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

[Sammael]

Count movement by "movement point(MP)" or something like that.
MP is double of SPD. So, for example, Ice Archon's MP is 12.

Straights cost 2 MP.
Diagonals cost 3 MP.

Too gamist? Maybe...

Actually, to me that's preferable (although certainly more complicated) than what they decided to do.

 

[Klaus]

Cthulu approves.

And this is, quite frankly, all the reason we need.

Iä! Iä!

 

[Pale Jackal]

As someone who's played both ways--the "1, 2, 1, 2" method, and the "a square is a square is a square" method--I cannot disagree with you more strongly. Even in a group of very intelligent people, the boost in speed and ease of play far outweighs any initial cognitive dissonance.

I concur. I've been playing a D&D "Scout" recently and with all the movement I do, the "1, 2, 1" rule is bothersome... having to re-check because you're not sure whether this square is 1 or whether it's 2 is a pain.

 

[Betote]

The Fireball to Firecube issue bothers me, too. Fortunately, if there's anything simple to houserule, it's the "1,2,1,2" thing (although we've always done it diagonal = 1,5). so, I feel safe in my grognardy spot

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I like non-eucledian geometry, and I am not convinced by Hexes.
But somehow, i also don't like 1 square wide diagonal moves and firecubes.

Yeah, the first thing we'll probably houserule in our group. Or not, it doesn't matter that much...

 

[WhatGravitas]

I'll probably dislike firecubes. So I'll probably houserule spell effects back, but keep movement as it is.

Why? Movement is done on the fly, so ease of play is of use. For spell effects, I use wire templates. So it won't take more or less time. And diagonal movement is only a real issue in large rooms with high movements rates - which already equal "I want to be here!" in most cases.

Cheers, LT.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

at least it makes the doubling of the qube and the squaring of a circle quite easy in that game world.

What comes in my mind is the discussion how long walls in a room are, epending how you arange them on the grid.

But seriously now: imagine you move 4 squares in one direction and then 3 squares orthogonal to that direction. With 1 MP/square you need 4 MP, with 1,5/diagonal you would need 5,5 (6) MP and with counting 1,2,1,2,1,2 for diagonal movement (fractions are usable) you get exactly 5 MP which would be the exact cost.

But if you play with miniatures on a board, board games rules are appropriate. If i feel that my players' intellect is offended, i will use method 3.

 

[delericho]

The range of a 3e fireball cast by a 5th level Wizard is 700 ft. (Yes, I know they've probably nerfed that in 4e. I'm using this by way of example.) That's 140 squares, of course.

A party is travelling along a road that runs North - South, and the DM has aligned his battlemat accordingly. In the distance, they see a band of Orcs, at just over 800 feet away.

Under the new rules, the Orcs are either well out of range of the fireball or well within range, depending on whether they are to the north of the party or to the north-west.

(In fact, per the new rules, the new 'diagonal' range of that fireball is 985 feet.)

These new rules are a spectacularly bad idea.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The range of a 3e fireball cast by a 5th level Wizard is 700 ft. (Yes, I know they've probably nerfed that in 4e. I'm using this by way of example.) That's 140 squares, of course.

A party is travelling along a road that runs North - South, and the DM has aligned his battlemat accordingly. In the distance, they see a band of Orcs, at just over 800 feet away.

Under the new rules, the Orcs are either well out of range of the fireball or well within range, depending on whether they are to the north of the party or to the north-west.

(In fact, per the new rules, the new 'diagonal' range of that fireball is 985 feet.)

These new rules are a spectacularly bad idea.

the old 1.5 squares per diagonal move (with the first diagonal move worth 1 square, the second 2 and so on) also had a margin of error (~ 0.09 squares per square of diagonal movement).

The trick for 4E wizards and archers will be to find out how to turn by 45°, to improve combat range!

 

[Fifth Element]

The range of a 3e fireball cast by a 5th level Wizard is 700 ft. (Yes, I know they've probably nerfed that in 4e. I'm using this by way of example.) That's 140 squares, of course.

A party is travelling along a road that runs North - South, and the DM has aligned his battlemat accordingly. In the distance, they see a band of Orcs, at just over 800 feet away.

Under the new rules, the Orcs are either well out of range of the fireball or well within range, depending on whether they are to the north of the party or to the north-west.

(In fact, per the new rules, the new 'diagonal' range of that fireball is 985 feet.)

These new rules are a spectacularly bad idea.

Very poor argument. The diagonal movement rules are intended for small-scale, tactical movement in combat. If you encounter orcs at a range of 700 feet, you don't use a battle grid (how many DMs have a battlemat that's over 11 feet long?). The DM says they're within 700 feet, so you can fireball them.

If you use rules for situations for which they were not intended, you'll often get wonky results.