log in or register to remove this ad

 

4E Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?

Elder-Basilisk

First Post
Actually, if the minis rules are any indication, he's not even doing that. The minis rules make charging an attack action that lets you move up to your speed and make an attack. Nothing prevents you from moving and then charging. Thus, even on the diagonal grid provided, the monster could move six squares down vertically and then charge for six squares horizontally and attack the wizard--avoiding a second fighter who happened to be in the way in exactly the method that he avoided the first fighter in the previous example.

In fact, even if the fighter is basing the monster, he can probably still charge the wizard without drawing an opportunity attack. Shift as a move action so the fighter is no longer basing him and then charge the wizard using diagonal movement as shown in the previous examples to avoid the fighter. Now I don't think he can do that if the wizard is six squares away and the fighter is basing him on the direct vertical axis between him and the wizard, but if the wizard is only five squares away or the fighter is basing him from the side or on a diagonal, he's all good to shift then charge the wizard.

If the minis rules are any indication.


Raduin711 said:
Good point. If the fighter were moved just 1 square forward that could knock off a square of movement from the monster, but that isn't much. At least he is cutting off a charge, but that is about it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

DamnedChoir

First Post
Expecting realism from a game where people can take dozens of blows, fall off a 100 foot cliff, and climb out of being dunked in a river of lava to shake off all without the aid of magic is perhaps a bit too much. You're totally freaking out over a very minor bit of unrealism in order to speed up gameplay when MOST OF D&D is utterly unrealistic, not even taking magic and monsters to account.

I also had to respond to this quote, even if it was a bit too late behind.

Greenfaun said:
Meh, when I was 16 I would have been totally outraged, but now it seems like an okay idea. I mean, the most realistic system would be a map with no grid at all, and players would use a calibrated piece of string to measure distance directly from point A to point B, and see if they have enough movement to take it. No-one in their right mind would play that game, though.
It's called Warhammer, and yes, lots of people play it.
 

Captain Tagon

First Post
All these charts of how to protect the wizard are making me want to go play Blood Bowl now.

And the fighter fails as a defender for not putting the enemy in his tackle box.
 

HeinorNY

First Post
DamnedChoir said:
Expecting realism from a game where people can take dozens of blows, fall off a 100 foot cliff, and climb out of being dunked in a river of lava to shake off all without the aid of magic is perhaps a bit too much. You're totally freaking out over a very minor bit of unrealism in order to speed up gameplay when MOST OF D&D is utterly unrealistic, not even taking magic and monsters to account.
I expect believability.
In the worst case scenario, I just expect they don't try to fix "problems" by creating other problems.
 

HeinorNY

First Post
Captain Tagon said:
And the fighter fails as a defender for not putting the enemy in his tackle box.
He also fails by not having a higher initiative roll and killing the monster before it could move, or by not convincing the wizard to stay home sleeping. In either cases the rule is still terrible and creates more problems than it tries to fix.
 

Elder-Basilisk said:
Good luck with those circles in 4th edition. Hope you like your circles square.
I do actually, much easier to work with on a square map.

Here's a toast to you firesquare!!!
 

Captain Tagon

First Post
ainatan said:
He also fails by not having a higher initiative roll and killing the monster before it could move, or by not convincing the wizard to stay home sleeping. In either cases the rule is still terrible and creates more problems than it tries to fix.

Which is why I used hexes if I use a grid at all. Though I'd rather just use a tape measure. I try not to think too hard about any aspect of DnD however, this is just another example of how it can make a brain hurt.
 

Valdrax

First Post
Khaim said:
The only problem I see is that the wizard, despite his 18 Int, doesn't understand the basic geometry of the imaginary world he lives in well enough to know that he should be diagonally behind the fighter.
You'll have to forgive the Fighter and Wizard for not having designed the dungeon their in to make sure that all entrances to room are in the corner instead of in the middle of the walls. Alternately, it's all their fault for the DM insisting on lining up square rooms on the grid instead of placing all walls as diagonals to the grid.
 

