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

[Kraydak]

Ainatan, I don't think anyone's arguing with your point. (At least, I'm not.) As I've said before, I agree that what's been done isn't the perfect solution. And it does, indeed, open itself to abuse by certain players.

But--and I cannot stress this enough--I've weighed that point against the massive increase in speed and ease of play that I've seen in games that use the "1 = 1" rule. And to me, that simply outweighs the potential problems.

(And, for the record, it so far hasn't opened up any problems in my game. Now, maybe that's just because we're not taking advantage of it, I don't know. But so far, it just hasn't been an issue.)

Thankfully, even if 4E codifies the "1 = 1" system, going back to 1-2-1-2 is about the easiest thing in the world to house rule back in.

The only problem I've encountered with 1-2-1-2 is, if you intersperse diagonal and straight movement. Then you can forget which diagonal movement you are on. This (as was noted up-thread) is *completely* solved by making movement (already abstracted into squares) abstracted into movement points: 2 points along the grid, 3 diagonal. There is no longer any cognitive load of remember both how far you have moved and how many diagonal moves you made. Just how far you moved. In 3e, with movement non-abstracted, it wouldn't work so well... in 4e, with movement abstracted, it's almost a tragedy that they aren't doing it (it also gives you finer resolution for difficult terrain and the like, as an added bonus).

 

[Reaper Steve]

Or he can just go really around the fighter, provoking no 'opportuniy attacks'!!!!

This.
This right here is what I just can't swallow.

In my OP, I thought my concern was 'they're making it too easy, at an awful expense.' If you are playing D&D, being expected to count 1-2-1-2 or 1.5,3,4.5,6 really isn't a high expectation or too much to ask.
My argument focused on the 'no, it really not that difficult aspect', but this picture shows my real concern.
Movement like this will be absurd. Beyond my ability to handwave, abstract, or accept.

Funny, though, that I don't really mind the firecubes. That to me is a small sacrifice that immensely aids play. But movement like in ainatan's pic will have gone too far, no matter how easy it is.

Well, I love everything else we know of 4E. This is my first real concern.
I hope that diagonal movement isn't 1:1.
If it is, I hope they reconsider.
If its too late, I hope there's more to the rules that prevents abuse.
If that's not the case, I'll give it a shot. I don't like making houserules, especially those that alter fundamental assumptions. But I won't be able to stomach movement to contact as shown in this pic.

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

This is proof!!!! This IS the strongest supporting example I've seen. This'll be my "anti-diagonal-1=1" flag!

I'd love to sig this

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Sorry folks, nothing to see here, at the point where I'm arguing over halflings and square feet I know it's time for me to move on before I begin evolving rules for square dancing.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The number of 1 round conditions in DDM 2.0 is calling for new record keeping mechanisms if it's a serious game and one player is using a band that has a lot of them (a Yuan ti band with poison, for instance).

For my part, I can confirm that 1/1 diagonal movement speeds up the game a little bit and will undoubtedly make it easier to teach (though for adults, I don't think it much extra). However, explaining how a square on the other side of their miniature is actually the same distance as the square on this side of their miniature and that I can charge in a V shape to avoid taking Opportunity Attacks is likely to suck up all of that teaching time again.

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?

 

[HeinorNY]

Thanks for the answer Elder-Basilisk

 

[Burr]

Suppose they had another rule: "Normally, all move actions must be straight lines. Any change in direction requires ending the character's current move action and beginning another."

In such a case, it might make sense to replace a 1 diagonal = 2 squares with 1 diagonal = 1 square.

Could this be what's going on?

 

[Dinkeldog]

This is proof!!!! This IS the strongest supporting example I've seen. This'll be my "anti-diagonal-1=1" flag!

I'd love to sig this

It all has to do with the square root of 2--technically, it shouldn't be 1.5. 1.5 is a simplification from 1.414....(it's an irrational number so it goes on forever and doesn't end). The ancient Babylonians knew this--we've got tablet fragments showing that they knew what the value of the square root of 2 to a pretty high number of digits that date back thousands of years.

The good news is that this is probably something that house rules really easily.

 

[Turjan]

However, explaining how a square on the other side of their miniature is actually the same distance as the square on this side of their miniature and that I can charge in a V shape to avoid taking Opportunity Attacks is likely to suck up all of that teaching time again.

Whatever I think of the rule itself, I don't think that teaching it will be difficult. Actually, it's very simple to mark the threatened fields, because they are all in a straight line.

 

[Dausuul]

*sigh* This is why I wish they'd gone with hexes for 4E. But it's a bit late for that now.

I realize that 1-for-1 diagonal movement speeds up the game, but... ack. It hits my suspension of disbelief just a little too hard. I'm un-thrilled about the prospect of fireball being replaced with firecube, and I'm really un-thrilled about the "diagonal dodge" trick.

(Sad to say, 2-for-1 diagonal movement doesn't solve the problem, it simply turns it forty-five degrees. If the monster is attacking the wizard to its northeast, and the fighter is diagonally between the wizard and the monster, the monster can go straight east and then straight north and bypass the fighter. And instead of firecube, you get firediamond.)

I plan to buy one of those battlemats with hexes on one side and squares on the other. For my first 4E game, we may give hexes a whirl, depending on how the players feel about it. If not... well, we've managed pretty well with 3.5E's "1-step, 2-step" rule, I'm sure we can work something out.

Here's a question: Has anyone tried the old-fashioned approach of measuring off distances with a ruler? Does it slow things down significantly?