• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 4E Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?

Nom

First Post
Geron Raveneye said:
How do you figure that? :confused: 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 the updated diagram, the corridor is 15 ft. wide, because 15 ft. is the diagonal distance across two squares: 5 ft + 10 ft.

A Huge creature occupies a 15 ft. by 15 ft. square. This is 3 squares across the orthogonals. However, it's also 3 squares across the diagonal. By any 3.5 metric, the diagonal space of a Huge creature is not 15 ft. but (at least) 20 ft..

Since our example corridor is only 2 squares (15 ft.) wide diagonally, it is too narrow to contain the diagonal size of Huge creature.

(And before anyone asks, yes, you can trivially achieve the same effect with a hex grid as well)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

KarinsDad

Adventurer
Nom said:
In the updated diagram, the corridor is 15 ft. wide, because 15 ft. is the diagonal distance across two squares: 5 ft + 10 ft.

A Huge creature occupies a 15 ft. by 15 ft. square. This is 3 squares across the orthogonals. However, it's also 3 squares across the diagonal. By any 3.5 metric, the diagonal space of a Huge creature is not 15 ft. but (at least) 20 ft..

Since our example corridor is only 2 squares (15 ft.) wide diagonally, it is too narrow to contain the diagonal size of Huge creature.

(And before anyone asks, yes, you can trivially achieve the same effect with a hex grid as well)

Nope. In any of the main 6 axes, 3 hexes wide is 3 hexes wide is 3 hexes wide. The Huge 3 hex wide creature with hexes is always 15 feet wide, regardless of direction. Not 15 feet orthogonally and 20 feet wide diagonally (like 3.5 square creatures).

Worse yet, if a PC moves straight diagonally across a Huge creature with squares, he moves 30 feet. Moving orthogonally across the same creature, he moves 20 feet.

In the case of the hexes, the PC moves straight across a Huge creature 20 feet in all directions.
 

Geron Raveneye

Explorer
Nom said:
In the updated diagram, the corridor is 15 ft. wide, because 15 ft. is the diagonal distance across two squares: 5 ft + 10 ft.

A Huge creature occupies a 15 ft. by 15 ft. square. This is 3 squares across the orthogonals. However, it's also 3 squares across the diagonal. By any 3.5 metric, the diagonal space of a Huge creature is not 15 ft. but (at least) 20 ft..

Since our example corridor is only 2 squares (15 ft.) wide diagonally, it is too narrow to contain the diagonal size of Huge creature.

(And before anyone asks, yes, you can trivially achieve the same effect with a hex grid as well)

Erm...no? A base that is (if you want to argue in squares) 3 squares wide across the orthogonal is 2 squares wide across the diagonal. You did describe this quite nicely in your first sentence (15 feet being the diagonal distance across two squares). Why you go and try to contradict that in your second sentence is a bit beyond me, though. By any 3.5 metric, the width of a Huge creature is 15 feet...meaning 3 squares when orthogonal, or 2 squares when diagonal to the grid.

That's the nice part about the whole 1-2-1 deal...it doesn't diverge THAT much from how it should be, and hence is descriptive, not formative. If a mini fits, in its width, into the straight part of the corridor 3 squares wide, it will fit into the diagonal part as well.
 

MerricB

Eternal Optimist
Supporter
Geron Raveneye said:
Erm...no? A base that is (if you want to argue in squares) 3 squares wide across the orthogonal is 2 squares wide across the diagonal.

The physical nature of a D&D monster is that it occupies a square of 3x3 squares. The base on the miniature may be round, but that doesn't stop it occupying the entire 3x3 squares.

If the diagonal is drawn properly - that is, it begins in the centre of a gridline and not at the intersection - the diagonal section of corridor is divided into 7/8 and 1/8 squares.

For the 3x3 creature to fit down, the width of the corridor must be approx 3.5 squares during the diagonal.

Cheers!
 

