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

[Steely Dan]

while the 20' base speed dwarves and halflings suffer wouldn't be as painful.

On a side-note, I think dwarves will have a speed of 5 squares in 4th Ed.

 

[delericho]

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.

When the 2 extra squares from the barbarian's speed makes the difference between reaching the enemy wizard in time to stop his summons and not quite doing so, that makes a big difference to the tactical situation. When the enemy is 60 ft away instead of 50 ft, that makes a big difference to the tactical situation if your character is a dagger specialist.

Will this matter often? No. 90% of the time, it won't make any real difference. But then, neither will your Barbarian's damage reduction, so let's just ignore that, shall we?

This isn't an exploitable bug, anymore than having barbarian speed is an exploitable bug.

The difference is that to get the Barbarian speed, you have to take levels in the approriate class. Which means giving up a level's worth of Wizard spells, or Fighter feats, or Rogue's sneak attack. Here, the bad guys get the same effect because the cunning BBEG built one room in his lair at 45 degrees to the rest, and packed all his fastest minions in here.

 

[Hussar]

/snip


The difference is that to get the Barbarian speed, you have to take levels in the approriate class. Which means giving up a level's worth of Wizard spells, or Fighter feats, or Rogue's sneak attack. Here, the bad guys get the same effect because the cunning BBEG built one room in his lair at 45 degrees to the rest, and packed all his fastest minions in here.

But, his minions actually aren't any faster. Not a whit. Whether they travel diagonals or straights, they still have to move the same number of squares. And, no, they don't get faster if the room is 45 degrees off. They still move 8 squares. ((Or whatever)) The PC's still move 6 squares.

The ONLY difference between this and the old system is maybe 2, 3 squares of movement. Like you said, 90% of the time it won't matter. I'm thinking the number will be closer to 99%. How often did your barbarian come up 10 feet short because of a diagonal move, and not because something was 50 feet away instead of 40?

In other words, the only time this will actually make any difference is if you have a situation where you move at least twice on the diagonal, and that 5 feet would actually make a difference. We're talking some pretty corner cases here.

 

[Dragonblade]

Yeah, but my worry is with 4E.

-There are no more full attacks in 4E.

Technically there are no more iterative attacks.

As evidenced in SW Saga, there may still be full attacks though you only have multiple attacks if you take the right feats. And then there will probably be drawbacks. In SW Saga for example you can no longer take a 5ft step when making a full attack which means that its much harder to pull off. All your enemy has to do is take a step away from you and since you have to move to catch up, you can only do a standard attack.

 

[KarinsDad]

Squares have 4 axis when you can move along the diagonal.

Squares have 2 best case blocking scenario axis (orthogonals, x blockers needed) and 2 worse case blocking scenario axis (diagonals, 2x-1 blockers needed). Hexes have 3 best case axis (rows, x blockers needed) and 3 worse case directions (perpendicular to axis, not an axis at all, x+y blockers where y is a small number much smaller than x-1 like with squares).

He was saying that you need less blockers in a hex system than in a square system where you can't move diagonally.

That's irrelevant to a hex versus squares discusssion for DND since diagonal movement is allowed in DND when using squares. In DND, opponents can move diagonally through the diagonal line of blockers. The holes have to be filled to actually block and non-orthagonal movement has to be considered.

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.

I think you are getting hung up on issues that really do not affect game play. People use hexes in a lot of game systems and do not get hung up on this stuff.

The problem might be that DND 3.5 tried to explain stuff to the nth degree and people are looking for a similar concrete explanation for hexes.

To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.

So, the players try out a bunch of different lines looking for the best case scenario. This wastes time.

For hexes, this could just as easily be stated:

To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose the center point of your hex. If a line from this center to the center of the target’s hex passes through a hex that provides concealment and 50% or more of that hex is in the way, the target has concealment.

This really is that simple. One line. Sure, the DM might have to adjudicate if a hex really has 50% or more at times, but that's one of the jobs of the DM: to adjudicate. Sure, it could waste time if a given player starts arguing with the DM, but that can happen on most any adjudication.

 

[Steely Dan]

Technically there are no more iterative attacks.

As evidenced in SW Saga, there may still be full attacks

I believe they have stated that the Full Attack action is gone in 4th Ed.

 

[Dragonblade]

I believe they have stated that the Full Attack action is gone in 4th Ed.

Interesting. I missed that. Thanks!

 

[Derren]

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?

Yes we are talking about 2 squares. What you have to keep in mind is that those 2 squares are 1/3 or 33% of the move action of a normal character.
And increasing the speed of someone by 33% certainly affects combat in a rather big way.

 

[HeinorNY]

Yes we are talking about 2 squares. What you have to keep in mind is that those 2 squares are 1/3 or 33% of the move action of a normal character.
And increasing the speed of someone by 33% certainly affects combat in a rather big way.

Agreed.

One could even dispute this by saying "increasing the speed of everyone equally wouldn't off balance the game". But the problem is that characters gain 33% speed depending on the alignment of the grid.

The alignment of the grid is the #1 4E 'Bag of Rats' (considering they keep the 1-1-1-1 rule in 4e).

Blue = Wizard
Green = Fighter
X = Monster

 

[Geron Raveneye]

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.

I don't know, unless all distances are suddenly measured in squares instead of feet, we're talking a character being able to move, at the same speed and velocity, move 30 feet in 5 seconds in one direction, and 40 feet in 6 seconds in a direction at a 45° angle to the first. Maybe people would be overreacting if they viewed D&D as nothing but a glorified board game, where at least SOME connection to reality isn't necessary at all to get into it, since it's not meant to be gotten into in the first place. But for those who try to think a bit beyond the "squares" and who assume that rules in one part of the game (combat movement) can be mapped on the rest of the game world (since movement is a very simple thing for a character, in- or outside of combat), this change makes for some very weird physical realities that pop up in the default game world of D&D all of a sudden. See fireballs taking cubic shape not just when the caster suddenly has to fry a bunch of orcs, but every time he casts it...unless the world will include a change of physical realities depending on if you are in combat or not. And in that case, I bet the after-combat talks will sound pretty weird sometimes.

And it's funny what two silly squares can create in terms of tactics in combat when you have a few players who really like to pounce on such inconsitencies in order to squeeze the most out of their character's combat potential. Remember...a player has to care about optimizing only one character, the DM needs to keep his eye on every damn NPC and monster in a fight. Wanna guess who loses sight of movement advantages by diagonal movement first? And I'm kinda sure that D&D will include plenty of options to increase your base movement speed, just as all the older editions had. And suddenly it's not just 2 squares, but maybe 4 or 5. Which means that, the faster you are naturally, the more reality warps when you go at odd angles in combat.

On the other hand, maybe it's simply some sort of heroic field characters emit, that not only enables them to take a lot more hits than the ordinary guy, but also warps reality around them in Far Realms proportions.