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

[Fifth Element]

And increasing the speed of someone by 33% certainly affects combat in a rather big way.

Yes, but that's not what we're talking about. Sometimes, in some situations, a character's apparent speed (recalling that movement is abstract) will increase by up to 33%. It will also sometimes be increased by 0%, or 17%, or some other amount.

Sometimes it wil make a difference. I think the vast majority of the time, it will not make any noticeable difference. And that small difference is the tradeoff for the simplicity.

 

[Rel]

I'm not disparaging anybody's point of view here, but I'd like to offer a little anecdote for your consideration:

WAY back when 3e first came out, I really liked most of the system. But then I got to the bit about Wizards getting new spells and how much money they had to pay to scribe them in their spellbook. A Wizard couldn't learn a new spell without scribing it in his spellbook and paying the considerable costs and spending a lot of time. Except when they gained a level and it was suddenly free in terms of both time and money.

This bugged the hell out of me. I posted in many a thread about how illogical it was. About how you could lock an Elven Wizard in a tower full of the greatest arcane tomes ever collected for 100 years. But by the RAW, if he didn't have a pile of gold to spend on "supplies" then he wouldn't know a single extra spell after all that time. IT MADE NO SENSE! Why wasn't everybody completely outraged?

And then somebody wise came along (it was probably Henry) and said, "You know, you make an interesting point. And I guess I can kind of see why it's bothering you. But you probably need to accept that, even though it makes no sense to you, it's just not bothering most people all that much. I think it's fine if you house rule it on your own games but if you expect everybody to jump on the "hate the logic of spellbooks" bandwagon, I think you're setting yourself up for disappointment."

So I kind of let it go. And over the long haul, I've really not had so many problems as I predicted I might back when I was examining the issue from really close up.

Make of that what you will.

 

[Benimoto]

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.

It's really a pretty minor issue, and not one that crops up a lot, but with squares, you can determine with exact certainty if a certain square lies along a line with simple integer math. That's not possible with hexes. For some people, the math is quicker, and more intuitive than getting a straightedge down, moving all the intervening figures out of the way so it can lay straight, and making sure it's aligned exactly correctly.

My point is that if you want to use hexes to increase precision and reduce estimation, you aren't exactly succeeding.

As for me, to tell the truth, I'm pretty comfortable in almost any system. I think it's a little silly that we're arguing about a maximum 30% fudge factor (which I'll admit, is large) in a game where every member of a race moves the exact same speed unless they're a barbarian, monk or scout.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm not disparaging anybody's point of view here, but I'd like to offer a little anecdote for your consideration:

WAY back when 3e first came out, I really liked most of the system. But then I got to the bit about Wizards getting new spells and how much money they had to pay to scribe them in their spellbook. A Wizard couldn't learn a new spell without scribing it in his spellbook and paying the considerable costs and spending a lot of time. Except when they gained a level and it was suddenly free in terms of both time and money.

This bugged the hell out of me. I posted in many a thread about how illogical it was. About how you could lock an Elven Wizard in a tower full of the greatest arcane tomes ever collected for 100 years. But by the RAW, if he didn't have a pile of gold to spend on "supplies" then he wouldn't know a single extra spell after all that time. IT MADE NO SENSE! Why wasn't everybody completely outraged?

And then somebody wise came along (it was probably Henry) and said, "You know, you make an interesting point. And I guess I can kind of see why it's bothering you. But you probably need to accept that, even though it makes no sense to you, it's just not bothering most people all that much. I think it's fine if you house rule it on your own games but if you expect everybody to jump on the "hate the logic of spellbooks" bandwagon, I think you're setting yourself up for disappointment."

So I kind of let it go. And over the long haul, I've really not had so many problems as I predicted I might back when I was examining the issue from really close up.

Make of that what you will.

This seems to be purely a believability issue. There is definitely a believability issue with the movement changes, but as ainatan keeps pointing out, there's a discrepancy in the ability of characters to move that has the potential to come up in every combat. It's a functional issue in addition to a believability issue.

 

[Davelozzi]

I really don't understand why more people haven't abandoned grids entirely. They cause way more trouble than they are worth. Eyeballing it in general and using a ruler when necessary is so easy. Characters can move in any direction, cones and circular spell effects are no problem, and the game doesn't feel like chess. I get the sense that a lot of people think the idea of using a ruler is a huge hassle? Why? It takes half a second to hold a ruler over the map...how is it more difficult than dealing with all of these weird situations that using a grid creates?

 

[Umbran]

I really don't understand why more people haven't abandoned grids entirely. They cause way more trouble than they are worth. Eyeballing it in general and using a ruler when necessary is so easy.

It is my personal observation and considered opinion that most folks are not half as good at estimating distances as they think they are. The grid helps immensely in that regard.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I really don't understand why more people haven't abandoned grids entirely. They cause way more trouble than they are worth. Eyeballing it in general and using a ruler when necessary is so easy. Characters can move in any direction, cones and circular spell effects are no problem, and the game doesn't feel like chess. I get the sense that a lot of people think the idea of using a ruler is a huge hassle? Why? It takes half a second to hold a ruler over the map...how is it more difficult than dealing with all of these weird situations that using a grid creates?

Not everything moves in straight lines. Measuring the threatened area of each creature in a combat so you know where you can move to is a pain in the butt. Sometimes it's easier to count squares than it is to circumscribe a 20' radius, deciding whether this or that character is in or out of the effect. It takes more time to measure distance every single turn for every single character and spell effect when you're using a ruler than it does to just count six or twelve squares. It's difficult to determine whether cover is provided without a set of corners to measure between. etc.

 

[AllisterH]

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

But that problem isn't "SOLVED" by the use of the 1-2-1 method either which I think you're implying. The problem of a monster being able to sidestep the fighter and attack the wizard is based on the fact that this is a TURN-BASED system.

A RTS that uses a 1-1-1 diagonal cost won't have the problem whereas even with an accurate 1-1.5-1 diagonal system in a TBS, a monster with a high enough movement can STILL simply walk around the fighter.

 

[Puggins]

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

You're making an assumption that the rules do not make. The rules are abstracting the distance a character can move, they are not abstracting the distances themselves. Thus, your first illustration is correct in that the monster and the wizard are indeed 30' apart. Your second illustration, on the other hand, is incorrect- the monster and the wizard are over 40' apart. The fact that the monster can get to the wizard via a straight line in both illustrations doesn't mean the two distances are the same.

I thought about this abstraction quite a bit last night, and I'm a bit more open to it now. Strategic wargames that mean to model reality by abstracting movement do this sort of stuff all the time. Barbarossa to Berlin abstracts tank movement, making a single move look absolutely implausible but the ultimate effect of that move perfectly realistic. I'm still annoyed at the offense this causes to my mathematical mind, but I'm willing to try it out.

 

[Derren]

You're making an assumption that the rules do not make. The rules are abstracting the distance a character can move, they are not abstracting the distances themselves. Thus, your first illustration is correct in that the monster and the wizard are indeed 30' apart. Your second illustration, on the other hand, is incorrect- the monster and the wizard are over 40' apart. The fact that the monster can get to the wizard via a straight line in both illustrations doesn't mean the two distances are the same.

When you ignore the character which blocks the way the monster can, in both pictures, reach the wizard in 6 squares = 30 ft. That means that those two characters are the same distance apart. Either that or the monster can suddenly walk 50% faster in the same time.

With the 1-2-1 rule the characters in the second picture would be 45 ft. apart.