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

[HeinorNY]

If I'd play the wizard, I'd prefer to have more of my party colleagues around me! Or a defensive spell! Or not having a monster there. Or a wall in front of my character. And the second picture is exactly like the things I have listed - a completely different situation. Like having a wall in front of you. Or more friends.

Or your wizard could stay at the tavern. But in the present situation the second diagram is a safer situation.

The two pictures, under 4E space, are simply non-comparable, because they show entirely different situations, that have nothing to do with each other, unless you cling to the idea of rotational symmetry.

They are the same situation. The distances between creatures is the same.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

The two pictures, under 4E space, are simply non-comparable, because they show entirely different situations, that have nothing to do with each other, unless you cling to the idea of rotational symmetry.

But I give you that: It's a weird idea to give that up.

YES! Please, let me cling to it! Honestly, I never was any good in mentally walking through n-dimensional spaces, or working with realistic examples that only served as an abstraction (just recently drove a friend of mine nuts trying to make me understand Xeno's Paradox for what it is ). I'm only a simple chemist...I can live with anisotropic stuff, but NOT when I suddenly have to accept spatial parameters (like distance) are anisotropic in a world that is suspiciously similar to ours in many other respects. My suspension of disbelief only goes so far...and it already is pretty stretchy when I want it to.

 

[Puggins]

But if you were playing the wizard, wouldn't you prefer to set the minis on the grid like in the second diagram?

Sigh...

Yes, if I were playing the wizard, I'd prefer to set the minis on the grid like in the second diagram, because the second diagram is a larger physical space.

This is disappointing. I'm arguing with someone I agree with fundamentally. Ainatan, I agree with you- I don't like the 1-1-1-1 movement system. But your reasoning with those diagrams is wrong. Don't take my word for it. Lay them out on maps. Find any map in any module ever published, and shift the grid. You'll find that the advantage is nowhere near what you're claiming because you'll have fewer diagonal spaces to work with. You are comparing two completely different maps that will never coincide in play.

Let me try a different angle. Take your second illustration. There are six diagonals across the middle of the room. That means the room is, at a minimum, a 30' x 30' room. Let's assume that's exactly what it is. Now, take the grid (not the room) and shift it by 45 degrees. YOU WILL NOT HAVE SIX ORTHOGONAL SPACES SEPARATING THE MONSTER AND THE WIZARD. You will have eight spaces, and your assertion will not hold up. That's because the room itself didn't not suddenly morph to satisfy WotC's new movement rules- Euclidean space tends to stay fairly constant outside of quantum field effects, something that WotC is probably not fitting into the rules, thank goodness.

There are plenty of valid arguments against the 1-1-1-1 movement rule. Your illustrations are not in that set of arguments. Shift to something a bit more defensible if you want to actually motivate change, please.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Euclidean space tends to stay fairly constant outside of quantum field effects, something that WotC is probably not fitting into the rules, thank goodness.

[tongue-in-cheek]
Are you sure about this? To me, it looks like they already started with exactly that. Arcane defenders will be able to "tunnel" around the grid to affect enemies, and heroes warp space depending on their base movement rate. Looks like some kind of quantum field rules are going to be in effect for sure.
[/tongue-in-cheek]

(Come on people...some laughs are needed here. It's a GAME, we should all be able to make fun of its weaker points now and then. )

 

[HeinorNY]

Sigh...

Yes, if I were playing the wizard, I'd prefer to set the minis on the grid like in the second diagram, because the second diagram is a larger physical space.

This is disappointing. I'm arguing with someone I agree with fundamentally. Ainatan, I agree with you- I don't like the 1-1-1-1 movement system. But your reasoning with those diagrams is wrong. Don't take my word for it. Lay them out on maps. Find any map in any module ever published, and shift the grid. You'll find that the advantage is nowhere near what you're claiming because you'll have fewer diagonal spaces to work with. You are comparing two completely different maps that will never coincide in play.

Let me try a different angle. Take your second illustration. There are six diagonals across the middle of the room. That means the room is, at a minimum, a 30' x 30' room. Let's assume that's exactly what it is. Now, take the grid (not the room) and shift it by 45 degrees. YOU WILL NOT HAVE SIX ORTHOGONAL SPACES SEPARATING THE MONSTER AND THE WIZARD. You will have eight spaces, and your assertion will not hold up. That's because the room itself didn't not suddenly morph to satisfy WotC's new movement rules- Euclidean space tends to stay fairly constant outside of quantum field effects, something that WotC is probably not fitting into the rules, thank goodness.

There are plenty of valid arguments against the 1-1-1-1 movement rule. Your illustrations are not in that set of arguments. Shift to something a bit more defensible if you want to actually motivate change, please.

But I never said those were rooms.
Consider that those diagrams are part of a giant battlefield.

 

[Imban]

But I never said those were rooms.
Consider that those diagrams are part of a giant battlefield.

Um, the point is that you just magically created distance, and that's in no way cool. It's just far more obvious if you think about it in the context of physical rooms.

 

[HeinorNY]

(Come on people...some laughs are needed here. It's a GAME, we should all be able to make fun of its weaker points now and then. )

Agreed.
Just for the record, I'm only drawing those chaotic and impossible diagrams because it's incredibly fun

Oh and BTW, in 4E this will be the new Shrine of Pelor.

 

[HeinorNY]

Um, the point is that you just magically created distance, and that's in no way cool. It's just far more obvious if you think about it in the context of physical rooms.

I understand your points guys, but it's not me creating space, it's the rules, depending on the way we align the grid.

 

[Puggins]

But I never said those were rooms.
Consider that those diagrams are part of a giant battlefield.

Again, space is not amorphous. If the DM says "you see an orc 30' away, standing over the corpse of one of the soldiers you were traveling with," he's not going to position the orc ala illustration #2. He's going to position it as illustration #1 or a very modified illustration #2, with four diagonals between the wizard and the orc. 30' is not defined as "the amount of distance a human can cover in one round". 30' is defined in D&D as "6 orthogonal or 4 diagonal map squares from here." Trying to argue otherwise is not making a valid point. The players will never get to modify the map to take advantage of this system bug, and it's pointless to argue against the new rule by framing your case in that context.

 

[Burke]

The funniest part of this debate to me is that my group has always used 1-1-1 movement for squares in 3.5, and it's not even a houserule per se. The other members of the group just never noticed that rule, and must have figured all squares cost the same as the default, as far as I can tell (none of them have ever mentioned it), and I don't want to bring the "correct rule" up because I'm fine with the way it is. So we've just been playing the wrong way. If it's caused any weird tactical effects, they've never bothered any of the other players enough for them to speak up about it.

Actually, I have a question. Was this rule in 3.0 too? Because I never noticed the 1-2-1 movement till we switched to 3.5, which means I would have overlooked this rule for a couple years too if it was in 3.0.

Oh, and we always do firecubes too. We figured that 20' radius means you can count 2 squares in any direction from the center of the effect and that's what it fills. Completely wrong, I know, but no one in the group has ever challenged it.