Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lackhand" data-source="post: 4056704" data-attributes="member: 36160">So like I said, you allow the monster to either rotate the grid freely, or align the grid to the walls of the area the monster is in, you just don't think of it that way.I mean, the monster's not in any squares; you can tell by the way it's all diagonal and stuff that any squares it occupies are completely coincidental to the way you're making rulings on it. Because of this, you're not even using the 1-2-1-2 abstraction, you're using a euclidean distance metric directly and rounding off the difference. The difference between the two comes only on the diagonals and rotations; you permit them, RAW doesn't. They really do force a huge creature to squeeze in that corridor because there really isn't facing in the rules. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, but it isn't RAW, and while it's slightly further from the Rules as they Shall Be Writ, meh. I'm contemplating, if and when I run 4E games, dropping the grid entirely and playing freeform, measured string and all, or even trying to cook up some abstracted movement rules.We'll see. I'm VERY MUCH a fan of 1-1-1-1 because it's simpler; these kinds of brainteasers can destroy any sufficiently playable abstraction ( <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=":)" /> ) because I have a very low tolerance for what's necessary in &quot;necessary complexity&quot; in a game that isn't chess or played anything like it. The less &quot;board game&quot; in my D&amp;D, the happier.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lackhand, post: 4056704, member: 36160"] So like I said, you allow the monster to either rotate the grid freely, or align the grid to the walls of the area the monster is in, you just don't think of it that way. I mean, the monster's [i]not in any squares[/i]; you can tell by the way it's all diagonal and stuff that any squares it occupies are completely coincidental to the way you're making rulings on it. Because of this, you're not [i]even[/i] using the 1-2-1-2 abstraction, you're using a euclidean distance metric directly and rounding off the difference. The difference between the two comes only on the diagonals and rotations; you permit them, RAW doesn't. They really do force a huge creature to squeeze in that corridor because there really isn't facing in the rules. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, but it isn't RAW, and while it's slightly further from the Rules as they Shall Be Writ, meh. I'm contemplating, if and when I run 4E games, dropping the grid entirely and playing freeform, measured string and all, or even trying to cook up some abstracted movement rules. We'll see. I'm VERY MUCH a fan of 1-1-1-1 because it's simpler; these kinds of brainteasers can destroy any sufficiently playable abstraction ( :) ) because I have a very low tolerance for what's necessary in "necessary complexity" in a game that isn't chess or played anything like it. The less "board game" in my D&D, the happier. [/QUOTE]

Verification