included, at least to a point--speed and ease of play really are paramount.

But I'll hereby officially concede that, for those for whom such notions are too abstract or break any sense of verisimilitude, hexes are indeed the better bet than any system of squares.

 

[glass]

And, they're getting rid of cones? Please tell me this is wrong. What is dragon's breath now, a line?

Yep, 1-1-1-1 movement is the first thing I have really disliked about 4e so far, AFAICR, but it is not a huge deal -especially as it is easy to switch back*. No more cones, OTOH, is. Still not a dealbreaker, but definitely unfortunate news.


glass.

(* Or switch for hexes. This thread might just have sold me on them)

 

[KarinsDad]

My hangup with hexes has always been the fact that you can't just decide to move right or left. Up and down the board, sure, but right and left must be on at least a slight diagonal.

Not necessarily "must". It depends on the movement rules as explained below.

I'm curious--and I in no way mean this to be snarky, it's an honest question--those of you who prefer hexes, how do you reconcile this to representing anything approaching "realistic" movement?

I appreciate you being honest.

The question I have to ask is, how is right and left (or 90 degree) movement any different and "more realistic" than 60 degree movement or 32 degree movement or 103 degree movement or any other direction of movement?

Sure, WotC has trained everyone to draw a bunch of rectangular shaped rooms with rectangular shaped 90 degree corridors coming off of them, but that is not how many medieval and other ancient structures were actually shaped. It is a conditioning that WotC and the DND game in general has given to players. Ancient rooms in the real world have many different shapes. Many are rectangular, but many are not. And very few of them have two dimensions that have least common denominators of 5 feet. The 3E rules have shoehorned DMs into these dimensions and shapes.

With regard to perpendicular corridors, it really is no different than non-perpendicular angled corridors with squares. The same issue arises. When we used hexes in our game in the past, we also allowed for the use of two "half hexes". So, a 90 degree 5 foot wide corridor off a room would be a hex followed by two half hexes followed by another hex, etc.

Course, if you rotate the hex map by 90 degrees, there is a hex line going up that corridor and the issue is more minimal.

A similar partial grid rule would be needed for strange angle corridors, both with squares and with hexes. And why shouldn't tunnels twist and turn except in 90 degree increments?

I can see how squares allow for easy drawing and movement for the perpendicular corridor scenario 50% of the time (the other 50%, hexes work more or less the same). But, it really is not an issue if the movement rules allow for it.


So, getting back to your question, one has to ask: Why is 90 degrees 5x5 LCD sized areas so darn important to your game? Why are you locked into such a mindset? Even with rectangular shaped rooms, why can't rooms be 12x16 feet like in my house and be considered "realistic"?

 

[HeinorNY]

I still don't have a major problem with 4E's "1 = 1" setup.

So it's confirmed...
:´(

 

[Mouseferatu]

So it's confirmed...
:´(

Could be. Or we could be using some DDM rules along with our playtest draft of the rules, if/where we prefer them.

 

[Lackhand]

Could be. Or we could be using some DDM rules along with our playtest draft of the rules, if/where we prefer them.

Tricksy Hobbitses!

 

[Lurker37]

OK - here's my question:

Do you absolutely NEED squares to play 4E?

We don't have a large central table when we play. The DM has a blackboard behind him that can show basic area layouts when it's important, but we don't use miniatures, grids or any of that, and he has made it quite clear that such things are not welcome - the fact that he has small children who tend to abscond with such things (especially midgame) was the prime reason for this ruling.

So, will we be able to play 4E, or have squares of movement been woven into the core of the mechanics like IE into Windows?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Be careful, now. You're getting awful close to being critical about something related to 4e.

If you don't have anything nice to say....

I can't decide whether you are trying to pick a fight, or just be petty and mean, but either way you can't post in this thread any more.

If you've got any questions, please feel free to email me.

 

[HeinorNY]

Could be. Or we could be using some DDM rules along with our playtest draft of the rules, if/where we prefer them.

*Roll sense motive check. Result = 27*

Hmmm....