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

[UngeheuerLich]

Ask a football trainer what he thinks about this kind of defense...

That the fighter really is not on a good square to protect his wizard. He should be either one square nearer to the attacker or 2 squares nearer to wizard.*

But i also expect the fighter to have an ability to shift when its not his turn. And this fits with my imagination of trained and untrained defenders.

Also there could be a rule, that you pay 1 extra mp if you don´t move in a straight line/turn 90°. That would usually be enough to solve most problems with running in circles to avoid opportunity attacks.

*(and actually, there IS a problem that if he would stand 2 squares nearer to the wizard he would still not get an opportunity attack)

 

[Storminator]

The only problem I see is that the wizard, despite his 18 Int, doesn't understand the basic geometry of the imaginary world he lives in well enough to know that he should be diagonally behind the fighter.

What about it?

Move your monster 3 squares to the right, so the fighter is placed directly between the monster and the wizard along the diagonal.

PS

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Move your monster 3 squares to the right, so the fighter is placed directly between the monster and the wizard along the diagonal.

PS

But that's not where the monster is standing. Given the position of the monster and fighter, where should the wizard stand on this 8x9 board? In 3.5, there was an answer, in 4E there isn't.

 

[Zinovia]

We've always managed to get by with the big vinyl hex map we bought many years ago for Rolemaster (during the D&D is boring! phase of our gaming). I agree that it's harder to draw buildings, but if needed, we just grab a ruler to draw buildings at 1 inch = 5'. Spell shapes are more natural, movement is more natural. Drawing square buildings is harder and you do wind up with half-hexes. The grid is just a guideline for where things are and how far we can move. If someone is overlapping a hex in a skinny corridor, who cares? In a squares based system you wind up with partial squares any time you are in a natural cavern, or something that isn't built in exactly 5' increments. /shrug You pays your money, you takes your choice.

I've never played with the 1,2,1 rule for diagonals, and in reading it, always thought it sounded like a PITA to count, just because of the odd directions people may move in combat to avoid foes and obstacles. It's not that we can't count, but more that we often don't move in straight lines.

We never worried about the 6 flankers vs 8 change as we only have 5 people in the party, plus an animal companion. 6 is enough in the very rare case that we're all in melee range of a single target. I suppose it's a matter of what you're used to, but hexes work for some of us. It will be interesting seeing what effect, if any, we'll see going to a game where ranges are given in squares rather than feet. Probably none as the hexes are close enough in size.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But that's not where the monster is standing. Given the position of the monster and fighter, where should the wizard stand on this 8x9 board? In 3.5, there was an answer, in 4E there isn't.

15 ft above the Fighter is the best answer in 3.5 and 4E, I think. Unless we're talking about flying monsters, then all bets are off...

 

[HeinorNY]

Move your monster 3 squares to the right, so the fighter is placed directly between the monster and the wizard along the diagonal.

PS

I know, but the wizard couldn't move the monster, he can only move himself. He could, of course, tell the fighter to also move with him, so they would form a diagonal line with the monster. The wizard would still be 6 squares away from the monster, just like he was before, but now the monster can't go around the fighter to attack him in the same round.

But that only shows even more how this rule makes no sense.

Considering their initial postions, all the players needed to do was to ask the DM to rotate the grid 45º, keeping the distances between them in squares. The distance, in feet, would still be the same in this non-euclidian world, but somehow the monster would have to walk 50% more to reach the Wizard.

It's insane! It's like fighting on R'lyeh! Nothing makes sense! Ahhhhhh!

I just lost 1d6 sanity points thinking about this post. Really.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Wouldn't staggered squares (with every other row displaced one-half square) fix this pretty well? They are essentially equal to a hex map, but a lot of people find them easier to draw buildings etc. on.

 

[sinecure]

I like it. It means all squares are now circles like they said in the podcast. If you actually want a square, you have to draw a circle on the map.

But I do like it because it's easier.

And those who don't can houserule it really simply.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

It would work better, but the problem is, where do you get a battlemat of staggered squares? Hexes and squares are easy enough to come by.

 

[arscott]

Meh, when I was 16 I would have been totally outraged, but now it seems like an okay idea. I mean, the most realistic system would be a map with no grid at all, and players would use a calibrated piece of string to measure distance directly from point A to point B, and see if they have enough movement to take it. No-one in their right mind would play that game, though.

Well, If you've already got the string...

I ran a d20 modern game this way--I had a big whiteboard table on which I could doodle terrain, and I didn't want to bother putting a grid on it. I found it ran faster than squares-based combats with the same players.

Of course, It was a modern game, so the group had mostly shooty things rather than mostly stabby things. But if you're more concerned with ranges than with threatened spaces, I recommend it.

As for circular areas of effect; the simplest answer here is to have pre-cut pieces of paper to represent a 20' diameter circle, and 30', and 40', and whatever other size you're likely to need, and all matched to the grid you use. Then, when an area effect resolves, just take the circular piece of paper whose size matches the effect area and place it such that its center is over the center of the spell effect. Any character piece it touches anywhere other than the base is affected. How hard is that? (we find this really useful for area effects that stick around for a while, such as Darkness; we put the piece of paper under the minis, and it's easy to tell where the Darkness ends)

But if the spells are circular and character movements are chessboard-distance, that kinda nerfs the spells. For example, if that darkness spell had a 40 ft. radius, it's reasonable to assume that a character at the center can't escape without double moving (unless it's got good speed). but if the character moves diagonally, it can get out of the darkness and still take a standard action as long as it moves diagonally.

In 3.5 the monster, in order to attack the Wizard in the same round, needs to go through the Fighter.

Actually, in the first example, a 3.5 monster could still attack the wizard by moving to a square that is diagonally adjacent. Your larger point still stands, though.