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

[Mouseferatu]

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.

Is it? It's been a while, but I thought I remembered SWSE going the "1 = 1" route.

 

[Wolfspider]

Is it? It's been a while, but I thought I remembered SWSE going the "1 = 1" route.

Page 258 of the Star Wars Saga Edition core rulebook:

"Moving diagonally costs double. When moving or counting along a diagonal path, each diagonal counts as two squares...."

 

[Turjan]

Is it? It's been a while, but I thought I remembered SWSE going the "1 = 1" route.

Well, Wolfspider quoted the rule. It's basically the elimination of diagonal movement. You would get the same result by only taking straight steps.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Well, Wolfspider quoted the rule. It's basically the elimination of diagonal movement. You would get the same result by only taking straight steps.

Huh. Guess I dramatically misremembered.

Gonna have to say, I definitely prefer "1 = 1" to "1 = 2".

 

[KarinsDad]

Gonna have to say, I definitely prefer "1 = 1" to "1 = 2".

From a "it's tough to get past the Defender" POV, 1 = 2 is better. Still not good, but better than 1 = 1.

 

[Wolfspider]

Huh. Guess I dramatically misremembered.

Gonna have to say, I definitely prefer "1 = 1" to "1 = 2".

So, 1.5 is a good compromise, right?

 

[TwinBahamut]

Huh. Guess I dramatically misremembered.

Gonna have to say, I definitely prefer "1 = 1" to "1 = 2".

Out of raw curiosity, why? I can understand preferring "diagonal = constant" to "diagonal = alternating 1 and 2" for gameplay speed reasons, but why do you have a preference for "diagonal = 1" over "diagonal = 2"?

As I said earlier, I vastly prefer the latter simply because I am used to it from how often it shows up in videogames with tactical movement (some of which are my favorite D&D inspirations). What is more, it avoids the chief problem ainatan is complaining about, the added difficulty of defending an ally, and instead it is actually somewhat easier to defend allies with tactical positioning in the "diagonal = 2" system because of the restrictions on diagonal movement. I also think it is just quicker and easier to calculate distances with that system, rather than the "diagonal = 1" system, because distance is less dependent on path. Meanwhile, I really can't think of any particular advantages of "diagonal = 1", so I am curious as to why someone would prefer it.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I wonder if the irony is deliberate or inadvertent.

It was inadvertent...I didn't realize they'd changed it.

MY generation didn't have a problem with math or gygaxian speech. What's wrong with you kids? ;-)

 

[Arkhandus]

Well, y'know, normally if the Fighter wanted to protect his fragile, bookish nerd-friend, he'd either be standing near the Wizard to protect him, or getting right up in the enemy's face so as to run interference. And the Wizard, who absolutely must have half a brain in order to cast any spells, would know better than to get close to enemies before he's ready to blast them to smithereens. Unless the group was ambushed, in which case, that's just the advantage of springing an ambush; you get to attack when the poor berks are completely unprepared.

Also, this is what polearms and spiked chains are for, of course. That's the only time you should be protecting your allies from such a poor position, because you have the reach to make it work.

Or, what readying an action is for. Enemy tries to move past you to the Wizard? Readied action and you move to intercept, getting in their way, so if they want to keep going around, they'll take an AoO from you because you just got up in their face.

 

[Wolfspider]

Well, y'know, normally if the Fighter wanted to protect his fragile, bookish nerd-friend, he'd either be standing near the Wizard to protect him, or getting right up in the enemy's face so as to run interference. And the Wizard, who absolutely must have half a brain in order to cast any spells, would know better than to get close to enemies before he's ready to blast them to smithereens. Unless the group was ambushed, in which case, that's just the advantage of springing an ambush; you get to attack when the poor berks are completely unprepared.

Also, this is what polearms and spiked chains are for, of course. That's the only time you should be protecting your allies from such a poor position, because you have the reach to make it work.

Or, what readying an action is for. Enemy tries to move past you to the Wizard? Readied action and you move to intercept, getting in their way, so if they want to keep going around, they'll take an AoO from you because you just got up in their face.

Fair enough. So, what do you think about the non-euclidean geometry in D&D 4e?