Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Geron Raveneye" data-source="post: 4055778" data-attributes="member: 2268">And that's what I mean...most of the values are given in feet first, and are then &quot;translated&quot; 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 &quot;1 square is one movement until, in every direction&quot; leads to a pretty distorted space..or weird behaviour of properties of people. For example, the corridor we have here would be described as &quot;3 squares wide&quot;...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 &quot;3 square width&quot; turns into &quot;2 square width&quot; 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 &quot;no favorite direction&quot; 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&amp;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 &quot;all distances measured in squares first&quot; plus &quot;diagonals count as one square&quot; design can result in.&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="Geron Raveneye, post: 4055778, member: 2268"] 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: [/QUOTE]

Verification