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

[UngeheuerLich]

re: Euclidean geometry in the wider world.
Hell, as Mustrum Ridicully pointed out, even the 1-2-1 method doesn't model the world properly.since itself is an approximation.

actually the world is also not euclidean...
...for those who missed that: the world is not flat. Its a ball. Thus not euclidean.
(axiom of parallels is broken)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah, uhm...I guess that's why you should draw it more like thi if you want to keep the corridor at same width?

Ok, and why not draw the red line one square more to the botom? then you have a 3 square wide corridor which actually looks less faked... :\

 

[Wormwood]

something like this?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Ok, and why not draw the red line one square more to the botom? then you have a 3 square wide corridor which actually looks less faked... :\

What do you mean with "faked"?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

That's one of the big reasons why I suspect many people prefer the 1-1-1 option. They don't have to worry about one of their gamers trying to min-max movement especially given that the first time they try that, either the other players will pelt dice at the gamer or more likely, the DM will use the same tactic next time to screw them over.

This is just my personal experience, but I never saw peer pressure or DM pressure keep powergamers (new or old hands) from abusing some "loophole" in the game that the rest of the group, DM included, hasn't spotted yet or hasn't ascribed too much importance too.

 

[Fifth Element]

So you are endorsing the position that anyone who rejects the claim that this trade is a net gain should avoid 4E?

Not remotely. There are many more rules than this one in 4E, and if you like all the others but dislike this one, you'll still probably like 4E.

If you reject this claim, you should bear it in mind when considering whether to play 4E. However, you should also bear in mind that there is an easy fix available, so if this is the one thing keeping you from 4E, it's not a reason to avoid 4E.

Edit: Like Rel said above.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Do you really believe that, or do you just use the extreme position because not every designer of WotC is walking up in this or similar threads and tells "yes, we know that's not exactly eucledian, but we don't care, because playability is more important for us?"

Actually, I believe that the designers know now. I don't believe many -- if any -- of them fully realized the extent of the consequences when they pitched or finalized the rule. Which is understandable, in a way. It's just not intuitive that a simple, innocent linear change like the 1-1-1-1 rule results in rooms that double in size when they're on the diagonal. It's actually pretty hard to even believe until you make the effort to draw it out.

I would dislike Firecubes instead of fireballs

You know, I really wouldn't mind firecubes -- even in 3.5 -- except that they (DDM again) explicitly call the effects "bursts" and "spreads" and words like that and make you calculate cover and counting around walls and on and on. Just say it's a 5x5 sheet of flame that damages everyone and everything in the area and be done with it.

I hope nobody ever forgets that the 2-2-2 rules of Star Wars or the 1-2-1 standard of 3.x also create non-eucledian worlds, because it's still an approximation.

I'm pretty sure that that has been stated and acknowledged by every single 1-1-1-1 hater in this thread at least once. (I can pretty much guarantee that all of the 1-2-1-2 proponents would be just as vocal if the rule had come down 2-2-2-2.)

The difference is just that "people" are slower on diagonals then on straights rather the other way around.

Well, yes, that's true, but it's not the only difference. 1-1-1-1 movement is 450 percent worse as an approximation than 1-2-1-2. And that's linearly. When you go to draw rooms, the increase in percentage of error between 1-2-1-2 and 1-1-1-1 climbs into the thousands. Maybe tens of thousands. The error in 1-1-1-1 is also additive ... it gets progressively worse as you move farther. 1-2-1-2 doesn't.

You're obviously aware that 1-2-1-2 is more accurate, but it's really pretty incredible just how much more accurate it is, but that's not easy to see when all you're talking about is 6 squares of movement. 1-2-1-2 is not perfect, no. Much, much, much more accurate? Yes.

I simply don't consider that remarkable and deliberate -- "deliberate" as in "intentional," not as in "knowing the consequences" -- increase in, to use a word that applies on a couple of levels, wrongness to be worth the minuscule play benefit. Counting diagonals simply isn't very hard, very intrusive, or very time consuming. Nearly everyone in my group wastes more time shaking the d20 to roll it than they do counting diagonals ... which is to say "about 0.5 extra seconds."

 

[hong]

The disconnect for a lot of people with the new movement rules is pretty simple...it impacts reality on a deeper level than "it's just for combat".

No it doesn't.

 

[HeinorNY]

Not remotely. There are many more rules than this one in 4E, and if you like all the others but dislike this one, you'll still probably like 4E.

If you reject this claim, you should bear it in mind when considering whether to play 4E. However, you should also bear in mind that there is an easy fix available, so if this is the one thing keeping you from 4E, it's not a reason to avoid 4E.

I think the 1-1-1-1 works better as a 'fix' in the case of people who don't care about all this subject and all they want is even more simplicity.

"Do you think 1-2-1-2 is too complicated? Don't you care about realism? Do your players play fair? So here we have a nice fix for you, use 1-1-1-1 diagonal movement!"

It just sounds better than "Do you think 1-1-1-1 is too simple? Do you care about realism? Are your players crazy min/maxers? So here we have a nice fix for you, use 1-2-1-2 diagonal movement!"

Just an opinion. I'm not trying to prove anything....

 

[hong]

It just sounds better than "Do you think 1-1-1-1 is too simple? Do you care about realism? Are your players crazy min/maxers? So here we have a nice fix for you, use 1-2-1-2 diagonal movement!"

1-2-1-2 has nothing to do with player minmaxing. It has everything to do with DM minmaxing.