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

hong · Feb 17, 2008

This thread has rotated 90 degrees to reality.

Nom · Feb 17, 2008

Geron Raveneye said:
And here's where I simply have to ask for some sort of quote. See, when I look into my DMG, a Huge creature has a width of 15 feet...not 3 squares. 15 feet are either 3 squares when aligned orthogonally to the grid, or 2 squares when aligned diagonally. And I can't find anything that tells me the width of a creature is measured in squares only. I always get feet in units.

PHB pg 149: "For instance, an ogre (Large) takes up a space 10 feet on a side (2 squares wide)" - doesn't explicitly say that all larger creatures occupy square spaces, but the language certainly implies that.

DMG pp 308-310: all the 'space' portions of the space-reach diagrams are square, even though reach is rounded.

Admittedly, this is an artefact of space being represented as a square rather than the 1.5 metric.

Reaper Steve · Feb 17, 2008

Solution: don't draw diagonal hallways.

Geron Raveneye · Feb 17, 2008

Nom said:
PHB pg 149: "For instance, an ogre (Large) takes up a space 10 feet on a side (2 squares wide)" - doesn't explicitly say that all larger creatures occupy square spaces, but the language certainly implies that.

DMG pp 308-310: all the 'space' portions of the space-reach diagrams are square, even though reach is rounded.

Admittedly, this is an artefact of space being represented as a square rather than the 1.5 metric.

And that's what I mean...most of the values are given in feet first, and are then "translated" into a 5'-square grid as good as possible. Which, to me, means there is a real world underlying the grid that follows the same sort of spatial laws ours does. A creature occupying a space 10 feet wide on a side as combat space when orthogonal to the grid occupies the same 10-foot wide space when standing diagonally to the grid. The 10 feet translate into 1-and-a-third diagonals under the 1-2-1-2 rule, and that's that. The problems with this rule are artifacts of the grid having a comparably rough resolution to do it better.

On the other hand, 4E seems (can't be sure yet, so this is an assumption) to try and measure everything in squares first, and build the whole ruleset (reach, space, area of effect, etc) on that unit of measurement. Simplifying movement to "1 square is one movement until, in every direction" leads to a pretty distorted space..or weird behaviour of properties of people. For example, the corridor we have here would be described as "3 squares wide"...now try to draw that in the straight AND diagonal parts at the same time with the 1-1-1 rule while trying to keep the walls from bulging out in the diagonal part while keeping the same size of corridor. If you use your old 3.X monster cut-outs instead of minis, your monsters will actually shrink if they turn by 45° (like during flight maneuvering), because suddenly the "3 square width" turns into "2 square width" on the battlemap, which means it lost a third of its width. The same can be said about running creatures, or moving vehicles. In all those cases, you'll have to deal with facing, since the quick and easy "no favorite direction" for combat doesn't work in those situations anymore.

I find it mostly amusing, since I don't use battlemaps and minis...but at the same time, I wonder how the designers can seriously ponder making this a standard rule for the new D&D core, a game that is a lot more than a boardgame. I sincerely hope that the final product doesn't come with all the quirks this "all distances measured in squares first" plus "diagonals count as one square" design can result in. :uhoh:

hong · Feb 17, 2008

Geron Raveneye said:
I find it mostly amusing, since I don't use battlemaps and minis...but at the same time, I wonder how the designers can seriously ponder making this a standard rule for the new D&D core, a game that is a lot more than a boardgame.

Exactly. Because it's a lot more than a boardgame, the rules that deal with game boards and pieces don't have to be exhaustive simulations of reality.

What exactly are you people arguing about anyway?

UngeheuerLich · Feb 17, 2008

hong said:
What exactly are you people arguing about anyway?

just because... i suppose...

Lurker37 · Feb 18, 2008

hong said:
Well, personally, I find the fact that characters do not exude bodily fluids to be absolutely critical to my ability to pretend to be an elf. Because bodily fluids would mess up my perfect hair, you know.

**Warning: Facetious post ahead. May contain traces of a nut.***

So how much dandelion wine can your elf drink before (s)he bursts?

I mean, with not being able to exude fluids and all.

And how many meals (or nights at the tavern) before they become a Large creature? What are the stealth penalties for the sloshing sounds whenever (s)he moves?

**We now return you to your scheduled debate**

Sorry - had to use some humour - it helps me regain some perspective. Please don't start a tangent on the above.

Now a Question:

If you're setting up a battlemap or whatever of a room that's diagonal on the map, do you duplicate the grid on the map faithfully, or just say "It's a rectangular 25x35 room with a 4x4 alcove on the side opposite the door. The room may be on the diagonal on the map but I'll just align it to the grid for simplicity.'?

Because if you do the latter the percveived distortion of spatial dimensions ceases to be an issue. If the maps we've seen so far all align grids to walls, then perhaps that's what the designers intended for us to do for all rooms? It would certainly make more sense for things like squared fireballs - which would otherwise be less effective in a 4x4 room on the diagonal.

[ I know this doesn't address the '6-square movement monster vs point-blank-range ranger with a fighter halfway between' scenario, and I agree that some players will try to take advantage of it whenever they have room to do so (if our current assumption that ranged attacks will use the same rule is correct), but I don't have anything to contribute on that point right now. ]

Hussar · Feb 18, 2008

And here's where I simply have to ask for some sort of quote. See, when I look into my DMG, a Huge creature has a width of 15 feet...not 3 squares. 15 feet are either 3 squares when aligned orthogonally to the grid, or 2 squares when aligned diagonally. And I can't find anything that tells me the width of a creature is measured in squares only. I always get feet in units.

So, your mini actually changes base size when you rotate it 45 degrees? That's some very cool minis.

A huge creature is a mini 3x3 squares. But, that means that the mini is actually 20 feet on the diagonals, not 15 feet.

How would you draw a 3x3 mini, using the 1-2-1 rules, so that it is 15 feet in any direction? Never minding something like a colossal mini which is 6x6.