Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hossrex" data-source="post: 4076664" data-attributes="member: 60784">Or more simply.  Draw a long line, and step 30 feet back from it.If you use well measured steps to get to it, you'll probably reach it in around ten steps.  If you turn at a 45 degree angle (diagonal) and then walk towards your long line, you'll arrive in around 14 steps.You're thinking "thats stupid, because my steps are of equal length no matter what direction I walk", when you should be thinking "it isn't a matter of how long my stride is, but instead a matter of how much distance I need to cover".This is junior high school geometry.Now...  that said...  I'm so very happy the 1-2-1-2 is gone.  It was more realistic on a level that was just not needed.  People who say things like "they're not using euclidean geometry!" don't get it.  Just because your character sheet says "30 movement", doesn't mean that in "each and every six second period of time my character has ever spent walking has resulted in my character having moved 30 feet".Well...  no.  Thats silly.  Just silly.  Sometimes you'll move 20 feet, sometimes 40.  Its an approximation.The problem with over complicating things like this isn't because people can't handle the idea of counting one square, two squares, one squares, and then two squares...  its because its just pointlessly precise.Can't tell you how many times I've seen a player who darn well knows better, not count diagonals as two squares because he *NEEDED* to get to (or out of) an area.  He "forgot" it was two squares, and if someone calls him on it, he says "whoops...  did I?"</blockquote>

Verification