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

[delericho]

I know that. What if the rule is just to count how many squares and never define what a square is? Just a loose about 5'?

Why does it have to be feet? Everything that I have readm they talk about a number of squares. there is a distinction there. Move is 12 squares, not 60 feet for a reason.

Fine. It's not feet. But it still represents some measure of distance.

Now, fortunately, there are geometries in which the hypoteneuse of a right-angled triangle is the same length as each side (as is the case here). You simply have to draw your battlemap on the surface of a sphere, or a cone, or some such thing. And then there are weird bending effects to take into effect.

Which of course is much simpler than the "diagonals are 1.5 squares each" rule.

 

[BryonD]

Just as hit points are abstract, and location is abstract (a human doesn't actually take up a full 5-ft. square), I've always felt that, as represented on a battle grid, movement is abstract.

I find that saying the distance from point A to point B is 200 feet if draw with one orientation and 280 feet if drawn with another to be one hell of an abstraction.

I'm in one of those wild outlier groups that just doesn't have trouble with 1/2/1/2.
1/1/1/1 wouldn't be a bit faster.

So it is all a matter of the rules rubbing themselves in your face for no gain.

 

[BryonD]

They actually thought of this one - cones are gone from 4e.

Really???!!!???

I'm glad I don't care anymore......

 

[Imban]

This one isn't actually a problem - movement on diagonals should be "longer" than movement on horizontals. The other ones are still bugs, though.

 

[Wolfspider]

They actually thought of this one - cones are gone from 4e.

Then how do you explain female dragonborn in 4e?

 

[Mouseferatu]

If it was only about justification, I could go to sleep and dream with dryads.
The problem is that the 1-1-1-1 rule interferes in the game play, it creates strange situation that gives counter intuitive and uncalled advantages and disadvantages depending on how the grid is positioned.
A grid, which is a completely metagame abstraction, determing especific tactics. It's just wrong.

The grid has always determined tactics. It has always impacted and limited movement to some degree or another. You cannot avoid metagame abstractions in what is ultimately meant to represent a situation for purposes of game play. The only way to avoid having the grid impact play is to play without a grid, perhaps using measuring tape instead of pre-printed squares.

Is "1 = 1" the perfect solution? No, it's not. I said it didn't bother me; I didn't say it lacked any possible flaw. But the truth is, I can't think of a better one. It plays faster and more smoothly than the "1-2-1-2" method. It plays faster than using tape measures or pre-cut string. And that--to me--is worth it. It may not be perfect, but of all the options I've seen presented, I find it to be the optimal one.

 

[Wolfspider]

Is "1 = 1" the perfect solution? No, it's not. I said it didn't bother me; I didn't say it lacked any possible flaw.

Be careful, now. You're getting awful close to being critical about something related to 4e.

If you don't have anything nice to say....

 

[delericho]

So when using the "1 = 1" rule, do I think that characters are actually moving faster on a diagonal? No. I simply assume that, due to whatever terrain and obstacles are scattered across the floor, the constant movement of all combatants, and the character's actual location (as opposed to which square he's in), that the character found a faster or more efficient way to get where he was going.

40% more efficient, based purely on the alignment of the battle-grid (which should be entirely arbitrary)? That's stretching things.

If the standard move for characters is 7 squares, as with the Elf, then in a 50 ft by 50 ft room, the tactical situation can be entirely different based on whether the walls are aligned with the grid or at a 45 degree angle - in the former, a move action is insufficient to take you from one side to within striking distance of the other, while in the latter it is entirely possible to do this.

 

[Mouseferatu]

40% more efficient, based purely on the alignment of the battle-grid (which should be entirely arbitrary)? That's stretching things.

Which is why, as I said, it's not a perfect solution. But given how much faster it's made game play IME, I can't think of a better one.

 

[rjdafoe]

It had darn well better have some relevance to feet. Because you can bet that no DM is going to answer the question, "how deep is this pit?" by saying "12 squares." Nor is he going to answer the question, "how tall is the wall?" by saying "three squares." Without a three dimensional representation of squares those answers are not helpful in letting the players imagine the scene. (Is a three square tall wall tall, short, or what?; If I say the PCs are trying to fight their way up the Tower of London, how many squares tall should the walls be?)

And when a PC falls down that sixty foot pit he is certainly going to want to know how much movement it's going to take to get out (flying, climbing, or whatever). So we'll need some kind of feet to squares conversion. For that matter, the PCs who didn't fall down that 12-square deep pit (assuming for the moment that pits do get depth measured in squares) will want to know whether the 50 feet of knotted silk rope they have with them will reach to the bottom and let their friend climb out or if they will need to tie another length of rope onto the end of their fifty feet of rope so that it reaches to the bottom.

For that matter, PCs will also want to be able to estimate how things will look on the grid even when they don't have a grid. Let's say that the PCs are receiving a report from a scout (perhaps a familiar). The scout is describing the ruined fortress that the hobgoblin horde has inhabited. He says that the hobgoblins have cleared a glacis around the walls so that there is no cover other than short grass and one dilapidated shack between the forest and the walls. "So, how wide is that glacis?" the PCs ask. You can be darn sure that the scout isn't going to answer "thirty squares." But when the DM answers "about 150 feet" the PCs are definitely going to want to be able to estimate how long it will take them to cross it and whether or not the ranger is likely to be able to pick off the sentry on the wall with a bowshot or if he'll be out of range.

The rulebook may or may not express all horizontal distances relating to combat abilities in squares. But even if it does, odds are very good that vertical distances (which are generally not represented on a battlemap) will be expressed in feet (as the pit examples from the design and development articles indicate). And even if they weren't the fact that our imagination and narration works best in real-world distances means that we will need a reliable conversion mechanism in order for it to work.

How about "about 5 feet, but not exactly"?

Why can't the DM just say, Yea, that 60' of rope will work for you to get out of the pit. That is how it USED to work.

Move is in a number of squares. When you move, you say you move 4 squares. That is how it seems to be done.