D&D 4E Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?

Rel

Liquid Awesome
Kid Charlemagne said:
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").

[tangent]I do this as well and it helps. But I've also noticed that this is going to vary by where different players fall in the turn order and the variety of combatants. If your turn order looks like this:

Player 1
Player 2
Player 3
Bad Guys
Player 4
Player 5

then I would suspect that Player 4 will have more changes to take into account than Player 3 did because the tactical situation may have changed considerably on the bad guys turn. Now what if your bad guys are not all "off the rack" orcs? What if it's some Orcs, some Worgs and an Orcish lieutenant? And they have different places in the initiative order? Like so:

Player 1
Worgs
Player 2
Player 3
Orcish Lieutenant
Player 4
Orcs
Player 5

This results in the tactical situation changing between most players turns so they have to absorb those changes and then react in whatever manner they see fit. So I'd expect for players to need a bit more time to decide their course of action. Also some character classes will "shape the battlefield" more than others. You may have known exactly who your Fighter was going to charge on his turn until the Druid in your party cast Entangle right before it got to your turn. Now you need to adjust.

Now I'm a tactical player and I enjoy complex tactical situations. So that doesn't bother me all that much because meaningful tactical choices for myself and others that I play with are a big part of what makes the game fun. But others may differ on that.

One thing I encourage is for players who don't enjoy having to make those kinds of choices to limit their choices to as narrow a set as possible. So don't play a fighter type with a wide variety of complex moves. Play a fighter type that hits hard well and just default to that most of the time. Don't play a Wizard, play a Sorcerer. Because it's easier to choose between 5 spells than it is to choose between 12.[/tangent]
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Puggins

Explorer
xechnao said:
Straight move: counts as 2
Diagonal move: counts as 3

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

.
.
.

Is it ok now?


Well, this is accurate, but they don't want long movements to take too long to calculate if you have to re-do some of the movement.

Personally, I'd do:

All movement into a clear square costs 1.

The first diagonal movement of any move action costs an extra 1. All other subsequent diagonals in that move action cost 1.


Works pretty well, especially considering that the 1-2-1-2 scheme overcharges you slightly for diagonals.

Consider a human with a base move of 30' (6 squares) moving only in diagonal:

1-2-1-2: 4 squares, approximately 28'

1-1-1-1: 6 squares, approximately 42'

2-1-1-1: 5 squares, approximately 35'

A little more error than 1-2-1-2, but nearly all the simplicity of 1-1-1-1.
 

delericho

Legend
Rel said:
then I would suspect that Player 4 will have more changes to take into account than Player 3 did because the tactical situation may have changed considerably on the bad guys turn.

That's certainly true. To handle that, I don't require that players have their action all ready to go. However, if a player hasn't started to declare his first action of the round inside 10 seconds of the start of his turn, he loses his turn. Given that one can simply declare "Hold!" and deal with it later, there's not really much risk of losing a turn.

However, I found that without that sort of time pressure, the number of players who wouldn't even start to think about what they were going to do until their turn came around was really quite scary.
 

Warbringer

Explorer
Puggins said:
All movement into a clear square costs 1.

The first diagonal movement of any move action costs an extra 1. All other subsequent diagonals in that move action cost 1.


Works pretty well, especially considering that the 1-2-1-2 scheme overcharges you slightly for diagonals.

Consider this yoinked
 

Deverash

First Post
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"...

If this hasn't been answered yet, DDM had several examples of spell areas that had square bursts and the like. Shoe has pretty much confirmed that this is in the 4e, so it's probably a safe assumption that they aren't using 2 different methods of measuring distances(I hated that reach was the only thing that didn't count 1,2,1,2 in 3x, even though I understood why).
 

drothgery

First Post
ThirdWizard said:
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):

attachment.php


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.

Just nitpicking here, but C2 can make it in a single move with 1-2-1. There's no movement penalty for going through a square occupied by an ally, so why would he need to bother with that loop around tactic?
 

delericho

Legend
drothgery said:
Just nitpicking here, but C2 can make it in a single move with 1-2-1. There's no movement penalty for going through a square occupied by an ally, so why would he need to bother with that loop around tactic?

I think you're reading the example wrong - C1 is trying to reach C3, and has to go around C2. C2 and C3 are allies - C1 is the enemy.
 

Arnwyn

First Post
Mouseferatu said:
As someone who's played both ways--the "1, 2, 1, 2" method, and the "a square is a square is a square" method--I cannot disagree with you more strongly. Even in a group of very intelligent people, the boost in speed and ease of play far outweighs any initial cognitive dissonance.
Completely the opposite for me and my group.
 

HeinorNY

First Post
Benimoto said:
Those corner squares are less than 50% covered, and a 10-foot line doesn't even quite touch the center of the corner squares.
That 50% rule is just for area effects, not reach.

Benimoto said:
But, neither the 1-2-1-2 or 1-1-1-1 system for diagonals fully protects the wizard. In both systems the monster can go around the fighter and attack the wizard while provoking attacks of opportunity.
But 1-1-1-1 is the only that allows the monster to reach the wizard without provoking AoOs.
 

Derren

Hero
drothgery said:
Just nitpicking here, but C2 can make it in a single move with 1-2-1. There's no movement penalty for going through a square occupied by an ally, so why would he need to bother with that loop around tactic?

See delerichos post

C1 = Big evil hard hitting enemy
C2 = Though fighter guy
C3 = Squishy wizard

With 1-1-1 (as seen in the example)
C1, the enemy, walks around C2, the fighter, as if he weren't there and can reach C3, the wizard without problem.

With 1-2-1
C1 must walk past C2 granting him an AoO he can use to trip or grapple in order to reach C3.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top