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

[Delta]

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.)

I was bothered by that, and fixed it in my books and notes. And wrote a web article proposing further fixes ( http://www.superdan.net/spellar/spellar1.html ).

 

[BryonD]

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.

The current rules do 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.

A) The five foot squares have been accepted in gaming well beyond D&D or even RPGS.
B) You still have not addressed the fundamental difference between accepting that some error exists and an intentionally addition of new error onto the system
C) The drumbeat of 4E is "more simple", so new complexities are a non-starter
D) I'm not convinced that an error of 6% is at all significant being as it seems very safe to assume that all humans vary their rate of movement in combat situations anyway. 6% is probably high, but it is reasonable. 40% is absurd.

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.

Again, there is a fundamental difference between accepting implicit error and adding error that the system doesn't require. With all the D&D assumptions in place there is a "best" answer. The intentional addition of error is a whole new issue.

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?

If it is an abstraction worthy of ignoring 40% error then why the hell does anyone care if they forget whether the next move is a 1 or a 2 and they might add another 5% of less error? Seriously, the entire reason for doing this is to avoid an error in counting 1/2/1/2. And the "solution" is to make everyone a lot more wrong always.

Anybody who truly believes that the 40% error of 1/1/1/1 is ok because it is an abstraction can't possibly care if their movement was off by 5% because of 1/2/1/2 mistakes. The solution contradicts the very foundation of the problem it claims to solve.

And if you are just going with a majority rule answer, then I firmly believe that 1/2/1/2 would win that handily.

 

[BryonD]

dang 18 pages.

I'm gonna laugh if the new 1-1-1 diag movement change only applies to DDM (which after all has a lower min age on the box).

I'll laugh right there with you. But as Mouseferatu has access to the rules and was defending this change back on page 1, I'm guessing it is in.

 

[BryonD]

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

Then I'm not expressing myself strongly enough.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So, in theory, I see the 'necessity' and think I can handle it. But something also tells me that I will freak when I see diagonal abuse.

Yes, and its your good right to do so!^^

 

[baradtgnome]

Given that we are in preview still, how certain are we this thinking applies to all distances on the grid? If movement, melee, ranged & area of effect don't all have the same rules for counting the result could have many wonky side effects.

I can understand the preferences on both sides. I wonder if the 4e rules it will be feasible to have adjustments whether you prefer square grid 1-1-1 diags, square grid 1-2-1 diags, hex grid, or string measurement.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, uhm...I guess that's why you should draw it more like this if you want to keep the corridor at same width? I thought that was basic stuff that you learn when you start drawing dungeons on graph paper.



And I apologize for the small size..just click on it for a bigger version.

Heh, my bad for drawing. But, my point still remains - a huge creature can no longer fit in the corridor. The bend in the corridor means that I go from regular movement, to squeezing - which is a MAJOR penalty.

That's the point I've been harping on all the way along. 1-2-1 is perhaps more accurate sometimes, but, really, overall, it's not all that terribly accurate, is prone to just as many fallacies, and doesn't actually add all that much.

In other words, it really doesn't bother me that a creature with a move of 6 might gain 2 extra squares of movement once in a while. 99% of the time, it will make zero difference.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Heh, my bad for drawing. But, my point still remains - a huge creature can no longer fit in the corridor. The bend in the corridor means that I go from regular movement, to squeezing - which is a MAJOR penalty.

How do you figure that? The corridor remains at 15' width all the way through (general inaccuracies are due to my drawing skills rather than geometric differences), and at least in the DMG, a Huge creature uses a space of 15'x15'. So why should it have to squeeze through the corridor, which is at the same width diagonally as it os orthogonally to the grid? I don't follow.

In other words, it really doesn't bother me that a creature with a move of 6 might gain 2 extra squares of movement once in a while. 99% of the time, it will make zero difference.

That's clear, and nothing I'm going to dispute. It's every player's right and prerogative to ignore or obsess about whatever rules and consequences he wants, be they real or imagined. We differ on this topic, and that's okay. I generally found that it doesn't matter how much rules understanding differs inplay, as long as both sides know how to get along with each other and can have fun playing the game.

 

[Lackhand]

How do you figure that? The corridor remains at 15' width all the way through (general inaccuracies are due to my drawing skills rather than geometric differences), and at least in the DMG, a Huge creature uses a space of 15'x15'. So why should it have to squeeze through the corridor, which is at the same width diagonally as it os orthogonally to the grid? I don't follow.

Go get a mini and put it on the map -- its base doesn't fit. Since 3.5 doesn't have facing... the huge critter is SOL, screwed by the grid resolution.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

That's even more of a puzzle to me now. If the base of the creature fits between the lines of the straight part of the corridor, it will equally fit between the lines of the angled part of the corridor, since the width between the lines is the same in both parts, and I'm talking cm (or inches, if you prefer) here, not simply squares. After all, the "space" of a creature is given in feet, not in "squares", in the DMG, and the width of the corridor is measured in inch = x feet. Do you mean it has a problem getting around the bend, or is there something you're talking about I simply don't get because I don't use miniatures that often?

For clarification: Hussar and me are talking about the correction in red on the map he's "quoted" now, not about his original drawing. The red correction ensures that the angled part of the corridor has the same width as the straight parts, in a physical sense, not just an abstact sense.