Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HeinorNY" data-source="post: 4044090" data-attributes="member: 16178">Just to resume (and maybe finalize) my point:The 1-1-1-1 diagonal rules says these both lines have the same length.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32482&stc=1" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" /> I'm ok with asbtraction. Come on, we play D&D.Hit Points are abstractions.Attack rolls, AC, levels... they are all abstract game mechanics.I have no problem with accepting abstraction. I also don't care about realism, math and real world physics. I do care about believability, but in some cases I can even put it aside a little. But believability is also no the problem here.The problem IMO here is that the abstract rule affects how the game is played. Yeah, HPs also do that, we don't want our character to be 'healthy', we want them to have as much HPs as possible (so instead of eating good food our characters buy Amulets of Vitality).But the diagonal movement as 1-1-1-1 creates situations and may disrupt what happens in the combat, depending solely on a completely out of the game convention, the alignment of the grid.As I pointed before, in those two diagrams the distances between the characters and the monster are the same, but how their movement affects the outcome of the combat is different in both situations. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32485&stc=1" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" /><img src="http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32476" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />It's better to be the Blue Wizard in the B/w grid, and it's easier for the X monster in the brown grid, if he wishes to attack the Blue wizard.In this other diagram, it's better to be the green character. Yes he is on a diagonal line with the X monster, but remember, the green character and the blue character are both 30ft away from the monster based on the 1-1-1-1 rule, so neither should really have an advantage. If we rotate the grid 45º, preserving the miniature's places, the blue guy has an advantage over the green guy now.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32480" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" /> Those unfair advantages comes from the terrible inconsistence that the rule generates on the grid.I tried to think on an example to explain my concearn.Imagine that the 4E designers consider the initiative rule is too complicated, and so they are going to change it. Instead of characters rolling initiative checks, which is based on the character's dexterity, the new rule defines the initiative order based on the position of the players around the game table. Combat strategies will be then created based on a completely out of the game convention. So my point is more of a worry than just nay-saying to the rule. I worry the 1-1-1-1 rule may disrupt too much D&D combat and create situations that should not exist. Maybe it works well in your group, maybe it works well in the playtest groups, but when this is being played in large scale, things will come up.I still think they are creating a problem to fix a problem (that's not really a problem in the first place, IMHO).</blockquote>

Verification