D&D 4E Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?


First Post
hong said:
1-2-1-2 has nothing to do with player minmaxing. It has everything to do with DM minmaxing.
I don't fully agree with you but anyway, it was just an opinion.

"Do you think 1-1-1-1 is too simple? Do you care about realism? Are your DM a tyrannic min/maxer? So here we have a nice fix for you, use 1-2-1-2 diagonal movement!"

We are talking a lot about diagonal rooms and DM making it harder/easier for players. I still think it's about player minmaxing too, let me bring back the point from page 3:


Blue = Wizard or Ranger
Green = Fighter (defender)
X = monster

I've heard the following counter-point: "Squares are abstract, in the second diagram the blue dot IS farther from X monster so it 'makes sense' it needs more movement to reach it".

But that point is irrelevant because, farther or not, in both situations the Blue dot, let's say it's a ranger, COULD Point Blank Shot the X monster, but depending on how the characters position themselves on the grid (by normal movement, and not grid-rotation), the X monster could reach the ranger in 1 round or in 2 rounds.

BTW in the second diagram, the X monster even by provoking AoO from the green dot wouldn't reach the Blue dot. If the green dot was just a hole on the ground the X monster wouldn't reach the Blue dot too. (Of course it could jump the hole, or fall in it)

In the first diagram the X monster can do it without provoking any AoO at all, nor It would have to care about jumping the hole.

That's a lot of inconsistence.

[TANGENT]What about another diagram, not to prove anything, just for fun, really:
The X monster is already attacking the Blue dot. On its round it uses a withdraw (move action) around the defender. Readies a charge when another monster heals him, gives a hearty hello to the defender, gets healed and then charge (don't need to be in a straight line anymore) the Blue dot again. It's a corner case, but could happen, let's say the Fighter is fighting another monster while the X monster do that. If the Monster "leader" turn is right after the X monster's turn he could do it...


I really hope the rules don't allow us to do things like that, like readying a charge, but who knows?[/TANGENT]


  • grid33.JPG
    17.4 KB · Views: 396
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


Did this thread actually get to 18 pages without much tangentiation? How is that possible? I'm not sure whether I should be amused or concerned....


Elder-Basilisk said:
So, we have good reason to believe that, as soon as experience teaches the ways to exploit and abuse the 1/1/1 movement rule, the vast majority of players will do so.

You have a good point, and I can see 1 area where this could come up alot. The online gameboard that Wizards is touting.

I also should say that I see min/maxing abilities score, or anything really a little differently. There are character concepts and there are looking at every race in existance to find the best ability scores (among other things). Also looking at every feat/ability and finding the one that has the least negative. It also means (to me) finding every rule that could be taken advantage of, and take advantage of it.

I see that as 2 separate things. There is maximising your character concept, and then there is min/maxing. They are 2 different things in my world ;)

I guess I am spoiled as I game with RL friends. We have all been friends for 10+ (sometimes 20 ugghhh) years and are not out to exploit each other in a game. (That is what munchkin is for!)
Last edited:


First Post
How can anyone "exploit and abuse the 1/1/1 movement rule" when everyone in a fight can do it? It means a more fluid combat environment and easier rules for everyone. It looks like win-win to me.

Steely Dan

mhensley said:
How can anyone "exploit and abuse the 1/1/1 movement rule" when everyone in a fight can do it? It means a more fluid combat environment and easier rules for everyone. It looks like win-win to me.

Hey, there's no reason to be reasonable and logical – don't you know where you are?!


Liquid Awesome
Steely Dan said:
Hey, there's no reason to be reasonable and logical – don't you know where you are?!

Your snide little backhand has earned you an exit from the thread, Steely Dan. Bye.


First Post
I too can't believe all the hand-wringing over this. I'm not thrilled about the change, but I'm not upset about it, and I believe it will make for a faster game. I'm pretty skilled in counting out distances via the 3.5 method, but not all of my players are, and even those that are reasonably good at it, still take time to confirm that their measurements are right. Plus, counting out diagonal distances in feet moved always seemed seriously unnatural. 5-15-20-30-35-45? That looks like an SAT grade math problem on guessing the next number in the sequence. And it got worse when you were mixing diagonal and regular movement.

But seriously, all of you who are bothered by the artificial 5-square by 5-square room orthogonal and diagonal, were never bothered by the number of squares that a 3.5-style cone, aimed diagonally and orthogonally took up? (Okay, rhetorical question, as I understand it's a matter of degree, but still.)


Here is a scenario in 3.5-land. Phil the Paladin (blue dot) needs to tend to Princess Pureheart (pink dot) before the evil Baron Slimenthal (green dot) escapes. Luckily for Phil, the Baron has activated his signature spell, slimeform. In slimeform, the Baron can only move 5 feet per round. The Baron is 30 feet from his escape hatch, so Phil can tend the Princess for 5 rounds and then catch the Baron in the next round, right? OH NO!!!! Phil, you were so wrong!


Mustrum_Ridcully said:
And with that in mind, aren't some of you guys getting a bit to worked up about your "Far Realms" universe? (I can absolutely understand liking to play around with the image tags and a cool grid-making software, though.)
Mayyyybe. ;)


  • cones.png
    7.8 KB · Views: 357
  • slimeescape.png
    5.1 KB · Views: 316

Remove ads


Remove ads

Upcoming Releases