HeinorNY

First Post
rjdafoe said:
I can't believe that this is an issue, especially, as looking at the pit fiend entry, it is obvious that movement is in number of squares, not feet.

the Pit Fiend's Move is :

Speed 12, fly 12 (clumsy), teleport 10

Now, do not tell me that the move and fly is 12 feet. No, it is 12 squares. I bet everything is in number of squares. Just count it that way and do not think about the math.
Don't worry, I won't tell you that because that's wrong. The Pit Fiend's fly and movement speeds are 60 feet per round, or 12 squares.;)
 

Valdrax

First Post
KarinsDad said:
Hexes do not cause problems. Squares create a boatload of problems.
[...]
If someone knows of a true advantage of squares over hexes, please post it because I know of none.
Hexes can create serious problems with large creatures and facing. If a creature is large enough to take up a space in between 3 & 7 hexes, what shape is its space, and how does that shape avoid facing issues? (This is even more stark when trying to figure out what's between 7 & 19 hexes.)

AoOs are another problem. The "benefit" you suggest of provoking AoOs from two flankers no matter which direction you run is a bug and not a feature in my mind. You should be able to put a better guard up against one attacker than another. Also, moving at "diagonals" with the main 6 hex directions open you up to AoOs that you wouldn't normally be vulnerable to in either a square map or in a real-life "run whatever direction you want" plane.

Hexes also present problems when dealing with tight corridors. Imagine a square room with one-person width corridors heading N, S, E, & W from the room (as one might see in a castle). In two directions, hexes work. In two directions, hexes don't work. You could point out that squares don't work in a round room with tunnels going of in six equidistant directions, but people rarely build rooms like that. The case of architectural conflict with the grid is much more common on hex maps than on square maps for standard designs.

Hexes and squares have their pluses and minuses. To say that hexes have *NO* issues is going a bit beyond advocacy and into spin doctoring.
 

Benimoto

First Post
I'm not wild about firesquare, but I think that changing to a 1-1-1 model instead of a 1-2-1-2, will save about 30 seconds of recounting every session when somebody messes up. That's 30 more seconds of fun!

One thing about the 1-2-1-2 rule that D&D 3.5 had is that it made things with a 10-foot radius weak in the corners. For example, they had to fix the reach diagrams so that things with a 10-foot reach didn't have an area in the corner that wasn't covered. This is because otherwise, you could come along diagonally at a monster with 10-foot reach and end up adjacent to it without ever provoking an AoO.

The other weakness is that with the radius rules the way they were in 3.5, spells like antilife shell got silly. The general idea was that nothing could come within 10 feet of someone with that spell active. But, since it was a 10 foot radius centered on one of the external corners of the caster's square, it was only 5 feet wide along two sides, and one corner wasn't even covered at all.

So from a common sense perspective, some things should be a geometrically better fit to how they were envisioned in 4th edition. A small minority, sure, but some things.
 


IceFractal

First Post
You know, this isn't some finicky "realism" point, this is distance behaving as we know it in life rather than as if we were in the far realms. If people move 50% faster in some directions that others - that's a pretty damn noticable effect. And it isn't "just an abstraction" if it's the rules for combat. If an Ogre is able to charge you and kill you because of the 1-1 diagonal rule, then that's a real effect in the game world that you can't just explain away as abstraction.

And more importantly, as ainatan brings up, it makes defending someone damn near impossible. Heck, you can put a 40' long stone wall in front of someone to defend them, and it won't even slow people down. The only way to defend someone is completely encircling them.

But wait, defense can work if everyone lines up diagonally! In fact, it works altogether too well, since you can retreat twice as fast as they can advance. Ok, so now the characters are making random-looking movements at the start of every combat, responding in-game to something that's supposed to be an abstraction.

Speaking of responding in-game to supposed abstractions, it's going to be ... interesting trying to play a fireball-tossing Wizard now:
"Ok, everyone form a line and hold back the foes so I can fireball them without hitting you!"
"We are in a line!"
"But it's a diagonal line - it has to be orthagonally aligned to the grid or it won't work!"
But at least cones are 50% bigger (and square shaped), when you fire them at an angle.
AoE effects - breaking the 4th wall since 2008.


