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

[Geron Raveneye]

So, your mini actually changes base size when you rotate it 45 degrees? That's some very cool minis.

A huge creature is a mini 3x3 squares. But, that means that the mini is actually 20 feet on the diagonals, not 15 feet.

How would you draw a 3x3 mini, using the 1-2-1 rules, so that it is 15 feet in any direction? Never minding something like a colossal mini which is 6x6.

Sorry, I fear we're not going to come to terms on this one either. See, for me the combat area of a Huge creature is 15'x15', which is how I get it from the DMG. NOT 3x3 squares. It IS 3x3 squares when you align the border of the field (or a square mini base sized correctly) with the grid of a battlemap. When you align it diagonally to the battlemap, the size of the field (15'x15') doesn't change. The number of squares you use to represent that changes to 2 diagonals, according to the 1-2-1-2 rules. Neither the mini, nor the battlemap change size.

It does make me wonder what's so hard about this to understand? Do I need to create and post pictures of physical models to get this across? Or is the disconnect where 3.X doesn't use squares as primary unit of measurement, but feet? And that the thing that changes according to angle on the battlemap is NOT the size of either monster (mini) nor the room, but the number of square equivalents used to measure it? Somehow I feel like there's a deeper disconnect here than I thought.

And to answer your last question...a 15'x15' field for a creature is drawn as a 3-inch-square, since the standard scale for D&D uses 1 inch as 5 feet, if my memory isn't faulty. For a 30'x30' size, you use 6 inches of course. Easy, isn't it? And as far as I know, inches can be found on every (US) standard ruler, right? Shouldn't be much of a problem. Otherwise, I can simply use cm instead.

 

[Hussar]

GR - you don't need to be quite so condescending. Particularly when you're wrong.

A 15 foot wide creature CANNOT fit down a 15 foot wide diagonal corridor in 3e without squeezing. Full stop. He can't. Despite the fact that the creature is 15 feet wide and the description of the corridor is also 15 feet wide, the second you plot that on the battlemap, the monster is squeezing.

Or, if you are at the center of a 10 foot circle, I can make a 5 foot step and get out of it.

Or, if I use a polearm, I have a 10 foot reach on the orthagonal but a 15 foot reach on the diagonal.

3e is full of all sorts of wonkiness. It is not more realistic. It is just as abstract.

Take a 3x3 mini (which has a square base) and place it on the diagonal on a grid - it's sides are now 20 feet, not 15 feet.

The point is, and you've said it yourself that you don't use minis, is that when you DO use minis, the 1-2-1 creates all sorts of weirdness. D&D assumes that you are using minis. If you're not using minis, then you also don't use the 1-2-1 rules either, so, why do you care?

However, if you do use minis, trying to say that 1-2-1 is any less problematic than 1-1-1 is wrong. Now, you do have different problems, that's true. But, you don't have less or more problems. The question is, are the new problems going to come up more often in play.

 

[Lackhand]

Do I need to create and post pictures of physical models to get this across?

Yes, though paintbrush diagrams would be sufficient, of course.

 

[Hussar]

I would also point you GR, to the example on page 147 in the 3.5 PHB. The example lists SQUARES, followed by feet. In the description of diagonal movement, it says,

When measuring distance, the first diagonal counts as 1 square, the second counts as 2 squares, the third counts as 1 the fourth as 2 and so on.

Note, it says absolutely nothing about feet, just squares. Although the graphic does list the feet in brackets afterwards.

Continuing on to page 148

Difficult Terrain: Difficult terrain... hamper movement. Each square of difficult terrain counts as 2 squares of movement

Again, note (other than the poor grammar) that it talks about movement in terms of squares, not feet.

And, the rules later contradict themselves on page 162

Tactical, for combat measure in feet (or squares) per round

Contradicted because your movement in feet and your movement in squares does not equal. They're close, but, they are not equal.

Note, that on the size issue, the exception is specifically called out as an exception on page 149

For instance, an ogre can attack targets up to 10 feet (2 squares) away from it in any direction, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet)

Although, monsters are just given a size based on the idea that they fit on the grid - an ogre is listed as having a size 2 squares wide (10 feet on a side), which means that you cannot turn a mini 45 degrees to the grid - that would change its size.

 

[Rel]

Ok this is definately getting to "agree to disagree" time between Hussar and Geron. Do NOT respond to each other any further in this thread.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

So, your mini actually changes base size when you rotate it 45 degrees? That's some very cool minis.

A huge creature is a mini 3x3 squares. But, that means that the mini is actually 20 feet on the diagonals, not 15 feet.

How would you draw a 3x3 mini, using the 1-2-1 rules, so that it is 15 feet in any direction? Never minding something like a colossal mini which is 6x6.

Put it on a circular base? That's what they did with my Giants of Legend minis. They control a 3x3 grid, but they certainly don't fill it. Horizontally and vertically, they fill the space. Diagonally, they cover two squares, leaving a half square on each corner. So my circular-based GoL minis do fit in the corridor depicted upthread.

 

[Hussar]

Put it on a circular base? That's what they did with my Giants of Legend minis. They control a 3x3 grid, but they certainly don't fill it. Horizontally and vertically, they fill the space. Diagonally, they cover two squares, leaving a half square on each corner. So my circular-based GoL minis do fit in the corridor depicted upthread.

The problem is, DDM minis aren't kosher by 3.5 rules. 3.5 rules put minis on square bases. An ogre takes up 2x2 squares. Not a circle that covers part of 2x2 squares.

Now, we can use round minis, and that's fine. But, according to the 3.5 rules, that's not what that base should look like.

As a counter example, the minis from Fiery Dragon's Counter Collections have square bases. Ocho Games Monster tiles are also on square bases.

I honestly don't know. Why are DDM minis on round bases? Shouldn't they be on square bases?

 

[MerricB]

I honestly don't know. Why are DDM minis on round bases? Shouldn't they be on square bases?

Aesthetics!

Quite simply, a round base allows you to rotate the figure so it is "facing" in a pleasing way on the grid.

Cheers!

 

[hong]

The problem is, DDM minis aren't kosher by 3.5 rules. 3.5 rules put minis on square bases. An ogre takes up 2x2 squares. Not a circle that covers part of 2x2 squares.

Now, we can use round minis, and that's fine. But, according to the 3.5 rules, that's not what that base should look like.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

The problem is, DDM minis aren't kosher by 3.5 rules. 3.5 rules put minis on square bases. An ogre takes up 2x2 squares. Not a circle that covers part of 2x2 squares.

Now, we can use round minis, and that's fine. But, according to the 3.5 rules, that's not what that base should look like.

As a counter example, the minis from Fiery Dragon's Counter Collections have square bases. Ocho Games Monster tiles are also on square bases.

I honestly don't know. Why are DDM minis on round bases? Shouldn't they be on square bases?

So, you're saying that the 3rd party stuff is more correct than the actual official miniatures produced by WotC? Especially when WotC's technique solves the diagonal squeezing problem you brought up? I think you might be looking for trouble where there is none.