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

[Dragonblade]

I don't know if I'm totally on board with counting diagonals as 1, but I'm not against it either. I can definitely see the possibility of movement anomalies. However, given that the advantage in movement would apply to both PCs and their enemies, and that 4e is based around making movement easier and combat more dynamic, then it may work fine.

 

[Wormwood]

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.

If C2 was one square closer to C1, would this problem still be an issue?

But that aside, perhaps the best way to defend someone in an open field isn't to stand 15 feet away.

I'd imagine that sticking closer to the defendee or attacking the antagonist would be a better solution.

 

[Derren]

If C2 was one square closer to C1, would this problem still be an issue?

Not that I see. When the Fighter stands very close to a monster he will get an AoO when it moves. Likewise, when the fighter stands close or even in front of the wizard he will end up in range when the monster comes but won't get an AoO because the monster doesn't leave his range, it only enters it.

With 1-1-1 movement, for protecting someone, it is best to stand close to the enemy. Standing close to the one you want to protect is suboptimal and standing between those two is useless.

 

[Imban]

I'd imagine that sticking closer to the defendee or attacking the antagonist would be a better solution.

Attacking the antagonist is your only solution. Sticking closer to the defendee won't work. Gimme a few minutes to whip up images showing why not...

As you can see, no defensive position closer to the defendee is going to work out.

 

[Fifth Element]

As you can see, no defensive position closer to the defendee is going to work out.

This assumes, of course, that defender classes won't have some sort of abilities that hinder this strategy. Remember to consider the whole ruleset, not just individual bits. Hopefully defenders will have abilities that allow them to, y'know, defend.

 

[Fifth Element]

As you can see, no defensive position closer to the defendee is going to work out.

Also, you've carefully designed your example to illustrate the problem you're looking for. 5 feet further apart, and there's no problem. 5 feet closer, and the same result can be obtained using 1-2-1. An extra 5 feet on the movement rate of the attacker, and it's a problem regardless. Since movement is intended to be abstract, so you can't really focus on a single specific situation where problems might arise to evaluate it.

There are similar problems using 1-2-1, just at different ranges. So this is one of the tradeoffs for the simplicity, which as I hoped above may be offset by defender class abilities to help prevent it.

 

[Imban]

This assumes, of course, that defender classes won't have some sort of abilities that hinder this strategy. Remember to consider the whole ruleset, not just individual bits. Hopefully defenders will have abilities that allow them to, y'know, defend.

Of course. We already know the Paladin's Binding Smite would help, but that's at level 26. I'm fully ready to wait for the full system to see whether this is stupid or not - for instance, if they also make a change such that there are no opportunity attacks for moving past people, this discussion becomes pretty moot because there are no appropriate defensive positions whatsoever.

 

[Fifth Element]

Of course. We already know the Paladin's Binding Smite would help, but that's at level 26. I'm fully ready to wait for the full system to see whether this is stupid or not - for instance, if they also make a change such that there are no opportunity attacks for moving past people, this discussion becomes pretty moot because there are no appropriate defensive positions whatsoever.

But this is already a problem in 3E, a construct of turn-based movement where the defender stands in one place while the opponent moves 30 feet and slashes the squishy mage. If movement were not turn-based, the defender could move concurrently with the attacker and intercept him. This has much more to do with the turn-based combat system, not how much movement a diagonal move takes.

 

[heirodule]

Will fireballs be firecubes now?

 

[Rel]

Also, you've carefully designed your example to illustrate the problem you're looking for. 5 feet further apart, and there's no problem. 5 feet closer, and the same result can be obtained using 1-2-1. An extra 5 feet on the movement rate of the attacker, and it's a problem regardless. Since movement is intended to be abstract, so you can't really focus on a single specific situation where problems might arise to evaluate it.

I'll also note that this example features an open area with no other combatants in it. Things would be different in a dungeon and will also be changed by the introduction of other party members.