Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
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="Benimoto" data-source="post: 4045340" data-attributes="member: 40093"><p>But the thing is, then you've already made one exception to the rule for 5 foot steps, and you're saying that you can't count reach the same way as movement. Besides, why is the enemy 2.5 feet away? Is he standing frozen in the center of his square while you're moving to the very edge of yours? What if you have two attacks and you want to split them and attack opponents on either side of you?</p><p></p><p>The problem with the 2=straight, 3=diagonal system is that you can't measure spell radius and reach using the same system as movement without things getting really weird. If you try to measure 10 foot reach the same way you do movement, you end up with this:</p><p></p><p><img src="http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32500&stc=1" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>That's weird looking. You certainly can't expect that a creature with a reach weapon will be able to defend himself with attacks of opportunity. You can attack only 4 more squares than if you had a non-reach weapon. And radius spells are even weirder looking. Fireball is almost completely diamond shaped.</p><p></p><p>So basically, with the 2=straight, 3=diagonal system is until you move 15 feet, it's not any different that a 1=straight, 2=diagonal system. It's really just a system for measuring longer distances, and you have to use exceptions to handle much close-in fighting.</p><p></p><p>So I believe my position stands. Using any system to model distances on a square (or hex-based) grid, the more "realism" you try to build in, the more you'll end up with weird glitches and a rule system full of exceptions and special cases. I prefer a system with as few glitches as possible. The 3.5 system was pretty good, but it had a certain amount of problems. The 1 square=1 square system has as many negative points as the rest of them, but at least its simple, and so I don't really mind the switch.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Benimoto, post: 4045340, member: 40093"] But the thing is, then you've already made one exception to the rule for 5 foot steps, and you're saying that you can't count reach the same way as movement. Besides, why is the enemy 2.5 feet away? Is he standing frozen in the center of his square while you're moving to the very edge of yours? What if you have two attacks and you want to split them and attack opponents on either side of you? The problem with the 2=straight, 3=diagonal system is that you can't measure spell radius and reach using the same system as movement without things getting really weird. If you try to measure 10 foot reach the same way you do movement, you end up with this: [img]http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32500&stc=1[/img] That's weird looking. You certainly can't expect that a creature with a reach weapon will be able to defend himself with attacks of opportunity. You can attack only 4 more squares than if you had a non-reach weapon. And radius spells are even weirder looking. Fireball is almost completely diamond shaped. So basically, with the 2=straight, 3=diagonal system is until you move 15 feet, it's not any different that a 1=straight, 2=diagonal system. It's really just a system for measuring longer distances, and you have to use exceptions to handle much close-in fighting. So I believe my position stands. Using any system to model distances on a square (or hex-based) grid, the more "realism" you try to build in, the more you'll end up with weird glitches and a rule system full of exceptions and special cases. I prefer a system with as few glitches as possible. The 3.5 system was pretty good, but it had a certain amount of problems. The 1 square=1 square system has as many negative points as the rest of them, but at least its simple, and so I don't really mind the switch. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?
Top