log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 4E Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?

HeinorNY

First Post
Lord Tirian said:
If I'd play the wizard, I'd prefer to have more of my party colleagues around me! Or a defensive spell! Or not having a monster there. Or a wall in front of my character. And the second picture is exactly like the things I have listed - a completely different situation. Like having a wall in front of you. Or more friends.
Or your wizard could stay at the tavern. But in the present situation the second diagram is a safer situation.

The two pictures, under 4E space, are simply non-comparable, because they show entirely different situations, that have nothing to do with each other, unless you cling to the idea of rotational symmetry.
They are the same situation. The distances between creatures is the same.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Geron Raveneye

Explorer
Lord Tirian said:
The two pictures, under 4E space, are simply non-comparable, because they show entirely different situations, that have nothing to do with each other, unless you cling to the idea of rotational symmetry.

But I give you that: It's a weird idea to give that up.

YES! Please, let me cling to it! Honestly, I never was any good in mentally walking through n-dimensional spaces, or working with realistic examples that only served as an abstraction (just recently drove a friend of mine nuts trying to make me understand Xeno's Paradox for what it is :lol: ). I'm only a simple chemist...I can live with anisotropic stuff, but NOT when I suddenly have to accept spatial parameters (like distance) are anisotropic in a world that is suspiciously similar to ours in many other respects. My suspension of disbelief only goes so far...and it already is pretty stretchy when I want it to. :uhoh:
 

Puggins

Explorer
Supporter
ainatan said:
But if you were playing the wizard, wouldn't you prefer to set the minis on the grid like in the second diagram?

Sigh...

Yes, if I were playing the wizard, I'd prefer to set the minis on the grid like in the second diagram, because the second diagram is a larger physical space.

This is disappointing. I'm arguing with someone I agree with fundamentally. Ainatan, I agree with you- I don't like the 1-1-1-1 movement system. But your reasoning with those diagrams is wrong. Don't take my word for it. Lay them out on maps. Find any map in any module ever published, and shift the grid. You'll find that the advantage is nowhere near what you're claiming because you'll have fewer diagonal spaces to work with. You are comparing two completely different maps that will never coincide in play.

Let me try a different angle. Take your second illustration. There are six diagonals across the middle of the room. That means the room is, at a minimum, a 30' x 30' room. Let's assume that's exactly what it is. Now, take the grid (not the room) and shift it by 45 degrees. YOU WILL NOT HAVE SIX ORTHOGONAL SPACES SEPARATING THE MONSTER AND THE WIZARD. You will have eight spaces, and your assertion will not hold up. That's because the room itself didn't not suddenly morph to satisfy WotC's new movement rules- Euclidean space tends to stay fairly constant outside of quantum field effects, something that WotC is probably not fitting into the rules, thank goodness.

There are plenty of valid arguments against the 1-1-1-1 movement rule. Your illustrations are not in that set of arguments. Shift to something a bit more defensible if you want to actually motivate change, please.
 

Geron Raveneye

Explorer
Puggins said:
Euclidean space tends to stay fairly constant outside of quantum field effects, something that WotC is probably not fitting into the rules, thank goodness.

[tongue-in-cheek]
Are you sure about this? To me, it looks like they already started with exactly that. Arcane defenders will be able to "tunnel" around the grid to affect enemies, and heroes warp space depending on their base movement rate. Looks like some kind of quantum field rules are going to be in effect for sure. :lol:
[/tongue-in-cheek]

(Come on people...some laughs are needed here. It's a GAME, we should all be able to make fun of its weaker points now and then. :) )
 

HeinorNY

First Post
Puggins said:
Sigh...

Yes, if I were playing the wizard, I'd prefer to set the minis on the grid like in the second diagram, because the second diagram is a larger physical space.

This is disappointing. I'm arguing with someone I agree with fundamentally. Ainatan, I agree with you- I don't like the 1-1-1-1 movement system. But your reasoning with those diagrams is wrong. Don't take my word for it. Lay them out on maps. Find any map in any module ever published, and shift the grid. You'll find that the advantage is nowhere near what you're claiming because you'll have fewer diagonal spaces to work with. You are comparing two completely different maps that will never coincide in play.

Let me try a different angle. Take your second illustration. There are six diagonals across the middle of the room. That means the room is, at a minimum, a 30' x 30' room. Let's assume that's exactly what it is. Now, take the grid (not the room) and shift it by 45 degrees. YOU WILL NOT HAVE SIX ORTHOGONAL SPACES SEPARATING THE MONSTER AND THE WIZARD. You will have eight spaces, and your assertion will not hold up. That's because the room itself didn't not suddenly morph to satisfy WotC's new movement rules- Euclidean space tends to stay fairly constant outside of quantum field effects, something that WotC is probably not fitting into the rules, thank goodness.

