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

[xechnao]

Straight move: counts as 2
Diagonal move: counts as 3

To perform a 5f step you are free to do so in any direction.

Remaining move points do not stack from one round to the next. For example if one moves 5 straight squares and 4 diagonal (=22) and has a movement of 23 that extra remaining move point does not carry over to next round unless he is sprinting or unless he is performing a stunt where he claims to cover extra distance than his movement points allow

-see that jumping counts as movement points too: however if one only makes a jump in a round and declares so before initiative is rolled he may not need to make a stunt test. If he loses initiative though and is attacked he will need to make a stunt if he wants to make any jump that along any movement he makes he will be covering a distance beyond his movement points. Furthermore his first attacker gains combat advantage.

Oh, and remember to double the movement of each PC and monster.

Is it ok now?

 

[delericho]

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.

Or, just count diagonals as 1.5 and round the fraction down. Then you only need to count one number. Still, I will acknowledge that some people have difficulty with the rule as-is. However, I remain convinced that this change will cause more problems than it solves, and predict that it will be reversed in 5e.

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".

I have rather more sympathy with this one, although a player really shouldn't be able to micro-manage and backtrack his movement like that. Probably the biggest cause of slowdown in 3e is nothing to do with the rules, but the obsession of players to squeeze optimum performance out of every action for their character.

IMC, once a player starts counting out the squares for his move, he is committed to it. But then, my players are pretty good at judging these things by eye, and so this approach isn't for everyone.

 

[Derren]

Probably the biggest cause of slowdown in 3e is nothing to do with the rules, but the obsession of players to squeeze optimum performance out of every action for their character.

It might sound silly, but imo the biggest slowdown are players who only start thinking about what they are going to do when their turn starts, not before. This is such a small thing, and when spoken out loud sounds as it should be the default for everyone but from my impression most players, especially new ones don't do this.
Teach them to think what they are going to do while the others are still taking their turns and combats flows faster than what any rule streamlining can achieve.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

It might sound silly, but imo the biggest slowdown are players who only start thinking about what they are going to do when their turn starts, not before. This is such a small thing, and when spoken out loud sounds as it should be the default for everyone but from my impression most players, especially new ones don't do this.
Teach them to think what they are going to do while the others are still taking their turns and combats flows faster than what any rule streamlining can achieve.

This has been my experience as well.

Ken

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

It might sound silly, but imo the biggest slowdown are players who only start thinking about what they are going to do when their turn starts, not before.

This is very, very true, though sometimes its because of what delericho brings up - waiting till your turn to see how things stand, and only then figuring out your action. I run a pretty big group right now (8 PC's with 3 cohorts) and I always try to give a "who's on deck" notice as I run through initiative ("Jade is up, Dante will be next, and then Callum").

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Faster than human does not equal extreme. I'm pretty sure that "extreme" movement speeds refers more to things like dragons, which cover 30 to 50 squares in a single move action.

 

[Fifth Element]

Straight move: counts as 2
Diagonal move: counts as 3

This is probably the most straightforward solution if you don't like 1-1-1. Convert your movement rate in squares by doubling it to give "movement points". The cost of movement in movement points is as above. Then you don't need to keep track of whether you're on an odd diagonal or even.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Aside from spell effects, the 1-1-1 rule feels pretty natural, since chess uses it for ages. While it's not realistic, it's something intuitive, not counter-intuitive - after all, most people "get" chess (at least the rules) very quickly.

I mean, I've never heard of somebody being bothered by the chess diagonals. And I've started to play with 1-1-1 in 3.0 - and nobody ever complained. The issue only gets out of hand if you're fast enough - and then you're already able to outmanoeuvre people easily.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Fifth Element]

It might sound silly, but imo the biggest slowdown are players who only start thinking about what they are going to do when their turn starts, not before.

I agree. This is the biggest cause of slowdown in my games, especially when it's a caster.

That doesn't mean, however, that 1-2-1-2 isn't a cause of slowdown, or that a rule change cannot improve it.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Note: I haven't read the thread at all.

I'll want to house rule in 1-2-1 for my 4e games if it isn't in because 1-1-1 leads to situations like this (fear my l33t Photoshop skills):

Character 2 and Character 3 are allied, and C2 is trying to interpose himself between C3 and C1. However, it takes C1 just as much movement to reach C3 as it would if C2 wasn't there. With a 30' movement (6 squares), C1 can even move and attack. Under 1-2-1, C1 could still make it, but it would take a 45' (9 squares) movement or double move to achieve.

You also end up with situations where moving back and forth around traps or other obstacles gets you just as far as if those obstacles didn't exist.

This is coming completely from a tactical standpoint and not a realistic standpoint.