D&D 4E Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?

Teydyn

First Post
Dr. Strangemonkey said:
To be fair they don't say their same they're the same length
If you use ANY kind of logic they do.

You all make it sound as if the 1-2-1-2 rule is higher math.

Is it even math at all?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

HeinorNY

First Post
Benimoto said:
Okay, now with images, here was always my problem with distances measured by the 3.5 method.
attachment.php


Radius and reach are not the same thing.
The reach start from "all around" the attacker's square.
Radius is measured from a same point.

In the reach diagram, it makes perfectly sense that the attacker could hit the creature on the corner squares. It could at least affect 50% of the square in the corner, so it's enough to reach anyone there.

In the radius diagram, the 'logical' 10ft. radius circle is really a little wider than that.
If you put a 10ft. radius circle on the grid, like I did in the last diagram, the actual 10ft radius circle works well. IIRC there is a rule (of thumb?) in D&D that says "if the area of the effect covers less than 50% of the area of a square, a creature in the square is not affected". That's what happens with the Actual 10'R circle.
 

Attachments

  • 1-2-1-2.png
    1-2-1-2.png
    24.1 KB · Views: 996
Last edited:

I really don't get it

I really don't get the speed argument. Movement has _never_ bogged people down in my games.

I mean, how hard is it to call out when you're moving diagonal, "5,15,20,30,35,45,50,60?"

It just amazes me that people find this to be difficult.

Should we take crit multipliers out of the rules too, because multiplication is hard?

Ken
 

KarinsDad

Adventurer
Haffrung Helleyes said:
I mean, how hard is it to call out when you're moving diagonal, "5,15,20,30,35,45,50,60?"

Actually, it's harder than 1 3 4 6 7 9 10 12. At least to some players I know. Counting out squares as opposed to feet is actually easier, especially late at night when people are tired.
 


HeinorNY

First Post
Haffrung Helleyes said:
Should we take crit multipliers out of the rules too, because multiplication is hard?
Sorry to tell you but there are no more crit multipliers. Critical damage now deals maximum damage.
I believe there will be other ways to multiply the damage though.
 

FireLance

Legend
Oh, for the record, I think I'll stick with 1, 2, 1, 2, etc. We've gotten used to it in 3e, and it doesn't take much more time for us. The relatively small increase in simplicity probably won't be worth the added cognitive dissonance.

And even for new players, if you can keep track of how many times your character has failed the stabilization check after his hp goes into the negatives, you can keep track of how many diagonal squares you've moved in the current round.
 

Turjan

Explorer
Now we know it. 4e is the revenge of the gelatinous cubes! Down with circles!

j/k

Funny that it's the opposite solution to the one in SWSE.
 

Burr

First Post
One method for achieving 1,1,1,1 for straight movements and 1,2,1,2 for diagonal movements is by using Cairo pentagonal tiling. You can overlay 90-degree walls without much distortion.

OTOH, you have to disallow corner-jumping, which leaves only 5 paths of movement from each tile. Plus, it's weird for radial effects (but great for cones).
 
Last edited:

HeinorNY

First Post
I've never played DDM, so maybe I am completely equivocated (correct me if I am plz), but I wonder:
How DDM players can keep track of the HP, keep track of conditions (that last for a round and for the entire combat), keep track of who already acted that round, take into account difficult terrain, line of sight, reach, and all that about dozens of different miniatures and at the same time, say that calculating diagonal movement as 1-2-1-2 slows down the game?
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top