There are plenty of valid arguments against the 1-1-1-1 movement rule. Your illustrations are not in that set of arguments. Shift to something a bit more defensible if you want to actually motivate change, please.
But I never said those were rooms.
Consider that those diagrams are part of a giant battlefield.
 

Imban

First Post
ainatan said:
But I never said those were rooms.
Consider that those diagrams are part of a giant battlefield.

Um, the point is that you just magically created distance, and that's in no way cool. It's just far more obvious if you think about it in the context of physical rooms.
 

HeinorNY

First Post
Geron Raveneye said:
(Come on people...some laughs are needed here. It's a GAME, we should all be able to make fun of its weaker points now and then. :) )
Agreed.
Just for the record, I'm only drawing those chaotic and impossible diagrams because it's incredibly fun :)

Oh and BTW, in 4E this will be the new Shrine of Pelor.
 

HeinorNY

First Post
Imban said:
Um, the point is that you just magically created distance, and that's in no way cool. It's just far more obvious if you think about it in the context of physical rooms.
I understand your points guys, but it's not me creating space, it's the rules, depending on the way we align the grid.
 

Puggins

Explorer
Supporter
ainatan said:
But I never said those were rooms.
Consider that those diagrams are part of a giant battlefield.

Again, space is not amorphous. If the DM says "you see an orc 30' away, standing over the corpse of one of the soldiers you were traveling with," he's not going to position the orc ala illustration #2. He's going to position it as illustration #1 or a very modified illustration #2, with four diagonals between the wizard and the orc. 30' is not defined as "the amount of distance a human can cover in one round". 30' is defined in D&D as "6 orthogonal or 4 diagonal map squares from here." Trying to argue otherwise is not making a valid point. The players will never get to modify the map to take advantage of this system bug, and it's pointless to argue against the new rule by framing your case in that context.
 

Burke

First Post
The funniest part of this debate to me is that my group has always used 1-1-1 movement for squares in 3.5, and it's not even a houserule per se. The other members of the group just never noticed that rule, and must have figured all squares cost the same as the default, as far as I can tell (none of them have ever mentioned it), and I don't want to bring the "correct rule" up because I'm fine with the way it is. So we've just been playing the wrong way. If it's caused any weird tactical effects, they've never bothered any of the other players enough for them to speak up about it.

Actually, I have a question. Was this rule in 3.0 too? Because I never noticed the 1-2-1 movement till we switched to 3.5, which means I would have overlooked this rule for a couple years too if it was in 3.0. :eek:

Oh, and we always do firecubes too. We figured that 20' radius means you can count 2 squares in any direction from the center of the effect and that's what it fills. Completely wrong, I know, but no one in the group has ever challenged it.
 

Imban

First Post
To expand on my last post, you cannot assume that because an orthagonal step and a diagonal step are equivalent in movement cost, that any step, orthagonal or diagonal, is 5' and that the grid is mapped with the traditional coordinate system.

There are two ways around this, that I can see:

1) You can honestly move faster along a diagonal path than an orthagonal path. As a result, you cannot rotate the grid and keep spaces identical - there is actually a great difference in distance between the characters in Figure A and the characters in Figure B, even if they can reach each other in equal time without impediments. As such, the solution is to actually be further from your enemies (duh) and try to not line up on a diagonal.

This forces you to assume a universal grid of reference for your gameworld. This is relatively practical, really.

2) "It's all an abstraction, you really should just relax."

I think you could also probably make a case for the grid not mapping to the traditional coordinate system but conceptualizing that hurts my brain. As such, I will leave how that would work an exercise for future posters.
 

HeinorNY

First Post
Imban said:
To expand on my last post, you cannot assume that because an orthagonal step and a diagonal step are equivalent in movement cost, that any step, orthagonal or diagonal, is 5' and that the grid is mapped with the traditional coordinate system.
Do you mean 1-1-1-1 may not be 5ft-5ft-5ft-5ft but actually 5ft-15ft-20ft-30ft?
 

Imban

First Post
ainatan said:

Blue = Wizard
Green = Fighter
X = Monster

To borrow your own pictures, my solution requires you to assume that in Figure B, the distance is 6 squares, but its actual distance: approximately 42.4 feet. The real distance is 42.4 feet. It's just that characters are actually notably faster along diagonals, capable of covering 30 feet in 6 seconds with orthagonal movement in Figure A and 42.4 feet in 6 seconds with diagonal movement in Figure B, and somewhere in between if they engage in a mixture of both.

ainatan said:
Do you mean 1-1-1-1 may not be 5ft-5ft-5ft-5ft but actually 5ft-15ft-20ft-30ft?

