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

[rjdafoe]

So you are suggesting a fix to fix a problem that was meant to fix a problem that could or could not really be a problem in the first place?

Like I said before, we never really had a problem with the 1,2,1,2 rule. (Well, most of the time anyways. If the rule did not exists, there would have been a few times where we did not have to remond people about it. It is an easy rule to forget after all). It wasn't a stumbling block fo us. Just like we don't have a problem with 1,1,1,1

Our group tends to count squares, when moving not feet. I could use them both without any problems at all.

 

[Imban]

I really don't remember this so bear with me:

Would that representation have worked differently in 3.5?

Wouldn't that spell have been a 10' burst?

No and yes, but the former no carries a caveat that only a goon would have described it as a "5x5 room" in 3.5 because of how movement worked there. It'd be an... 8x8 diamond-shaped room, I guess.

 

[nem z]

If we assume we can't capriciously redraw buildings (i.e. there's a universal grid) and that, when in doubt, measurements should be conducted by distance, your Figure 2 should look like this, placing your opponents at 14' away (closest 7' increment to 15' away) and 35' away (which is exactly correct).

Where did you get the idea that squares could be 5' or 7'? If 1=1 then distance is constant. It is beyond the scope of reasonable abstraction to suggest that some equally-distant areas are more distant than others unless the game is set at such a massive scale that general relativity is needed to resolve basic measurement tasks.

The easiest way to explain the issue is to put both situations in the same room, with two pairs of fighters/mages to the single monster much like the earlier example of the two pillars. It is then a single situation in which the pairs of mages and fighters are are the same distance from the monster yet the monster can only eat one of the squishies this turn without having to worry about pointy metal bits.

My system involves settling for forfeiting squares being consistent between grid rotations for keeping distances consistent.

If you're willing to go that far to fix it, why have a grid at all? The entire purpose of the grid is to establish an easily-referenced, consistent measurement system.

 

[HeinorNY]

It is. My system involves settling for forfeiting squares being consistent between grid rotations for keeping distances consistent. (It further goes on to say that, as there's a universal grid, it's not just in "how you look at it" - the 5x5 40-orc room is 5x5, yeah, but it's a room, so I'd describe it in feet - that's what, 35' x 35' or so? and say it's aligned diagonally. Icebox, on the other hand, is where I keep my drinks always going to be a 25' x 25' cube, since there's no ability for it to be aligned differently.

So your system is like 1-1-1-1 is not 5ft-5ft-5ft-5ft but actually 5ft-15ft-20ft-30ft?

 

[Imban]

Where did you get the idea that squares could be 5' or 7'? If 1=1 then distance is constant. It is beyond the scope of reasonable abstraction to suggest that some equally-distant areas are more distant than others unless the game is set at such a massive scale that general relativity is needed to resolve basic measurement tasks.

Squares are always 5 feet by 5 feet. A diagonal step from the center of one square to another is clearly 5 * sqrt(2) = 7.0710678... feet.

If diagonals = 1 step, then you can still maintain constant distance by stating that speed isn't constant. Which is silly, but with a few much smaller assumptions past there, that results in a perfectly coherent setup.

 

[Thyrwyn]

DM: You walk through the long corridor and reach 5 x 5 square room with 40 orcs inside.
Player 1: Forty!?!?!?! But that's impossible!!!!
DM: Not in the Dungeon of Chaos, mwahahaha!

This is an intentional misrepresentation. What you have produced is not a 5 "square" by 5 "square" room that is square. You have produced a room that a character could conceivably cross using only 5 squares of movement, which happens to be square, which is not the same thing. That creative interpretation is possible in a 1-2-1 universe as well,and would be just as problematic. Even in that universe it is a 5 square by 5 square room.

Player1: "You said it was a 5x5 room."
DM: "Yep."
Player1: "But my move 4 Dwarf can't reach the other side in one turn. . . ."

The rules are there to allow us to abtractly simulate combat in an imaginary world. But that imaginary world does have real dimensions, dimensions which should not be abstracted until they need to be. What about all of those dead, or half squares? What if I take the same room in a 1-2-1 universe and rotate it 45 degrees but keep the 1 square = 1" intact? Then my 5x5 room no longer has room for 25 creatures because of all the now dead half squares - o the injustice! the 1-2-1 rule is broken! kill it, kill it!

Player1: "We go back to that 10'x10' room to rest for the night."
DM: "You can't all fit - it only has 1 full square in the 1-2-1 Dungeon of Chaos! Mwaahahaha!"

And even if you are not trying to be a "dishonest" DM, you'll have to restrain yourself from building dungeons diagonaly for pure stylish or aesthetic reasons because the game is going to break if you do so.

No, you can build them any way you want - just represent them appropriately on your battlemat or with your dungeon tiles or whatever.

 

[HeinorNY]

That creative interpretation is possible in a 1-2-1 universe as well,and would be just as problematic. Even in that universe it is a 5 square by 5 square room.

The rules are there to allow us to abtractly simulate combat in an imaginary world. But that imaginary world does have real dimensions, dimensions which should not be abstracted until they need to be. What about all of those dead, or half squares? What if I take the same room in a 1-2-1 universe and rotate it 45 degrees but keep the 1 square = 1" intact? Then my 5x5 room no longer has room for 25 creatures because of all the now dead half squares - o the injustice! the 1-2-1 rule is broken! kill it, kill it! No, you can build them any way you want - just represent them appropriately on your battlemat or with your dungeon tiles or whatever.

This is an intentional misrepresentation.

It's also called taking advantage of plain broken rules.

 

[ZappoHisbane]

No, you can build them any way you want - just represent them appropriately on your battlemat or with your dungeon tiles or whatever.

But here's the thing though. Let's say I'm trying to build a dungeon of prison cells, in the basement of a large, reasonably circular keep. All the prison cells are 3 x 3 squares. To represent 'reasonably circular', I go with an octagonal shape for the corridors, so half of the corridors are diagonal. All of the cells are flush with the corridor walls. Weirdly, I can fit one extra prisoner in an overcrowded cell in the diagonal cells.

How exactly am I supposed to build the above dungeon using "tiles or whatever" and not have extra space in the diagonal cells?

 

[Aexalon]

Beautiful rebuttal.

More so because you used the same drawing guidelines I proposed in post #121 to draw the angled walls on the square grid (bisecting edges, not cells ), thus avoiding having half-cells all over the place.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ok, you all should stop thinking a diagonal is 5ft.

Nowhere it is stated that you move always 5ft. Your speed is listed in squares. It just means that because of certain "forces" you can more easily move diagonal. Thus you can make 7ft steps when moving in that way.


But if you do, you have to jump and strafe left or right. And it is called bunny hopping and looks very funny.

And come on, your turn is 6 seconds. Your movement distance is an arbitrary number of squares. You can´t accelerate just a bit and still attack. How weird is that?
If your opponent is 7 squares away you do what? Move 6 feet. Wait for him to whack on you for 6 seconds and then strike back?

And don´t argument: fireballs are squares now... it is just to prevent rule lawyers from moving diagonally all the time to avoid it. If you are just playing a game to have fun, use it as intended, use fireballs and have fun.

For the minigame it is a different matter, but there the grid IS ACTUALLY FIXED before you setup your minis. So the disussion is somewhat redundant. And here firecubes and no cones make perfectly sense, because here it actually IS A COMPETITION where 1 square difference can mean win or loss.