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

[MerricB]

There have always been people in the D&D community for whom the rules didn't matter very much.

I think that's a fair analysis and the divide is definitely an issue.

I hope that you could use any version of diagonal movement (1-1-1, 1-2-1-2, or NA) in the game without problem; and indeed it's offered as a variant rule in the DMG.

I understand and even agree with the simple diagonal system Wizards goes with in DDM (and most likely 4e), but I don't think your concerns are baseless.

Cheers!

 

[KarinsDad]

Maybe if you had the character declare some "intention" direction, and moving more than 60 degrees off of their "intention" in a round causes a hit, or forces them to take another move action (or equivalent)?

That might do it.

Pick an end point to move to. Any hex not in a straight line (i.e. in any hex on a straight line to that point) costs double movement (or some such).

However, I suspect this might be annoying for some people to calculate while moving their PC (like 1 2 1 2 for diagonals, not hard, but just a bit of a pain for some people).


An alternative easier solution is to just not worry about it at all.

Just let the PC (or NPC) move. In short distance movements (i.e. 6 or less) along a spline (i.e. 30 degrees off a row), a Fighter directly between the Wizard and the attacker would get an AoO (if they exist in 4E in some variant) as long as the Fighter is in a hex directly between the Wizard and the attacker (i.e. in a hex in the spline axis).

For longer movement rates and distances (8 or more between the Wizard and the attacker), the Fighter only gets the AoO if he is 10 feet (2 hexes) away from the attacker or 10 feet away from the Wizard. If he is somewhere in the middle, an attacker just takes the curved route around him.

But, if the opponent has a huge movement rate (even using 3E squares and 1 2 1 2 for diagonals), a single Fighter is not going to be able to hold the line on a large room. So, it doesn't really matter too much in those scenarios if it is hexes or squares. The high movement rate attacker just moves around the Fighter.

So, the fact that the Fighter can interact at the shorter distances and slower movement rates might just be sufficient along the splines, and nothing to really worry about for fast opponents in larger rooms or areas.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

No. The second diagram is a smaller physical space. The first space is 7 x 8. The second is 9 x 6.

 

[Imban]

No. The second diagram is a smaller physical space. The first space is 7 x 8. The second is 9 x 6.

You're being kinda obtuse, and possibly wrong to boot. The first diagram's width barely matters since everything's being conducted on a straight line, and I believe the second diagram is 8 x 8 by any reasonable sense of the word (if they're the diagrams I'm thinking of, and I'm almost sure they are) - and the second diagram changes the actual facts of the matter so that instead of 30' apart, the characters are 42' apart.

If you assume A) a square is 5' by 5', B) people literally move faster along diagonals, C) there is no facing, and as such diagonals are defined by a universal grid, and D) when we don't fairly know what the universal grid's orientation is when the battle mat comes into play, characters are positioned by distance in feet, then the resulting world has at least as coherent of geometry as Doom or Marathon.

Replace B) with "people literally cannot move in more than one direction at a time" for diagonals = 2 movement.

If you're unwilling to accept B) as a premise, you have to also forfeit A) and the battle map being an accurate visual representation of the game world, or use different rules. However, in no case under these four premises is "rotating the board" justifiable, which preserves at least some world integrity.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

Euclid alone has looked on beauty bare... - ESVM

Just my two cents: I'm going with the "characters move faster in certain directions. Why? Because random things happen in combat" explanation.

But it bugs me. A lot. 1-2-1-2 did not need to be "fixed." Did I hear complaints about Vancian magic and the resting at 8 am style of play? Yes. Did I hear complaints about AoOs being unwieldy? Yes. Did I hear complaints about the difficulty of generating NPCs, especially at high levels? Yes. And many other complaints. But not once did I ever hear someone say, "You know what they really need to fix in 4e? Those crazy 1-2-1-2 diagonal movement rules."

1-1-1-1 is simpler. No doubt. There is value in that. But there is also value in tradition, simulation, verisimilitude, believability, and (lord help me) Euclidean geometry. It's a judgment call. I would have stuck wtih 1-2-1-2.

 

[Reaper Steve]

Since I started this thread, I feel obliged to update my current thoughts.

