Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4052567" data-attributes="member: 710">Do you really believe that, or do you just use the extreme position because not every designer of WotC is walking up in this or similar threads and tells &quot;yes, we know that's not exactly eucledian, but we don't care, because playability is more important for us?&quot;If it's the latter, everything is fine for me. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> If the first... Well, nothing is fine, but I am rendered unable to say anthing further on that.First off: I prefer 1-2-1, if I have to use an approximation at all. (Which I usually have to with D&amp;D)I would dislike Firecubes instead of fireballs - or maybe not? Maybe it's just a further step from the &quot;Fireball always fills the same volume&quot;? (And who is to say that 4E fireballs still have a 20 ft radius?)But: I hope nobody ever forgets that the 2-2-2 rules of Star Wars or the 1-2-1 standard of 3.x also create non-eucledian worlds, because it's still an approximation. The difference is just that &quot;people&quot; are slower on diagonals then on straights rather the other way around. (Or should I say they are faster when moving straight lines?)I could now go and construct an example of how a poor Cleric is unable to reach the dying Wizard because moving on a diagonal costs him too much movement to get to him in time (addmitedly, the 1-2-1 rules have a lower margin of error, which means the example might require a few more than just 1 round of combat)And with that in mind, aren't some of you guys getting a bit to worked up about your &quot;Far Realms&quot; universe? (I can absolutely understand liking to play around with the image tags and a cool grid-making software, though.)Oh, and to add something else: The real world space isn't exactly Eucledian, either.The surface of the earth is curved, which means the usual rules of (2D) Eucledian Geometry don't apply entirely. The 3D space we know and like and move through is part of the space-time, and is curved in it, so Eucledian geometry doesn't apply entirely, either. The real world is far real(m)istic, too.&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid&nbsp; &nbsp; :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 4052567, member: 710"] Do you really believe that, or do you just use the extreme position because not every designer of WotC is walking up in this or similar threads and tells "yes, we know that's not exactly eucledian, but we don't care, because playability is more important for us?" If it's the latter, everything is fine for me. :) If the first... Well, nothing is fine, but I am rendered unable to say anthing further on that. First off: I prefer 1-2-1, if I have to use an approximation at all. (Which I usually have to with D&D) I would dislike Firecubes instead of fireballs - or maybe not? Maybe it's just a further step from the "Fireball always fills the same volume"? (And who is to say that 4E fireballs still have a 20 ft radius?) But: I hope nobody ever forgets that the 2-2-2 rules of Star Wars or the 1-2-1 standard of 3.x also create non-eucledian worlds, because it's still an approximation. The difference is just that "people" are slower on diagonals then on straights rather the other way around. (Or should I say they are faster when moving straight lines?) I could now go and construct an example of how a poor Cleric is unable to reach the dying Wizard because moving on a diagonal costs him too much movement to get to him in time (addmitedly, the 1-2-1 rules have a lower margin of error, which means the example might require a few more than just 1 round of combat) And with that in mind, aren't some of you guys getting a bit to worked up about your "Far Realms" universe? (I can absolutely understand liking to play around with the image tags and a cool grid-making software, though.) Oh, and to add something else: The real world space isn't exactly Eucledian, either. The surface of the earth is curved, which means the usual rules of (2D) Eucledian Geometry don't apply entirely. The 3D space we know and like and move through is part of the space-time, and is curved in it, so Eucledian geometry doesn't apply entirely, either. The real world is far real(m)istic, too. :uhoh: [/QUOTE]

Verification