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

[YourSwordIsMine]

Well, square based mapping is a sacred cow held over from the original game IMHO.

Diagonal movement can be easily fixed with switching to a hex grid. problem solved.

Will it though? probably not.

 

[Steely Dan]

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

Enjoy your vacation.

As a general warning, please remember that if you take issue with a decision a moderator has made, we are more than happy to discuss it through private channels. However, attacking a moderator decision in public is a sure-fire way to get yourself a sabbatical.

- Xath

 

[BryonD]

Personally I'd endorse the position that if you like other aspects of 4e but this one bothers you then it's very easy to fix.

But as I see it this change is rather representative of the entire design approach for 4e.

And if the elimination of cones and other such secondary impacts are related to this change, then the fix may be less easy than you think. And regardless it seems very clear that "continue to play the 3X game that works so well for you" is even more easy.

It is more than just an up or down choice, 4E needs to go higher than the very high bar that 3E set. And this ankle weight looks very similar to a lot of the other ones I see bolted onto 4e legs.

 

[BryonD]

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.)

As has been stated upthread, not only is the scale of the error being dramatically increased, there is a fundamental difference between accepting minimal errors that come from assumptions such as discrete 5 foot squares and intentional piling error on to a system that doesn't require it just because there is an assumption that the current rules don't meet the simplification requirements of the target audience.

 

[HeinorNY]

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.

Because it not entirely true "that everyone can do it". It can be 'exclusive'.

Take a look at my post #511. The blue dot(ranger) wants to Point Blank Shot the X monster, but since he is an ranged attacker, the more he can stay away from melee the better. So he and the fighter use the "grid-trick", he can still PBS the X monster, but because of the inconsistence of the rule the monster can't bypass the defender anymore.

By your logic, and at first view it really makes sense, the monster could also use the "grid-trick" to compensate, but he can't. There is nothing more the X monster could do, there is no way he could "regain" that round the ranger "stole" from him using the "grid-trick".

 

[Campbell]

But as I see it this change is rather representative of the entire design approach for 4e.

You say that is if it were a bad thing...

 

[Desdichado]

Removed. - Xath

Jocularity is a great word. We need to use it more often.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Which of course beggars the question "Why change it".

Listen to the podcast and it seems like DMShoe wasn't happy with the decision, but also look through this entire thread.

How many different posters even on the first page responded "Wait, it isn't already 1-1-1, well damn, I've been using that all the time". Are you basically telling WOTC that they should just ignore them?

The issue about switching the orientation of the grid doesn't come up for most people since, and this is the big thing, most people it seems won't actually "powergame" the grid. While the pro 1-2-1 crowd have mentioned the fear of the "grid-warrior" taking advantage of this quirk, I don't think many other gamers consider this a problem.

ainatan has been pointing out problems with the system that could come up by accident. Of course, it doesn't sound like you've played with many RPGA players. IME, those are the ones who "game" the system to the point of breaking, and they're going to be all over any new exploits this opens up.

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.

I don't think that it's a good idea to build a cold war into the core system.

 

[AllisterH]

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]

Here's the thing though, neither does 1-2-1 prevent those scenarios. For example, in the first scenario, even with a 1-2-1 rule, a monster with a move of 8 can simply walk around the fighter and tag the ranger/wizard. In the second example, the only mechanical difference is that monsters with moves of 9+ can attack the blue dot whereas in the 1-2-1 system, monsters with moves of 11+

So what advantage does 1-2-1 actually give if it can't even prevent the same problems as 1-1-1?

None of the scenarios with monster movement that Ainatan highlighted are due to the 1-1-1 rule but with the turn-based system of the game IMO.

 

[Benimoto]

As has been stated upthread, not only is the scale of the error being dramatically increased, there is a fundamental difference between accepting minimal errors that come from assumptions such as discrete 5 foot squares and intentional piling error on to a system that doesn't require it just because there is an assumption that the current rules don't meet the simplification requirements of the target audience.

Yeah, but you could reverse that and legitimately ask why you would complicate a system just because of an assumption that the current rules don't meet the precision needs of the target audience.

You could do things to make the 3.5 system more precise. You could break everything down to precise measurements in feet and say that diagonals are 7 feet, or even 7 feet, 1 inch long. Or, instead, you could require a player to keep track of whether he's moved an odd or even number of diagonals, so that the 1-2-1-2 count could start up correctly on the next turn instead of resetting.

The thing is that the system is already fairly imprecise. As I mentioned earlier, isn't a little weird that most of the entire human race moves at a speed of exactly 30 feet? Is that really how far someone can walk in 6 seconds? Isn't it weird that all difficult terrain exactly halves your speed? We could easily make these systems more precise as well.

They're all abstractions, and all compromises between precision and usability. Your complaints are legitimate, but why should your ideal system get preference over all the people who had been counting 1-1-1-1 all along and liked their system?