D&D 4E Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?


log in or register to remove this ad

Good luck with those circles in 4th edition. Hope you like your circles square.

Stalker0 said:
I have to agree with teh mob here, I like the concept of 1 square in any direction.

ESPECIALLY with spell areas!! Figuring out a circle is hard harder on a hex graph than a square. Now I can just count out any side and go from there, I think its a lot easier.
 

This is pure speculation, but 4e may be more friendly to hexes than 3e is. Certainly the "pick a square and then count out from that square" method of dealing with bursts and spreads looks nicer on a hex map than a square one. No square fireballs on a hex map.

I know that I'm thinking of getting a hex battlemap if I ever run 4e just so that I don't have to deal with square fireballs or "closest" squares on the opposite side of the creature from the mini charging them. It will also conveniently solve the problem of game distances and real world description distances not matching.

vagabundo said:
Do hex's cause any problems with the standard rules???
 



If it bothers you that much, just houserule for a middle ground...
- first diagonal move action = 1 for 1 square, but second move action (if taken) each diagonal move counts double (2 squares)

Or, you can stick with 1,2,1,2.
 

Just remember how abstract D&D spaces already are. Last time I checked, I did not have the phenotype of a Gelatinous Cube.

Medium creatures take up a portion of their 5-foot space, not the entire thing. They move around in that space all the time, that's why they get a Dex bonus to AC, the chance to make Reflex saves, and the ability to strike creatures 5 feet away with a mere punch. Because they move around in that space.

Moving from the corner of a 5-foot space into the middle or so of the next 5-foot space is not going to take any more time or effort than moving 5 feet forward when facing some cosmically-demanded north/south/east/west position.

And when you've got momentum on your side, you can move further than when you're moving around erratically, in any given amount of time. D&D combat is abstract enough. We don't need alternating distances for diagonal movement, or awful '1 square diagonal counts as 2 squares of movement' rules.
 

Something's wrong with the system if you can't just eyeball the map and say "yup, that's 40 feet" even if it's at a funny angle.

Count me in the "hexes are ugly" camp.

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)

Lanefan
 

Count movement by "movement point(MP)" or something like that.
MP is double of SPD. So, for example, Ice Archon's MP is 12.

Straights cost 2 MP.
Diagonals cost 3 MP.

Too gamist? Maybe... ;)
 

non-euclidian geometry? what's next? penguin-fringed abysses? :p


on topic: 1 square = 1 square is fine by me. I mean we are talking about movement approximations all the time in d&d or why does everyone happen to walk around in 5ft units all the damn time? Why is no one every standing right in the middle of two squares? Et cetera...so eat it up or houserule it if it really bothers you (but then a lot of other things should bother you aswell and you might as well start modding the hell out of your 3.5 game right now)
 

Remove ads

Top