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

[Elder-Basilisk]

Actually, if the minis rules are any indication, he's not even doing that. The minis rules make charging an attack action that lets you move up to your speed and make an attack. Nothing prevents you from moving and then charging. Thus, even on the diagonal grid provided, the monster could move six squares down vertically and then charge for six squares horizontally and attack the wizard--avoiding a second fighter who happened to be in the way in exactly the method that he avoided the first fighter in the previous example.

In fact, even if the fighter is basing the monster, he can probably still charge the wizard without drawing an opportunity attack. Shift as a move action so the fighter is no longer basing him and then charge the wizard using diagonal movement as shown in the previous examples to avoid the fighter. Now I don't think he can do that if the wizard is six squares away and the fighter is basing him on the direct vertical axis between him and the wizard, but if the wizard is only five squares away or the fighter is basing him from the side or on a diagonal, he's all good to shift then charge the wizard.

If the minis rules are any indication.

Good point. If the fighter were moved just 1 square forward that could knock off a square of movement from the monster, but that isn't much. At least he is cutting off a charge, but that is about it.

 

[DamnedChoir]

Expecting realism from a game where people can take dozens of blows, fall off a 100 foot cliff, and climb out of being dunked in a river of lava to shake off all without the aid of magic is perhaps a bit too much. You're totally freaking out over a very minor bit of unrealism in order to speed up gameplay when MOST OF D&D is utterly unrealistic, not even taking magic and monsters to account.

I also had to respond to this quote, even if it was a bit too late behind.

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.

It's called Warhammer, and yes, lots of people play it.

 

[Captain Tagon]

All these charts of how to protect the wizard are making me want to go play Blood Bowl now.

And the fighter fails as a defender for not putting the enemy in his tackle box.

 

[HeinorNY]

Expecting realism from a game where people can take dozens of blows, fall off a 100 foot cliff, and climb out of being dunked in a river of lava to shake off all without the aid of magic is perhaps a bit too much. You're totally freaking out over a very minor bit of unrealism in order to speed up gameplay when MOST OF D&D is utterly unrealistic, not even taking magic and monsters to account.

I expect believability.
In the worst case scenario, I just expect they don't try to fix "problems" by creating other problems.

 

[HeinorNY]

And the fighter fails as a defender for not putting the enemy in his tackle box.

He also fails by not having a higher initiative roll and killing the monster before it could move, or by not convincing the wizard to stay home sleeping. In either cases the rule is still terrible and creates more problems than it tries to fix.

 

[Stalker0]

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

I do actually, much easier to work with on a square map.

Here's a toast to you firesquare!!!

 

[Captain Tagon]

He also fails by not having a higher initiative roll and killing the monster before it could move, or by not convincing the wizard to stay home sleeping. In either cases the rule is still terrible and creates more problems than it tries to fix.

Which is why I used hexes if I use a grid at all. Though I'd rather just use a tape measure. I try not to think too hard about any aspect of DnD however, this is just another example of how it can make a brain hurt.

 

[Valdrax]

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.

You'll have to forgive the Fighter and Wizard for not having designed the dungeon their in to make sure that all entrances to room are in the corner instead of in the middle of the walls. Alternately, it's all their fault for the DM insisting on lining up square rooms on the grid instead of placing all walls as diagonals to the grid.

 

[HeinorNY]

I can't believe that this is an issue, especially, as looking at the pit fiend entry, it is obvious that movement is in number of squares, not feet.

the Pit Fiend's Move is :

Speed 12, fly 12 (clumsy), teleport 10

Now, do not tell me that the move and fly is 12 feet. No, it is 12 squares. I bet everything is in number of squares. Just count it that way and do not think about the math.

Don't worry, I won't tell you that because that's wrong. The Pit Fiend's fly and movement speeds are 60 feet per round, or 12 squares.

 

[Valdrax]

Hexes do not cause problems. Squares create a boatload of problems.
[...]
If someone knows of a true advantage of squares over hexes, please post it because I know of none.

Hexes can create serious problems with large creatures and facing. If a creature is large enough to take up a space in between 3 & 7 hexes, what shape is its space, and how does that shape avoid facing issues? (This is even more stark when trying to figure out what's between 7 & 19 hexes.)

AoOs are another problem. The "benefit" you suggest of provoking AoOs from two flankers no matter which direction you run is a bug and not a feature in my mind. You should be able to put a better guard up against one attacker than another. Also, moving at "diagonals" with the main 6 hex directions open you up to AoOs that you wouldn't normally be vulnerable to in either a square map or in a real-life "run whatever direction you want" plane.

Hexes also present problems when dealing with tight corridors. Imagine a square room with one-person width corridors heading N, S, E, & W from the room (as one might see in a castle). In two directions, hexes work. In two directions, hexes don't work. You could point out that squares don't work in a round room with tunnels going of in six equidistant directions, but people rarely build rooms like that. The case of architectural conflict with the grid is much more common on hex maps than on square maps for standard designs.

Hexes and squares have their pluses and minuses. To say that hexes have *NO* issues is going a bit beyond advocacy and into spin doctoring.