Lackhand

First Post
Geron Raveneye said:
Erm...no? A base that is (if you want to argue in squares) 3 squares wide across the orthogonal is 2 squares wide across the diagonal. You did describe this quite nicely in your first sentence (15 feet being the diagonal distance across two squares). Why you go and try to contradict that in your second sentence is a bit beyond me, though. By any 3.5 metric, the width of a Huge creature is 15 feet...meaning 3 squares when orthogonal, or 2 squares when diagonal to the grid.

That's the nice part about the whole 1-2-1 deal...it doesn't diverge THAT much from how it should be, and hence is descriptive, not formative. If a mini fits, in its width, into the straight part of the corridor 3 squares wide, it will fit into the diagonal part as well.
A base that is 3 squares wide across the orthogonal is _not_ 2 squares across the diagonal because you don't get to rotate the mini. No rules for it, y'see; it occupies the squares that it occupies, nae more, nae less.

Code:
xxx
xxx
xxx
is the shape we're looking at. 3 across the diagonal, not 2. Squeezing.
 

Geron Raveneye

Explorer
And here's where I simply have to ask for some sort of quote. See, when I look into my DMG, a Huge creature has a width of 15 feet...not 3 squares. 15 feet are either 3 squares when aligned orthogonally to the grid, or 2 squares when aligned diagonally. And I can't find anything that tells me the width of a creature is measured in squares only. I always get feet in units.

About not being allowed to rotate the mini...where does that come from? I'm sorry, but I can't recall anything like that anywhere? :confused: No rules for it anywhere meaning it isn't allowed? So a creature that has plainly enough space in a corridor that is at an angle to its current position cannot enter the corridor without problems because there's no rules about rotating the mini in question? Makes me wonder what people do with flexible creatures like oozes, slimes and similar monsters that can flow through cracks in walls in theory, but can't change the mini to conform to that action. :uhoh:

Reminds me again why I believe too much mini-game in a RPG is bad for the game as a whole.
 


Geron Raveneye

Explorer
And just as an aside, if there's really no other rules about "turning monsters" in combat, I'd simply adapt the maneuverability rules. They are meant to faciliate movement in all 3 dimensions after all, so I can easily use them to judge turning around a corner. And from them, every creature that has an "Average" or better maneuverability on the ground can easily turn 45° in one space without having to move.

So...no facing, but turning around is still possible. Seems like that poor 15' gelatineous cube is still allowed to slide along a 15' wide corridor to get at his prey. Would make for a silly dungeon cleaning mechanism otherwise after all.
 

Lackhand

First Post
Geron Raveneye said:
And just as an aside, if there's really no other rules about "turning monsters" in combat, I'd simply adapt the maneuverability rules. They are meant to faciliate movement in all 3 dimensions after all, so I can easily use them to judge turning around a corner. And from them, every creature that has an "Average" or better maneuverability on the ground can easily turn 45° in one space without having to move.

So...no facing, but turning around is still possible. Seems like that poor 15' gelatineous cube is still allowed to slide along a 15' wide corridor to get at his prey. Would make for a silly dungeon cleaning mechanism otherwise after all.
... so can we rotate the grid in 4th edition, too, thus fixing one of the prime complaints; to wit: Let the DM match the grid to the room, and the differing levels of maneuverability on the orthogonal and off of it cease to be (as much of) an issue.

Because that's what you're doing in 3.5.
 

Geron Raveneye

Explorer
And I have to disagree again. 3.X doesn't rotate the grid at all, there's no need to rotate the grid in the first place. With its rule for diagonal measurement, 15 feet are 3 squares orthogonal or 2 squares diagonal. The error margin of that procedure has been posted upon more than once in this thread already, and in order to equalize the movement along orthogonal and diagonal lines, it's as good as you can get with 5' squares being the basic grid (without IMO indeed sacrificing an amount of playability in order to be more exact). You don't get any faster in one direction because you only move 30 feet with a basic move either way. The square doesn't serve to shape reality, only describe it.

Apart from that, rotating the grid to "fit the room" wouldn't help at all with corridors like the one depicted, because either you rotate the grid only in the areas where the characters are in, creating a corridor with different grids in different parts, or you rotate it all over, thus creating a different corridor from the one the situation started in.
 

Remove ads

Top