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

[Steely Dan]

Since you are using the new new charge rule, let me ask you: Why isn't everybody charging all the time?

-Because you want to make a full attack

-Because you want to Spring Attack.

-Because you have to move at least 2 squares

-You also can't move after a charge (so no withdrawing etc).

-You don't want to take a hit to AC.



And a bunch of others I can't be bothered to list.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's a function of degrees of freedom. With 2 axes, you only need 2 people to block half the movement options. With 3, you need 3. With 4, you need four. Try your example again with hexes by rotating onto the hex-row - you either need to block along a hex-row (and thus not truly normal to movement) or have a double row in the same way as diagonals need a double row.

I don't know where you get this.

Pick any two hexes as your "line".

Draw a straight line between the two.

Put a character in each major hex along the line so that they all touch.

Worse case scenario is perpendicular to a row. There, an actual distance of ~14 units needs ~16 blockers instead of 14.

With a diagonal on a square grid (where the diagonal is the worse case scenario), an actual distance of ~14 units needs ~19 blockers (10 on the diagonal and 9 in the holes) instead of 14.

More blockers are needed in the square grid system.

Best case scenario (i.e. no extra characters needed for blocking) for both systems is along the axis. Squares only have two axis, so only 2 base case scenarios as compared to 3 best case scenarios for hexes.

 

[HeinorNY]

-Because you want to make a full attack

-Because you want to Spring Attack.

-Because you have to move at least 2 squares

-You also can't move after a charge (so no withdrawing etc).

-You don't want to take a hit to AC.



And a bunch of others I can't be bothered to list.

Yeah, but my worry is with 4E.

-There are no more full attacks in 4E.

-If you can't move after a charge, you could move before a charge. Charge the opponent, next round withdraw and charge him again.

Anyway, I just hope you can't ready a charge, it'd just look silly.

 

[Dausuul]

It is one of the great strengths of 3e that the system is so robust. The various exploits that have been found have actually been relatively few, given the vast player base, the thousands of pages of official supplements, and the lifespan of the edition. Much of that is that the designers didn't stint on the mathematical rigour when building the system. It now seems that that rigour is being sacrificed in the name of 'fun', which concerns me greatly.

I really don't think 4E is sacrificing mathematical rigor. Indeed, the designers seem to be paying a lot more attention overall to the math and its implications than they did in 3E.

After thinking about it, I do agree that the abuse potential of 1-for-1 diagonals probably looks much more severe on paper than in practice. I still prefer hexes, though, if only for making AoEs look a bit more like the circles they're supposed to be and a bit less like, well, squares.

 

[Steely Dan]

-There are no more full attacks in 4E.

-If you can't move after a charge, you could move before a charge. Charge the opponent, next round withdraw and charge him again.

-This is true, but then we don't know what the charge rules will entail for 4th Ed.

-I know, it's nifty.

 

[Benimoto]

Best case scenario (i.e. no extra characters needed for blocking) for both systems is along the axis. Squares only have two axis, so only 2 base case scenarios as compared to 3 best case scenarios for hexes.

Squares have 4 axis when you can move along the diagonal. He was saying that you need less blockers in a hex system than in a square system where you can't move diagonally.

Hexes do have one failing that is unique - they are not monotonic to intersecting lines.

Draw any line across a square grid. Unless it lies on a grid line, there is always a single crossing point from any row or column to the next row or column. In contrast, many lines on hexes will spend some time in the zig-zag between two hexrows. This becomes a pain when trying to calculate sight lines or cover, as the "direct path" between two hexes is non-unique.I wouldn't call that a pain. Draw a line or hold a string up. Cover exists if a hex has 50% or more of it on the side granting cover. That’s just as easy of a rule as "if a line drawn through any" of 3.5 for squares.

You'll have to explain that better. I think the scenario that Nom was suggesting is where a line runs roughly along the line where the hexes intersect with a zigzig. The line enters a very small amount of most of the hexes along that line. So with a line that's 12 squares long, it's entering 16-23 hexes. Do all those hexes provide cover? How do you make an arbitrary ruling as to which they enter?

Is sitting there with a straightedge, checking which hexes were actually entered and which weren't actually any fun? And you'll have to sit there with a straightedge, since unlike with squares, there's no feasible mathematical way to solve the problem quickly.

Hexes are slightly more accurate but they still have problems. To me, the inability to easily represent rectangular areas is the main problem. Think of it this way: what shape are any of your hex maps? Without looking, I'm going to guess they're rectangular. Most constructed things are rectangular, and I want to be able to play with them without having to make a bunch of "is this 50% or more covered" rulings.

 

[Hussar]

I hate to have to ask, but...