Yeah, 1-1-1-1 can actually be any combination of 5ft orthagonal and 7ft diagonal steps. In order for this to make "sense" - though it posits a very strange world - there has to be an absolute grid of reference, so rotating the grid isn't really an issue.

If you don't know how you line up as regards to the absolute grid (say, you have a random outdoor encounter) you have to determine it based on ranges, which I suppose calls into play the "doesn't map exactly" thing I mentioned earlier. This means you will actually be closer in squares if you choose to lay out the grid diagonally than if you choose to lay it out orthagonally, because if you need to base your battle map on known ranges rather than a premade grid, you need it to obey known ranges.
 
Last edited:

Nom

First Post
Aside: Bungie actually invented this movement mechanic some time ago. In Marathon, if you sidestepped at the same time as you ran your horizontal vector was added to your forward vector, and thus a character moving at about 20 degrees to the straight-line was faster than one moving straight ahead.

On topic: I was playing with my daughter with counters on one of the D&D maps. Since she's only 3, I naturally just counted the diagonals as 1. And then realised, "This is much simpler than 1.5 and makes almost no difference to the big picture.".
 

Epic Meepo

First Post
Lord Tirian said:
4E world is simply an anisotropic space. The problems stem from transferring geometry tailored to isotropic, euclidean space to it.
Puggins said:
Euclidean space tends to stay fairly constant outside of quantum field effects...
Curved spacetime? Quantum fields? And here I thought the calculus for optimizing Power Attack was bad; now power gamers are going to need a complete theory of quantum gravity to get the most bang for their buck. :D

Well, screw this. I'm replacing my battlemat with a lattice of microscopic strings that take on the properites of either squares or hexes, depending upon their mode of vibration. And they allow all rules from all previous editions to exist in 4.0; you just can't notice their effects because all previous editions are confined to six compactified dimensions that are too small to see.
 

Imban

First Post
Nom said:
Aside: Bungie actually invented this movement mechanic some time ago. In Marathon, if you sidestepped at the same time as you ran your horizontal vector was added to your forward vector, and thus a character moving at about 20 degrees to the straight-line was faster than one moving straight ahead.

On topic: I was playing with my daughter with counters on one of the D&D maps. Since she's only 3, I naturally just counted the diagonals as 1. And then realised, "This is much simpler than 1.5 and makes almost no difference to the big picture.".

Was Marathon really the first game with it? I thought it was endemic to early first-person shooters, actually - I'm almost sure the same effect existed in Doom, for instance.

I'm waiting for the final rules to see for what I think of the new movement style. As I've said, I use a virtual tabletop, so 1-2-1-2 doesn't lose me any time at all except with very zig-zagging paths, difficult terrain, or both, but unless I notice a real loss in functionality from using 1-1-1-1 movement, I'll probably stick with it. There's not enough information to determine all of its effects on typical combat and tactics in 4e as of yet, anyway.
 

nem z

First Post
it worked that way in quake as well, if you jump and keep strafing in opposite directions. 'Hopping' was -way- faster than normal running, plus all that extra movement made you a more difficult target.

I'd also note that the idea of being faster in a diagonal line than an axis one is flat-out crazy. If we agree it is the same speed/distance for the hypotenuse I expect that your area problem is in the rounding error of all the bits of squares you ignored when it didn't line up perfectly with the grid.

I'm currently more interested in finding a way to rule for hex maps that disallows the 'drift' evasion pattern.
 

Amazing Triangle

First Post
I am okay with the 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 diagonals. For years I actually didn't know any different. Guess it all stems from not having a map the first 2 years of playing. So now it feels cumbersome to play with the 1-2-1-2-1-2 rules that seem counter to what you would think. Yeah sure you can use the math to show it but don't we do enough math when we build characters. Why try to do all that counting the squares while trying to keep your attack bonus, damage bonus, AC and skill checks all in check do to conditional modifiers...?

Just my 2 cents
 


KarinsDad

First Post
nem z said:
I'm currently more interested in finding a way to rule for hex maps that disallows the 'drift' evasion pattern.

If by this, you mean the same distance along multiple paths in the direction of a spline, I was toying with a way, but hadn't had the time to really sit down and think about it.

If one regards each 60 degree turn as an extra unit of movement (i.e. one has to slow up a bit to turn a corner), and also allowed movement through half hexes along a spline, then this might just resolve the issue.

But, I haven't had time to carefully consider it. Thoughts anyone?
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top