So from a gamist point, it makes tactics extremely dependant on the direction the grid is aligned, and replaces figuring out 1.5 square increments with figuring out how to maintain a diagonal/non-diagonal alignment to the foes. From a simulation point, it breaks any resemblance to a Euclidean world. From a narrative point, why are you even using a grid?

I don't see an improvement in any direction.
 
Last edited:



KarinsDad

First Post
Valdrax said:
Hexes can create serious problems with large creatures and facing. If a creature is large enough to take up a space in between 3 & 7 hexes, what shape is its space, and how does that shape avoid facing issues? (This is even more stark when trying to figure out what's between 7 & 19 hexes.)
Why would a creature take up space between 3 and 7 hexes? With hexes, creatures would take up a 1 hex space or 3 hex space or 7 hex space, etc.

Does 3.5 creatures take up space between 1 and 4 squares, or 4 and 9 squares? No, they take up 1 or 4 or 9 or 16.

Your point here is irrelevant and applies to squares exactly like it does hexes.

And, there are no facing issues with 1 or 3 or 7 hex spaced creatures. Or at least you haven't illustrated one yet.

Valdrax said:
AoOs are another problem. The "benefit" you suggest of provoking AoOs from two flankers no matter which direction you run is a bug and not a feature in my mind. You should be able to put a better guard up against one attacker than another. Also, moving at "diagonals" with the main 6 hex directions open you up to AoOs that you wouldn't normally be vulnerable to in either a square map or in a real-life "run whatever direction you want" plane.
This is blatantly false. With squares, there are 3 possible different results (no AoO possible, 1 AoO possible, and 2 AoOs possible), all depending on which direction opponents flank and which direction the target moves. Flank does not always mean the same thing.

With hexes, there is 1 possible result (1 AoO possible), regardless of movement away. Flank always means the exact same thing. With hexes, a person IS putting up a better guard against one of his flankers than the other. It is squares where that is not necessarily the case.

Consistency is vastly superior to a bunch of different results, all depending on how someone is flanked and based on metagaming results due to the mathematics of squares and the AoO rules.

There is no such thing as AoO in real life. If there were, there would be no 0 through 2 AoOs possible based on whether the flank is N/S versus NE/SW. In real life, all directions of the compass are the same. This is not true for squares, but it is for hexes.

Valdrax said:
Hexes also present problems when dealing with tight corridors. Imagine a square room with one-person width corridors heading N, S, E, & W from the room (as one might see in a castle). In two directions, hexes work. In two directions, hexes don't work. You could point out that squares don't work in a round room with tunnels going of in six equidistant directions, but people rarely build rooms like that. The case of architectural conflict with the grid is much more common on hex maps than on square maps for standard designs.
Squares have the same issue. A 5 foot wide diagonal corridor on squares has ZERO actual squares in it.

Plus, your concept of "standard designs" implies dimensions based on 5 foot least common denominators. A fact of 3E, but an undesirable one. Why is nearly every room rectangular in 3.5 and these rectangular rooms rarely are at angles other than 90 degrees from each other and these rooms have dimensions of multiples of 5 feet?

Because of the stupid square grid design of rules. What a limitation!

Valdrax said:
Hexes and squares have their pluses and minuses. To say that hexes have *NO* issues is going a bit beyond advocacy and into spin doctoring.
So far, you have yet to illustrate it. 2 out of 3 of the disadvantages that you have claimed for hexes also exist for squares and the 3rd one is obviously advantage hexes.

I'm willing to listen to real factual disadvantages that do not also apply to squares, but so far you have yet to illustrate one.

I'm not claiming that Hexes have no limitations. I'm claiming that every limitation that Hexes have, Squares also have. However, Hexes have advantages that Squares do not have.

There is a reason most wargames from the 60s and 70s used hexes and games like HEROES still do so.
 

UngeheuerLich

Adventurer
As my point was ignored: turning around 90° should just cost an extra movement square, and you are usually doing quite fine. Also it should be mentioned, that an ogre can´t charge around someone, because a charge must be in a straight line.

