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

[HeinorNY]

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).

Okay, let's disconsider feet. It really doesn't matter. They ARE 6 squares appart in both diagrams, whatever that means. In the first diagram the Ranger could Point Blank Shot the Monster and the Monster could reach the Ranger. In the second diagram the Ranger can still Point Blank Shot the Monster, but the monster can't reach him anymore. The game is broken.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

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"

Hmmm, and this is what I meant when I wondered if combat will simply boot the whole game world into a different physical reality, where a perfect square is made up of two triangles with three equal sides.
Or will the whole setting feature that kind of geometry? Will certainly make for a fantastic architecture.

 

[fnwc]

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)

Circular AOE aren't too hard to figure out, but cones, in general, are a bit wonky when they're not aimed at right angles (e.g., exactly N, S, E, or W). Cones fired from a corner at say, 30 or 60 degree angles tend to be a little weird.

 

[heirodule]

One thing I used to do playing LG that was a bit of a compromise was if you wanted to move diagonally, the best you could do was a "knights move", but the diagonals never cost you extra.

 

[Puggins]

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.

No, they are not 30 feet apart. Judging the distance between two points as a function of how far something can travel is just wacky. You are warping space far more than WotC is.

Here's what I mean. Assume both of those encounters are happening in square rooms, with the monster and the wizard representing the end points.

The area of the first room would be 450 square feet and would consist of 18 squares.

The area of the second room would be 887 square feet and would consist of 36 squares.

Yet you consider these two rooms to be identical.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I fail to see the problem here. In real life, when I am standing and I suddenly need to take a step that is neither directly ahead, directly back, or directly to the side, but rather at an angle, my legs actually elongate in such a way that I am able to cover slightly more distance than I would otherwise be able. That's why when I was in track, I used to position my body in such a way that I could run at an angle. People thought it looked strange, but I smoked 'em all every time!

 

[Imban]

No, they are not 30 feet apart. Judging the distance between two points as a function of how far something can travel is just wacky. You are warping space far more than WotC is.

Here's what I mean. Assume both of those encounters are happening in square rooms, with the monster and the wizard representing the end points.

The area of the first room would be 450 square feet and would consist of 18 squares.

The area of the second room would be 887 square feet and would consist of 36 squares.

Yet you consider these two rooms to be identical.

sqrt(18) = ???

I had to look at it for a minute, but you're right that ainatan's been warping space a lot more than WotC is: the only "reasonable" conclusions are that people can actually move quite a bit faster along diagonals, or that squares of distance are more like polar than normal coordinates. Your math is wrong unto the devil, though.

EDIT: Or "it's all an abstraction, you really should relax", of course - I suggest hex grids or free movement for your home games if you can't.

 

[Davelozzi]

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.

If we're estimating, than we're not worried about precision. If we are, we'll grab the ruler.

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.

The player may or may not know exactly if he's passing though a threatened area, that's my call as DM, and I find it easy enough to just ask them to show me how they moved and decide accordingly. Anyhow, I'm not out to screw the players if it seems like they are reasonably staying out of harms way, and maybe I just have an abnormally non-argumentative group, but like I said we never seem to have a problem with it. I suppose if we wanted to be real exact about it, measuring these zig-zagging moves would be a hassle.

Likewise, as for adjudicating ranged effects, like Karin's Dad alluded to above, the character wouldn't know exactly so I just ask the player to point to where they're aiming and then I determine results accordingly, whipping out the ruler or not as necessary.

 

[HeinorNY]

No, they are not 30 feet apart. Judging the distance between two points as a function of how far something can travel is just wacky. You are warping space far more than WotC is.

Here's what I mean. Assume both of those encounters are happening in square rooms, with the monster and the wizard representing the end points.

The area of the first room would be 450 square feet and would consist of 18 squares.

The area of the second room would be 887 square feet and would consist of 36 squares.

Yet you consider these two rooms to be identical.

I don't consider both rooms identical, I've never said that.

I'm judging the distance between two points based on the squares on the grid.

Using the 1-1-1-1 for diagonal movement means that if you walk straight OR diagonally the distance is 1 square.

I said the Blue dot is 6 squares appart from the X dot in both diagrams.

How much is that in ft.? Who knows? But the distance IS the same since they ARE 6 squares appart.

If the Green dot wasn't there, the X dot could reach the Blue dot in both diagrams by walking the same distance, 6 squares, so their distance from each other in both diagram IS the same.

Since they are 6 squares appart in both diagrams, how can you explain that in one the X dot can bypass the Green dot and reach the Blue dot moving 6 squares and in the second diagram he needs to move 9 squares in order to do that?

I'm sorry, but you are trying to explain the unexplainable. The rules are simply wrong, and they create bizarre situations due to the nature of the square grid.

 

[delericho]

No, they are not 30 feet apart. Judging the distance between two points as a function of how far something can travel is just wacky. You are warping space far more than WotC is.

Nitpick: the scientific definition of the meter is the distance light travels in a vacuum in a (very small) fraction of a second.

So there is some precedent for judging distance based on how far something can travel in a certain length of time.