I championed the method of 1.5 diagonals, and I also saw merit in the '1st diagonal is 2, the rest are 1' houserule, but there is one important failing of both of these.

I agree with Shoe that, at the beginning of a model's move, it should be able to move into any adjacent square, even diagonal, for just one 'movement point' in order to keep movement in line with reach and area effects. If the model can do that at the first square, why not the second or subsequent?

I also see the merit in having the range rules and movement rules as homogenous as possible.

Thirdly, I appreciate the recent argument that there's so many other abstractions going on in the game, why should the movement rules be any different? Movement already has abstractions, like square base occupation (2X2, 3X3, etc), initiative order, etc. In light of all this, enforcing a euclidean diagonal seems excessive.

So, what's my point? Well, I'm starting to see the benefits of 1:1 movement. I continue to assess myself as a gamist, not a simulationist, but I also recognize that I'm wired to seek the simulation aspect if it also works. That part of me is still having a hard time dealing with the Far Realms diagonal influence, but I think I can get past it. Looking at my DDM maps and dungeon tiles, I think the opportunities for diagonal warping will be relatively light.

Also, I think that 'first diagonal is 2, rest 1' is not a good solution and is worse than 1-2-1-2 because at least with the latter the 1st diagonal is 1, which I see as crucial for balance.

Finally, I think that all gates to the Far Realms will be placed at diagonals on my maps!

 

[Wormwood]

1-1-1-1 is simpler. No doubt. There is value in that. But there is also value in tradition, simulation, verisimilitude, believability, and (lord help me) Euclidean geometry. It's a judgment call. I would have stuck wtih 1-2-1-2.

As you no doubt know, the value of simplicity versus simulation and (lord help me) tradition varies from table to table.

Counting out squares on a battlemat is already a klunky and intrusive part of the game---so I welcome anything which offers to streamline that procedure.

 

[Hussar]

/snip for verbosity

If that stuff is nothing worth noticing to you, okay...I don't want to get drawn into a "game rules as physics" discussion here (that's what the other thread is there for after all). But simply handwaving it away with a laugh and wondering how people can get offended by something so "small" is not exactly looking at the whole picture either.

Oh, I don't deny that people are getting up in arms about it. I just find it very ironic that in a combat system that is abstract from beginning to end, THIS is the "cinder block" that squishes the camel, to quote ByronD.

We ignore and hand wave all sorts of abstractions in combat. And the thing to remember is that the battle map is ONLY used in combat. Movement rules, even in 3e only apply during combat. There is no squeezing outside of combat for example. Outside of combat, we handwave pretty much everything.

So, we have an abstract system for combat. The battlegrid is a rough approximation of distance - we handwave the fact that nothing comes in discrete 5 foot distances, or a man on a horse suddenly exists in a quantum state that covers all four squares. But, changing the rules that, at best, is an abstract approximation, to another abstract approximation suddenly causes the downfall of civilization?

So, yeah, I find it ironic that people get so immersed in this. It's abstract. It always has been abstract. Getting bent out of shape over a different abstract is ironic to me. YMMV and all that.

 

[FireLance]

So, yeah, I find it ironic that people get so immersed in this. It's abstract. It always has been abstract. Getting bent out of shape over a different abstract is ironic to me. YMMV and all that.

I think the question is which abstraction causes you to get bent more out of shape.

 

[BryonD]

This the "cinder block" that squishes the camel, to quote ByronD.

No. It is "A" cinderblock and the camel was already dead.
And its BryonD.

We ignore and hand wave all sorts of abstractions in combat.

But until now we don't intentionally inject added error into the game.

So, yeah, I find it ironic that people get so immersed in this. It's abstract. It always has been abstract. Getting bent out of shape over a different abstract is ironic to me. YMMV and all that.

Clearly you are not catching the significance that this isn't just trading one abstraction for another.

The abstraction in place is unchanged. That abstraction is that the combat field is divided into discrete 5' squares. That abstraction has been widely accepted in games well beyond D&D and beyond RPGs in general. And I certainly doubt the "simplification" drumbeat of 4E is going to advocate trying to become more accurate here. So I think it is a completely fair claim that this is a baseline assumption.

Once you have 5' squares in place there is a correct answer for the diagonal moves that best fits. In a completely non-abstract way, this approach adds error into the system.