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

[HeinorNY]

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.

But the problem is not the fact that the monster can bypass the fighter, the problem is that, as you can see in the diagrams, he can do it by moving 6 squares OR 9 squares depending on the alignment of the grid.
That discrepancy does not occur with 1-2-1-2.

If you were playing the wizard character and the DM said: " Ok, you guys just entered the dungeon room, the Fighter is covering the front line while the Wizard walks 20ft. behind him. An orc comes out of nothing, standing right in front of the Fighter. Roll for initiative.... ok the Orc attacks first, place the minis on the grid and let's fight!

Which of those grid settings you would prefer? Technically, according to the 1-1-1-1 rules, they are exactly the same.

 

[HeinorNY]

Your second illustration, on the other hand, is incorrect- the monster and the wizard are over 40' apart.

No. They are 30ft. appart. One square of movement is 5ft.
If you are assuming that maybe 1-1-1-1 won't mean 5ft-5ft-5ft-5ft, it will be even worse.

Use the same diagrams as an example, instead of a Wizard, the green dot is a Ranger.
In both diagrams the Ranger would be able to Point Blank Shot(6 squares) the monster, but the monster would not be able to reach the Ranger in 1 round in the second diagram.

I wanna be the Ranger in the staggered squares grid all my life!

 

[AllisterH]

No. They are 30ft. appart. One square of movement is 5ft.
If you are assuming that maybe 1-1-1-1 won't mean 5ft-5ft-5ft-5ft, it will be even worse.

Use the same diagrams as an example, instead of a Wizard, the green dot is a Ranger.
In both diagrams the Ranger would be able to Point Blank Shot the monster, but the monster would not be able to reach the Ranger in 1 round in the second diagram.

I wanna be the Ranger in the staggered squares grid all my life!

Which equally applies if that is a monster with levels in ranger. The 1-1-1 can't be abused unlike power attack since it applies in all situations to all characters on the grid. Unless the DM allows the players to place where the monsters are at all times AND set up the direction of the grid, a player can't abuse the 1-1-1 feature.

Thus it comes down to the question of "Is the added accuracy of the 1-2-1 worth the tradeoff for the 1-1-1 system"?

Its obvious that even in WOTC, some agree with you (it seems WOTCshoe wasn't happy with 1-1-1 either) but what I suspect is that as evidenced on this thread, for most players, the added accuracy is not worth the trouble of the 1-2-1 system.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Probably the biggest cause of slowdown in 3e is nothing to do with the rules, but the obsession of players to squeeze optimum performance out of every action for their character.

IMC, once a player starts counting out the squares for his move, he is committed to it. But then, my players are pretty good at judging these things by eye, and so this approach isn't for everyone.

Yes, thats very true. And i miss the times when i was player and all we had to do was ask the DM if we can reach a foe or not, or how many foes can be caught in a fireball.


A very short haggling, maybe an int check (for measurement issues with fireballs filling always the same volume with flames and trying not to kill yourself) and it makes a very fast combat.

I tried it with 3.x, too, but some of my players didn´t really accept it.

Its a mental thing: do you think your DM plays with you or against you. If he is playing with you, it doesn´t matter at all, which movement modes you play with.

But firecubes and no cones is a sad decision. But I think they only mentioned there is no cone TEMPLATE (maybe because you need at least 3 different ones, depending which direction on the grid you try to blast)

 

[BryonD]

Of course when the rules of the world are flat out wrong it pretty well interferes with roleplaying.
When the rules jump up and rub their total disconnect with anything remotely approaching reality in your face, the sense of playing a part in a plausible environment becomes no more complete than if your character was a knight on a chess board.

It has already been proven and demonstrated to me that game rules can achieve a much higher standard. Clearly, 1/2/1/2 doesn't meet the new standard of "simplicity". If that is the standard for 4E design, then 4E will clearly fail to meet the crtieria that I demand.

I could tell a story from the point of view of a chess knight. But the level of roleplaying that I require goes far beyond that. And there is no decent reason provided so far for me to lower my standards.

 

[HeinorNY]

Which equally applies if that is a monster with levels in ranger. The 1-1-1 can't be abused unlike power attack since it applies in all situations to all characters on the grid. Unless the DM allows the players to place where the monsters are at all times AND set up the direction of the grid, a player can't abuse the 1-1-1 feature.

But in the presented case the monster is not a ranger. So which diagram will you choose?

Also, the DM has no reaseon to choose one over the another, both are accurate within the rules. His choice is: "Will I make it harder or easier for the Wizard."

Its obvious that even in WOTC, some agree with you (it seems WOTCshoe wasn't happy with 1-1-1 either) but what I suspect is that as evidenced on this thread, for most players, the added accuracy is not worth the trouble of the 1-2-1 system.

Anyway, I dispute the "trouble of the 1-2-1-2", but that's subjective...
I just hope they don't create a problem to fix a "problem".
I don't think the added simplicity worths it. At least not in my game. I can just use 1-2-1-2 of course, but, what if they create "fixes" to fix the problem that was created to fix a problem, that was not really a problem in the first place?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

warp reality spell
LVL 1 wizard
immediate action (at will)
effect: you may turn the grid by 45°

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

I've run PCs where I as a player know that the target is out of range of the PC's spell (especially for Close range spells), but the PC does not know that, so I have the PC cast the spell anyway.

I've even had situations where the DM was unaware of it and started having the target affected by the spell when I had to point out that the target was out of range.


It depends on whether one is playing the rules to win at all costs (e.g. my Druid moves 5 feet away from the Giant, provokes the AoO, then moves 5 feet directly back and heals the downed Barbarian without any chance of an AoO disrupting his spell since Giants normally do not have Combat Reflexes), or to have a fun time playing the game based on the PC (e.g. make decisions based totally on character knowledge and motivations). Precise distance is not character knowledge.

 

[HeinorNY]

warp reality spell
LVL 1 wizard
immediate action (at will)
effect: you may turn the grid by 45°

You forgot something:

Special: All creatures immediately lose 1d6 Sanity Points. No saves.

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

No. They are 30ft. appart. One square of movement is 5ft.
If you are assuming that maybe 1-1-1-1 won't mean 5ft-5ft-5ft-5ft, it will be even worse.

Use the same diagrams as an example, instead of a Wizard, the green dot is a Ranger.
In both diagrams the Ranger would be able to Point Blank Shot(6 squares) the monster, but the monster would not be able to reach the Ranger in 1 round in the second diagram.

I wanna be the Ranger in the staggered squares grid all my life!

The rules in 4e don't talk about feet. They talk about squares. When they say that you can move 6 squares diagonaly to reach a monster they are not saying that the monster is 30ft appart. He probabbly is 44 ft appart, but in the tactical rules, you are allowed to move "faster" diagonaly to make things more simple. You can even asume whatever you want for a square (maybe it is 2 meters, maybe 1.5 meters).

Every single rule WILL BE GIVEN IN SQUARES, so most of these concerns wouldn't apply "technically"