Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Reaper Steve" data-source="post: 4042975" data-attributes="member: 51528"><p>This has been stewing in my brain since the DDM2.0 rules release a few weeks ago, but after listening to the most recent podcast tonight, I feel compelled to speak up.</p><p></p><p>As most now know, in DDM 2.0 diagonal movement only costs one square. It is billed as easier and faster. They also made a point that they are reducing the differences between D&D and DDM.</p><p></p><p>From this, I infer that D&D 4E will also count diagonal movement the same as forward or lateral.</p><p></p><p>After much contemplation, I have decided:</p><p>THIS IS A HORRIBLE DECISION!</p><p></p><p>If this is true, it will have a severe impact on my ability to enjoy the game (everybody's got to have something, right? I guess we found mine. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ) Sure, I could houserule it, but movement counting conventions ripple into all aspects of the game.</p><p></p><p>I got the impression from the podcast that Shoe wasn't happy with the decision, either.</p><p></p><p>Seriously,</p><p>It's just plain wrong. </p><p>I'm not insulted by it per se, but I do think that this decision shows a disregard for the average intellect.</p><p>I think the average person does (or easily can) grasp that the diagonal is longer than either straight side of a square. This person will think 'huh, that's strange' when looking at the movement rules.</p><p>Conversely, the person that hasn't yet seen this concept is now being taught incorrectly.</p><p>Sorry, but that's just too far in the name of speed and ease.</p><p></p><p>What's really frustrating is that there is an easy way to do diagonal movement (instead of 1,2,1,2)... measure in half squares. Diagonal movement costs 1.5 squares, doubled to 3 if difficult terrain (like anything else.) No, you can't use a leftover .5.</p><p>Piece of cake. </p><p>Straight, diagonal, straight (difficult), diagonal, diagonal (difficult)?</p><p>"1, 2.5, 4.5, 6, 9"</p><p></p><p>WotC, hear my plea!</p><p>1) Does 4E count diagonal movement as only one square?</p><p>2) If so, please reconsider before it is too late. Such a decision flies in the face of common sense and basic geometry. The increase in 'ease of play' is not worth such a departure from basic measurement, especially when solutions exist that are nearly as simple and infinitely more believable. </p><p></p><p>If you wanted uniform movement in D&D, you would have chosen hexes. I, for one, am happy with squares am I'm glad you stuck with them. </p><p>So treat it like a square.</p><p>Respect your players' intellects and respect the diagonal.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Reaper Steve, post: 4042975, member: 51528"] This has been stewing in my brain since the DDM2.0 rules release a few weeks ago, but after listening to the most recent podcast tonight, I feel compelled to speak up. As most now know, in DDM 2.0 diagonal movement only costs one square. It is billed as easier and faster. They also made a point that they are reducing the differences between D&D and DDM. From this, I infer that D&D 4E will also count diagonal movement the same as forward or lateral. After much contemplation, I have decided: THIS IS A HORRIBLE DECISION! If this is true, it will have a severe impact on my ability to enjoy the game (everybody's got to have something, right? I guess we found mine. :) ) Sure, I could houserule it, but movement counting conventions ripple into all aspects of the game. I got the impression from the podcast that Shoe wasn't happy with the decision, either. Seriously, It's just plain wrong. I'm not insulted by it per se, but I do think that this decision shows a disregard for the average intellect. I think the average person does (or easily can) grasp that the diagonal is longer than either straight side of a square. This person will think 'huh, that's strange' when looking at the movement rules. Conversely, the person that hasn't yet seen this concept is now being taught incorrectly. Sorry, but that's just too far in the name of speed and ease. What's really frustrating is that there is an easy way to do diagonal movement (instead of 1,2,1,2)... measure in half squares. Diagonal movement costs 1.5 squares, doubled to 3 if difficult terrain (like anything else.) No, you can't use a leftover .5. Piece of cake. Straight, diagonal, straight (difficult), diagonal, diagonal (difficult)? "1, 2.5, 4.5, 6, 9" WotC, hear my plea! 1) Does 4E count diagonal movement as only one square? 2) If so, please reconsider before it is too late. Such a decision flies in the face of common sense and basic geometry. The increase in 'ease of play' is not worth such a departure from basic measurement, especially when solutions exist that are nearly as simple and infinitely more believable. If you wanted uniform movement in D&D, you would have chosen hexes. I, for one, am happy with squares am I'm glad you stuck with them. So treat it like a square. Respect your players' intellects and respect the diagonal. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?
Top