And all of you complaining how gamey it is... using a grid and round system with 6 seconds increments is always gamey, no matter which rules you use.

The worst thing IMHO is that balls are cubes now.
 

rjdafoe

Explorer
ainatan said:
Don't worry, I won't tell you that because that's wrong. The Pit Fiend's fly and movement speeds are 60 feet per round, or 12 squares.;)

I know that. What if the rule is just to count how many squares and never define what a square is? Just a loose about 5'?

Why does it have to be feet? Everything that I have readm they talk about a number of squares. there is a distinction there. Move is 12 squares, not 60 feet for a reason. Right now, everthing is defined in feet and we figure out how many squares (if you like to count squares).

It doesn't matter in the least if everything is defined in a number of squares.

Point blank is 10 squares for instance.

I am not saying that is how it is being done, as I do not know. But they have changed movement from a number of feet to a number of squares.
 

TwinBahamut

First Post
All this talk of firesquares and shifting tactics based on how things are arranged according to the grid is making me seriously consider moving to hex grids in the future. It just seems like I will lose less sanity that way. At least if it were the "diagonal movement is impossible" rule like in videogames, I would be more comfortable, since I am at least used to the peculiarities and "fire-diamonds" of that set-up...

Since I might be moving to hexes...

KarinsDad, how exactly do larger than standard creatures work in hex systems? A medium size creature would be 1 hex, a large creature would be 3 hexes, and a huge creature would be 7 hexes, correct? How does it go from there?
 

Elder-Basilisk

First Post
It had darn well better have some relevance to feet. Because you can bet that no DM is going to answer the question, "how deep is this pit?" by saying "12 squares." Nor is he going to answer the question, "how tall is the wall?" by saying "three squares." Without a three dimensional representation of squares those answers are not helpful in letting the players imagine the scene. (Is a three square tall wall tall, short, or what?; If I say the PCs are trying to fight their way up the Tower of London, how many squares tall should the walls be?)

And when a PC falls down that sixty foot pit he is certainly going to want to know how much movement it's going to take to get out (flying, climbing, or whatever). So we'll need some kind of feet to squares conversion. For that matter, the PCs who didn't fall down that 12-square deep pit (assuming for the moment that pits do get depth measured in squares) will want to know whether the 50 feet of knotted silk rope they have with them will reach to the bottom and let their friend climb out or if they will need to tie another length of rope onto the end of their fifty feet of rope so that it reaches to the bottom.

For that matter, PCs will also want to be able to estimate how things will look on the grid even when they don't have a grid. Let's say that the PCs are receiving a report from a scout (perhaps a familiar). The scout is describing the ruined fortress that the hobgoblin horde has inhabited. He says that the hobgoblins have cleared a glacis around the walls so that there is no cover other than short grass and one dilapidated shack between the forest and the walls. "So, how wide is that glacis?" the PCs ask. You can be darn sure that the scout isn't going to answer "thirty squares." But when the DM answers "about 150 feet" the PCs are definitely going to want to be able to estimate how long it will take them to cross it and whether or not the ranger is likely to be able to pick off the sentry on the wall with a bowshot or if he'll be out of range.

The rulebook may or may not express all horizontal distances relating to combat abilities in squares. But even if it does, odds are very good that vertical distances (which are generally not represented on a battlemap) will be expressed in feet (as the pit examples from the design and development articles indicate). And even if they weren't the fact that our imagination and narration works best in real-world distances means that we will need a reliable conversion mechanism in order for it to work.

rjdafoe said:
I know that. What if the rule is just to count how many squares and never define what a square is? Just a loose about 5'?

Why does it have to be feet? Everything that I have readm they talk about a number of squares. there is a distinction there. Move is 12 squares, not 60 feet for a reason. Right now, everthing is defined in feet and we figure out how many squares (if you like to count squares).

It doesn't matter in the least if everything is defined in a number of squares.

Point blank is 10 squares for instance.

I am not saying that is how it is being done, as I do not know. But they have changed movement from a number of feet to a number of squares.
 

Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top