Firstly, how sure can you be that the "ebb and flow juiciness" came from the new diagonal rule, and not from the withdraw and charge rules?

Secondly, and more to the point, did your resident power-gamer go out of his way to try to abuse the rule?

Because to a large extent that's where the problems are going to lie. Aside from some cognitive dissonance from those of us who are offended by such things, the rule will play just fine in the 'normal' cases. However, as soon as it hits a player who is out for every advantage that they can get, it will fold up like a cheap umbrella. And there is are a very great many such players out there, many of whom have been trained in that very characteristic by the relative rigidity of the 3e ruleset.

Just before Christmas, I ran an absolutely disastrous Shadowrun game for all of two sessions before it imploded. When I analysed just why the game had collapsed, I came to the conclusion that the designers had built the game under the assumption that the players would 'play nice'. Naturally, my resident power gamer had immediately latched onto the Troll race, maxed the Body attribute, boosted it further with cyberware, and then layered on armour on top of that, generating a character who was completely immune to harm.

It is one of the great strengths of 3e that the system is so robust. The various exploits that have been found have actually been relatively few, given the vast player base, the thousands of pages of official supplements, and the lifespan of the edition. Much of that is that the designers didn't stint on the mathematical rigour when building the system. It now seems that that rigour is being sacrificed in the name of 'fun', which concerns me greatly.

We're talking about moving perhaps two, maybe three extra squares. That's it. People are acting like this is going to make a massive difference to movement in the game. Really? 2 squares? 2 whole squares is going to cause the collapse of the 3e combat system?

I'm thinking perhaps people may be over reacting just a touch on this. The only effect this has is that PC's will be able to move 2 squares more. And, only when they move diagonally. In straight lines, this rule has zero effect.

This isn't an exploitable bug, anymore than having barbarian speed is an exploitable bug. On 30 feet of movement, and the last podcast said they were basing PC movement on 6 squares, the absolute most difference this could make is 10 feet. I'm having a large amount of difficulty seeing how this could possibly make much of a difference.

 

[Steely Dan]

Firstly, how sure can you be that the "ebb and flow juiciness" came from the new diagonal rule, and not from the withdraw and charge rules?

The charge and withdraw rules were definitely the biggest contributing factor, but it was also nice that people could get around a little more, due to the 1 for 1 diagonal action.

We all had fun, and no one's sense of realism/believability/verisimilitude blah blah was offended.

 

[Dausuul]

Is sitting there with a straightedge, checking which hexes were actually entered and which weren't actually any fun? And you'll have to sit there with a straightedge, since unlike with squares, there's no feasible mathematical way to solve the problem quickly.

I'm inclined to use a straightedge for that kind of thing anyway. It's fast and easy and requires no calculation. What's wrong with straightedges? What other technique does a square grid enable you to use that is superior?

And the problem you're talking about crops up with squares, too. When the line clips the corner of an occupied square, does it count as blocked? How much of the corner can it clip? If you require it to cross opposite sides--well, you can impose the same requirement on a hex.

 

[Puggins]

Because to a large extent that's where the problems are going to lie. Aside from some cognitive dissonance from those of us who are offended by such things, the rule will play just fine in the 'normal' cases. However, as soon as it hits a player who is out for every advantage that they can get, it will fold up like a cheap umbrella. And there is are a very great many such players out there, many of whom have been trained in that very characteristic by the relative rigidity of the 3e ruleset.

I'm going to issue a rebuttal not because I like the 1-1-1-1 system anymore than you do (I don't), but because I think play balance isn't really threatened by the change.

The key aspect of this change that precludes it from unbalancing the system in ways that powergamers can exploit is that every character, whether PC or NPC, will be able to exploit the diagonal system. Your Shadowrun example showed a genuine problem with balance- the system allowed a character to make specific choices for his character that allowed him to simply outstrip other PCs and NPCs unless they too made those choices. The Power Attack change for 3.5e exhibited this type of issue- what melee character didn't carry a 2-H weapon anymore, barring very specific prestige classes (dervish, for example). You either carried a greatsword or you looked silly in combat next to the guy who did.

This change, on the other hand, will apply equally to all characters, making it far less of a balance issue. The only change in balance I can come up with is that character speed will matter slightly less- a dwarf would now be able to traverse a room in much less time than he used to. So the +10' bonus speed for a barbarian will be worth slightly less, while the 20' base speed dwarves and halflings suffer wouldn't be as painful. And we're talking incremental differences here- 20' base speed would still be a hindrance Compared to 30' or 40' base speed.

So I wouldn't worry about balance with this change (famous last words, I know). It's all about the cognitive dissonance for me.