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

[delericho]

It doesn't matter if you have facing to do what I'm proposing. Place a 3x3 mini on a grid so that it fits overtop of 9 squares. Perfect fit.

Now, rotate that mini 45 degrees so that the corners line up with the corners of 3 squares, not the sides. Suddenly, your mini is bigger.

Because there is no facing in 3e, when the creature rotates 45 degrees, the mini doesn't need to be rotated at all. In fact, this applies whether the creature rotates 45 degrees, or 90 degrees, or 180 degrees. So, this is a non-issue.

Or, are you saying that a huge mini cannot fit down a 15 foot wide 45 degree corridor without squeezing?

This, however, is an issue, in exactly the same way that a horse and rider can't move down a 5 foot wide corridor without squeezing, and any sort of Large or larger snake really should be able to move down a 5 ft wide corridor without squeezing.

And this is an issue that can only be resolved with the application of good sense on the part of the DM.

 

[delericho]

One other thing I would like to note as regards this topic:

In the latest Dungeoncraft article, maps of a sample dungeon are provided. Two things are notable about these maps:

1) Circular rooms are featured. I guess they still exist in the non-Euclidean 4e world.

2) The map grid in rectangular rooms is always aligned to the walls of the room, regardless of whether that room is at a 45 degree angle to the rest of the dungeon or not - that is, the grid shifts to match the room. This is not, of course, always the case with corridors.

I believe both of these are due to the dungeon being laid out using the WotC dungeon tiles - it will be interesting to see if that convention also applies to the maps presented in published adventures.

 

[hong]

Tell me which of these scenarios you would rather see happen in a dungeon.

Neither, because the tank 'n spank scenario is so videogamey.

 

[nem z]

...or they could just briefly note the actual shape -and- size category of the creature rather that takes into account how much of their size is height vs. base rather than forcing everything to be a square blob of X size. Consider these three possibilities for large-sized creatures:

Horse
[][]

Troll
[][]
[][]

Giant Snake
[][][] (flexible)

 

[hong]

When did I say that?

Sorry, my mistake.

So what you're saying is that this rule is broken in spite of not being broken...?

FIFM

 

[Steely Dan]

Neither, because the tank 'n spank scenario is so videogamey.

I asked my wife to do that the other night…she wasn't into it.

 

[delericho]

...or they could just briefly note the actual shape -and- size category of the creature rather that takes into account how much of their size is height vs. base rather than forcing everything to be a square blob of X size.

The problem with that is that it opens up facing issues (for the horse), and problems when the creature is able to change its shape (as in the case of the snake). For example, can the horse turn around in a 5 ft corridor? If so, why can't it turn only 90 degrees? If not, can it move backwards? And if it can't move backwards, can the Giant Worm do so? For the snake, what are the allowable configurations, how quickly can it change shape, and how do you rule flanking?

I'm not saying it can't be done, but it opens up a lot of special cases and odd conditions that may be best left unexplored. Especially if the DM can be relied upon to rule on these in a sensible manner.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

One other thing I would like to note as regards this topic:

In the latest Dungeoncraft article, maps of a sample dungeon are provided. Two things are notable about these maps:

1) Circular rooms are featured. I guess they still exist in the non-Euclidean 4e world.

2) The map grid in rectangular rooms is always aligned to the walls of the room, regardless of whether that room is at a 45 degree angle to the rest of the dungeon or not - that is, the grid shifts to match the room. This is not, of course, always the case with corridors.

I believe both of these are due to the dungeon being laid out using the WotC dungeon tiles - it will be interesting to see if that convention also applies to the maps presented in published adventures.

Well, if I can't properly represent the map with my Tact - Tiles there's NO WAY I am switching to 4E. They are my most prized RPG possession.

Ken

 

[BryonD]

You are aware that a 20 ft. x 20 ft. room in 3.5 has 16 playable squares if aligned orthogonally on the axes but only 13 playable squares if at 45 degrees?

I am aware that there is some error implicit in the assumption of discrete 5 foot squares. This has already been covered.

Of course I'm also aware that as DM it is quite simple to allow PCs to occupy the corner 1/2 squares of such a room because I understand that this really is a function of the abstract part. Thus the playable area is not negatively impacted at all.

This is the fundamental difference between abstract changes such as 5 foot squares and objective error of 10 foot = 14 foot.

 

[BryonD]

Believability isn’t the same thing as realism...

I agree.

Of course 10 feet = 14 feet is neither believable nor realistic....