D&D 4E Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?

Steely Dan

Banned
Banned
I'm fine with this, as they are trying to add more movement in combat; I also love the new charge rules in 2.0 DDM.


P.S. My group and I never had a problem with diagonal movement in 3.5, but neither will we miss it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

glass

(he, him)
Mustrum_Ridcully said:
By the way: Is it even confirmed that Cones and Bursts become cubes, or is this just our extrapolation of the fact that the DDM uses the 1-1 scheme for diagonal movement. At some point, we might be really leaping to conclusions. I wouldn't be surprised if 4E used standardizes spell sizes and thus also fixed templates. Simpflying diagonal movement cost speeds up play because people don't just move diagonal, they combine it with different movement directions. Spell area's don't "move"...
I believe they've said that spell areas and ranges will be calculated in the same way as moving, which in combination with 1-1 diagonals means square circles.

Of course, they might not really mean that, or I might just be misremembering.


glass.
 

glass said:
I don't like 1-1-1-1 either, but I don't think insulting people who do like it is the way to go. Especially, I don't think you'll get very far in suggesting that Ari Marmell, game designer par excellence, 'can't be bothered to learn the basic rules'.


glass.

Of course he can learn the rules. That's a strawman argument.

But his response on this thread has led me to the conclusion that what he wants from D&D, and what I and my players want, are really different. Given that, it would be a mistake for me to rely on his opinion of 4E to guide my purchasing decisions.

Ken
 

Derren

Hero
glass said:
I don't like 1-1-1-1 either, but I don't think insulting people who do like it is the way to go. Especially, I don't think you'll get very far in suggesting that Ari Marmell, game designer par excellence, 'can't be bothered to learn the basic rules'.


glass.

My point is that the 1-2-1 rule does not involve any complex mathematic. The only thing in involves is counting to two instead of one.
The only instance where this slows down combat is when the players don't know/forget this rule. Once they memorized it 1-2-1 is as fast as 1-1-1 while being much more logical.
 

Kid Charlemagne

I am the Very Model of a Modern Moderator
Derren said:
The 1-1-1 rule is for people who can't count to 2.

Derren said:
My point is that the 1-2-1 rule does not involve any complex mathematic. The only thing in involves is counting to two instead of one.
The only instance where this slows down combat is when the players don't know/forget this rule. Once they memorized it 1-2-1 is as fast as 1-1-1 while being much more logical.

Do you see the differences between these two posts? One is a blanket insult, while the other says much the same thing, but without denigrating the mental faculties of those who disagree with you. Since you've shown that you can count to two, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you can figure out which one is OK, and which one is not.
 

Steely Dan

Banned
Banned
Kid Charlemagne said:
Do you see the differences between these two posts? One is a blanket insult, while the other says much the same thing, but without denigrating the mental faculties of those who disagree with you. Since you've shown that you can count to two, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you can figure out which one is OK, and which one is not.

Don't bother – it's a crusade.
 

MerricB

Eternal Optimist
Supporter
Just a couple of thoughts:

I've had to explain the 1-2-1-2 rule on a fairly consistent basis to experienced players in my games. It's not quite as bad as the THAC0 rule of 2e, but I have noticed it. Regardless of thoughts of "realism", when you actually, *really* get down to counting, you count squares as "1, 2, 3..." and exceptions to that rule can confuse people.

Even me. And look, I'm really skilled mathematically, and I know the rule backwards (and I consider a diagonal 1.5, round down). Especially in my days as a DDM player, fast movement creatures would often cause me to lose count of how many diagonals they'd actually taken.

I think the new rule will cause the most problem with creatures with speeds of about 10 squares or so, because you'll really notice their mobility then. 6 squares? Not so significant. 20 squares? They can get anywhere they want to!

Cheers!
 

glass

(he, him)
Haffrung Helleyes said:
Of course he can learn the rules. That's a strawman argument.
Well it would be, if it wasn't for the fact that Derren said:
1-1-1 would only speed up the game if the players are unwilling to learn the movement rules and I don't think that it is a good idea to develop the game for people who don't even bother to learn basic rules.
Ari has said he has tried it both ways and finds 1-1-1 faster. Therefore, by Derren's accusation Ari is someone who doesn't 'even bother to learn basic rules'. Its not a strawman if he said it!


glass.
 

Derren said:
My point is that the 1-2-1 rule does not involve any complex mathematic. The only thing in involves is counting to two instead of one.
The only instance where this slows down combat is when the players don't know/forget this rule. Once they memorized it 1-2-1 is as fast as 1-1-1 while being much more logical.
I think the complexity doesn't result from the fact that you move diagonally, but that your mixing different movement directions. You have to keep two numbers in your head:
- Total Movement
- Numbers of squares moved diagonally.

On top of that, you will have a lot of backtracking to do, like "Oh, no, the Ogre has reach, I must move slightly different, like this. Oh no, not enough movement if I move this way, so I have to go through his reach - maybe my Tumble check will not fail this time? The square there is difficult ground, right?"

Each individual action is very simple. But that doesn't mean that the conjunction of several of them doesn't become difficult to manage. And if not difficult, it becomes "less fast".

Otherwise you could argue that calculating the square root of a number is pretty simple, because you just need to make a few divisions. And divisions are also simple, because you just need to make a few substractions, and that's elementary school maths!
 
Last edited:

Derren

Hero
MerricB said:
Just a couple of thoughts:

I've had to explain the 1-2-1-2 rule on a fairly consistent basis to experienced players in my games. It's not quite as bad as the THAC0 rule of 2e, but I have noticed it. Regardless of thoughts of "realism", when you actually, *really* get down to counting, you count squares as "1, 2, 3..." and exceptions to that rule can confuse people.

Imo thats because the rule is rather hidden and not elaborated on. Make an example picture about this in the movement section and quite a lot more experienced gamers will remember it.
I think the new rule will cause the most problem with creatures with speeds of about 10 squares or so, because you'll really notice their mobility then. 6 squares? Not so significant. 20 squares? They can get anywhere they want to!

If such creatures exist in 4E. Several times I heard that a goal in 4E is to reduce "extreme" movement speeds.
That elves already go 7 squares and that Pit Fiends can teleport 10 violates this so I am not sure (But you can't stop the Pit Fiend anyway so it doesn't matter much in this case). And flight still has a manuverability rating it it will use special rules anyway.
It seems we just have to accept that in 4E D&D worlds people will not walk forward, but diagonal.
Most people are probably not bothered by this, but I find it quite disturbing that in 4E (with 1-1-1) the alignment of the battle grid will have such a huge effect on the battle itself.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top