Okay, where do you stand on diagonal movement?

[Midknightsun]

I would like to put my vote mostly in the "couldn't give a cricket's fart" hat, frankly. That being said, my group has switched to 1-1-1 without a problem, but i wouldn't really care if someone was dead set on 1-2-1-2.

I save my nerd rages for the battles that really count . . . like Golden Wyverns. Those things deserve my full wrath.

 

[KarinsDad]

The hex problem is that when you draw a 20x20 room, you get partial hexes. And then the ancient question of how many angels can fit on a partial hex arises.

The square problem is that when you draw a 20 diameter circular room, you get partial squares. And then the ancient question of how many angels can fit on a partial square arises.

 

[Dausuul]

The square problem is that when you draw a 20 diameter circular room, you get partial squares. And then the ancient question of how many angels can fit on a partial square arises.

Actually, 1-1-1 diagonals make the 20-foot diameter circular room a piece of cake...

 

[keterys]

It's interesting that it started with something like a 55% 1-1-1 following and it's slipped steadily towards 45% since.

I am curious if the people who are strongly for one way or another have tried the other options (for example, if the people who like 1-2-1-2 have tried hexes or 1-1-1, or the people who don't like grids have tried using one at all).

If 3e had been 1-1-1 and 4e had changed things to 1-2-1, I wonder if we'd have faced as many arguments. I suspect so

 

[Dausuul]

It's interesting that it started with something like a 55% 1-1-1 following and it's slipped steadily towards 45% since.

I am curious if the people who are strongly for one way or another have tried the other options (for example, if the people who like 1-2-1-2 have tried hexes or 1-1-1, or the people who don't like grids have tried using one at all).

If 3e had been 1-1-1 and 4e had changed things to 1-2-1, I wonder if we'd have faced as many arguments. I suspect so

Not sure we would have, actually. The thing is that 1-2-1 looks beautiful on paper; a clever, simple, straightforward way to handle the diagonals issue. It's only after you play with it for a bit, and compare it to playing with 1-1-1, that you realize how much of a difference it makes in speed and ease of play.

 

[catsclaw]

I don't think 1-1-1-1 is "more fun". I just think people like it because you aren't penalized. Penalized isn't the right word. Basically, people like it because you get more movement out of it than 1-2-1-2 and more movement = a good thing.

That's not true at all. First, since everything follows the same movement conventions, you don't end up moving faster than anything else anyway.

But the real advantage is in speeding up the game. I know everyone posting on here is a freaky super-calculator who never loses count or backtracks movement, but speaking as someone who isn't (and who plays with a lot of people worse at it than he is) 1-1-1-1 diagonals have a big boost on gameplay.

 

[Xethreau]

I am a fan of 1-2-2-2-2

This would allow for meele diagonal attacks, diagonal movement, but similar-to-same costs for moving diagonally as it would to move two spaces (like in most tactile grid based videogames I am familiar with).

 

[Taladas]

Hexes. I have a huge chessex hex map that I used for starfleet battles and I can work with it with ease.

That said if somebody else was running I don't have a huge problem with squares and any of the other methods mentioned. I prefer hexes but it's not like we're exclusive or anything.

 

[HeinorNY]

I stand with 1-2-1-2. But after seeing some of the powers, I think house ruling 4E won't be so easy, so I'll probably keep half of my brain at home and just use 1-1-1-1.

 

[Will]

When bothering with a grid (half of my D&D gaming is done on text games, where grids are mostly handwaved), I'm going to use 1-2-1-2.

And if the houserules to make 4e work with 1-2-1-2 prove intractable, I'll try using hexes or offset squares. And if THAT doesn't work, then I'll shrug and turn to other games, like M&M.