Okay, where do you stand on diagonal movement?

[WhatGravitas]

The same way as 3E - 1-1-1-1.

Because I've only read the 1-2-1-2 rule 1-1/2 year after starting to play, when I switched from 3.0 to 3.5.

Though I might cling to my circular fireballs...

Cheers, LT.

 

[jeffh]

The poll should specify that 1.2.1.2 movement is from 3.5 edition, not "3rd edition."

I'm not sure whether you mean to suggest that the rule originated in 3.5 rather than 3.0, or that 3.5 doesn't count as "3rd Edition". But either way, you're simply wrong. Why would I change something that's already perfectly correct as written to a wording that, while technically also correct, is less accurate and has misleading implications?

 

[Lanefan]

Other: use eyeballs and reasonable logic.

For one thing, movement realistically happens in a 360-degree arc and isn't limited to one of 8 (or 4) directions; never mind the oddities that rear their heads when "up" and "down" are added to the mix.

For another, any movement system so tightly defined as 1-1-1-1 or 1-2-1-2 or x-y-z-a is just sitting there begging to be abused and lawyered by those who like to commit such atrocities - I'd prefer not to feed them, thank you.

And in 25+ years at this game, I've yet to encounter any great headache with circular areas of effect that couldn't be solved with a piece of paper and some scissors.

We've used minis and a chalkboard with a grid as long as I've been playing, but the grid is there as a guideline rather than a cage.

Lanefan

 

[Ipissimus]

Except of course using a tape measure takes longer than counting our squares and it makes when characters take AoO's for moving past other characters difficult to determine. You also have to figure out how to deal with area effects (although that's not that hard).

So yeah, there are problems, there is no obvious solution, sorry.

What's so hard? Whip out six inches of tape and get moving. Want to know if you can inflict an AoO? Measure 1 inch from the base edge. Those bases are standardized, right? And wargames use these wonderful things called 'Blast Templates'. If you're buying battlemats and all that, there's no reason not to put out the templates... oh, and those templates will actually be circular for those simulationists out there.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[Kenku17]

Hmm...I haven't run a game, and I think almost all the games Ive played we hadn't used a battle grid(there was one game we used hexes). However, if I did and no one objected, I would try to use one of my old Mech Warrior or Mage Knight bendy rulers, and just equate 1 square=5 feet, and 1 foot=1 inch.

If people really wanted a grid although, probably either 1-1-1-1, or 1.5-1.5-1.5-1.5(rounding down)

 

[ruleslawyer]

What's so hard? Whip out six inches of tape and get moving. Want to know if you can inflict an AoO? Measure 1 inch from the base edge. Those bases are standardized, right? And wargames use these wonderful things called 'Blast Templates'. If you're buying battlemats and all that, there's no reason not to put out the templates... oh, and those templates will actually be circular for those simulationists out there.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

You could also use squares *and* a tape measure or ruler, which is what I'm leaning toward at the moment. It's basically a grid for convenience, which tells you at a quick glance how close to/far from someone you are.

 

[hong]

What's so hard? Whip out six inches of tape and get moving.

... oh, TAPE.

But wait, tape isn't hard.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

The same way as 3E - 1-1-1-1.

Because I've only read the 1-2-1-2 rule 1-1/2 year after starting to play, when I switched from 3.0 to 3.5.

Though I might cling to my circular fireballs...

Cheers, LT.

You realize that 3E didn't use 1-1-1-1 despite of what you're saying, right? That's why the example of the Sleep burst looks like it looks, it's why they mention that "diagonal lengths and distances are harder to measure" (p. 69, column 1, under Cones) and that to remember to "maintain a consistent number of affected squares in areas that differ on the diagonal" (same page, under Miscellaneous).

I guess Monte Cook et al. simply assumed players knew that the diagonal of a square is longer than the side of a square, and that players and DMs would automatically take that into account. It's funny to see how wrong they were....well, some kind of funny, at least.

 

[delericho]

Edit: You know, what might work well would be a battlemap with just dots from the center of the hexes (like some older wargames boards) without the hexes themselves.

Good thinking. I like this idea - all the advantages of hex movement, minus the "partial hex" problems discussed up-thread.

 

[Remathilis]

I went 2-2-2-2 ala Saga. Its easier to count than 1-2-1-2, but still doesn't make the fastest way to point X a diagonal.

However, I will probably be using 1-1-1-1-1 in 4e