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

[Nom]

This is the fundamental difference between abstract changes such as 5 foot squares and objective error of 10 foot = 14 foot.

If you don't like it, go gridless. If you do this, consider using a (transparent, removable) zone-of-control template underneath each figure to remove measuring for AoOs and other short-range measurement. Everything works perfectly in Euclidean geometry, and you avoid issues of needing to fit figures to the grid rather than the actual terrain (which I find is especially an issue in taverns and other cluttered indoor environments).

For the rest of us, a system where a 7.07... ft. diagonal is always counted as 5 ft. worth of distance metric is a lot more playable* than one where it alternates between 5 ft. and 10 ft. (mean 7.5 ft) depending on rounding.

* based on my own experience and what I've seen of others in my group. About half of us are comfortable with 1.5 FRD counting, and yet it still is quicker to just count diagonals as 1.

 

[BryonD]

If you don't like it, go gridless.

Or the better option: Stay with the perfectly great system already in place.

For the rest of us, a system where a 7.07... ft. diagonal is always counted as 5 ft. worth of distance metric is a lot more playable* than one where it alternates between 5 ft. and 10 ft. (mean 7.5 ft) depending on rounding.

Cool. Obviously your standards and mine do not match.

 

[Thyrwyn]

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

Congratulations - you have mad map skilz. But your map does not refute my point that under either rule, it is possible to draw a room that "breaks"the representation; nor does it refute my point that under either rule there are ways to draw the room so that it does not.

It also begs the question: if we can arbitrarily change the orientation of the room to the grid, why can't we do that with your magic template? Or, I suppose, why must we?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Or the better option: Stay with the perfectly great system already in place.

Pefectly great... yes, as if perfect exist in an abstract game...

D&D was always "best" because it was one of the most simple and effective RPGs out there. 1-2-1-2-1-2 makes perfect sense, but is it woth the effort? If it is for you, play it that way.

1-1-1-1-1-1 is also perfectly valid.
Chess uses that symetrie for hundreds of years now, and nobody I know ever complained about a chess board beeing round. (Ok, in chess you actually do exploit that rule sometimes)

And we don´t know if there are rules like: you can´t move diagonally if that square has cover/is threatened/is covered by a threatened square/if that would result in a 90% turn.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Just because you don't take advantage of the broken rules it doenst' mean the rules isn't broken.

That's pretty much the Oberoni fallacy right there: "This rule isn't broken because it can easily be fixed by doing X."

But if it needs fixing, isn't it broken?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

1) Circular rooms are featured. I guess they still exist in the non-Euclidean 4e world.

From what I can tell, only a few WotC employees -- maybe as few as one -- really understand the non-Euclidean consequences of the 1-1-1-1 rule.

2) The map grid in rectangular rooms is always aligned to the walls of the room, regardless of whether that room is at a 45 degree angle to the rest of the dungeon or not

That is ... awesome. Seriously. I just love that solution. And it's so elegant, because it hides the problem so well. I didn't notice they did that!

Man, I can't wait until they put out the graph paper that allows you to do that. ("They already do, Jeff ... it's called 'graph paper -- modified with scissors and glue.'")

Well, there ya go. As long as you've got a staff cartographer on-hand -- and, really, who doesn't? -- you never have to worry about the freakiness of the new Far Realms D&D.

I believe both of these are due to the dungeon being laid out using the WotC dungeon tiles - it will be interesting to see if that convention also applies to the maps presented in published adventures.

That makes some sense, but aren't there diagonally-oriented tiles in any of the DT sets? (I own two copies of each, but I don't remember.) Also, doesn't the author mention that a staff cartographer drew the maps for him? (He may have said "created," which doesn't rule out the use of DT, i guess.)

 

[Menexenus]

I spent years playing D&D and SWRPG before I noticed the "1,2,1,2,1" diagonal movement rule. I consider anything but "one square of movement is one square in any direction" to be totally counterintuitive.

And yes, I realize that diagonals are longer. It doesn't offend my intellect at all. It's just one of many simplifications in an abstract movement system.

Same here. My group has *always* ignored the movement rules. We have always played "one square of movement is one square in any direction" and we have had no noteworthy problems with it.

 

[BryonD]

Pefectly great... yes, as if perfect exist in an abstract game...

Perfect was in reference to the satisfaction produced by the game experience.

D&D was always "best" because it was one of the most simple and effective RPGs out there.

One of the most simple??? That is simply a false statement. There have been all kinds of vastly simpler games out there.

1-2-1-2-1-2 makes perfect sense, but is it woth the effort? If it is for you, play it that way.

Thanks. I will. Wasn't that my point all along?

1-1-1-1-1-1 is also perfectly valid.

Not if you want the ground to not stretch. 1/1/1/1 is invalid if you want plausibility.

Chess uses that symetrie for hundreds of years now, and nobody I know ever complained about a chess board beeing round. (Ok, in chess you actually do exploit that rule sometimes)

So, are you following up on my prior question about roleplaying a chess knight here? Because if you can roleplay a chess knight as fully as you can roleplay a character in your D&D game, then I'm sorry but I don't have any interest in your D&D game. And if you can't roleplay a chess knight then the comparison is completely meaningless.

 

[hong]

So, are you following up on my prior question about roleplaying a chess knight here? Because if you can roleplay a chess knight as fully as you can roleplay a character in your D&D game,

Crude approximations to Euclidean geometry are critical to your ability to roleplay a character in a D&D game?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

One of the most simple??? That is simply a false statement. There have been all kinds of vastly simpler games out there.

don´t think its wrong. It is complicated to optimize, but rules are simple... roll a d20, roll high...