What geometry do you prefer?

[Jeff Wilder]

The 1-1-1-1 rule doesn't do anything to encourage more frequent movement ... it just permits farther or faster movement (depending on which flavor you like your Cthulhu) on the diagonals.

The 4E movement rules that will actually promote more frequent movement, and thus more dynamic battles, are the shift-and-still-move rule and the various aspects of the charging rule (and especially those two rules in combination). Both rules are in the new DDM, and thus very probably in 4E.

I've got no problem with either of those rules, and they both work just fine with 1-2-1-2 movement.

 

[Deset Gled]

I think the thread has gotten far enough along for me to post my opinion without tainting things...

Personally, I prefer hexes, but I can live with 1-2-1-2 easily enough. In actual play, my group only uses a grid for about 75% of combat. When we know distances and tactics won't be a major issue, we do it mentally. I cannot stand the 1-1-1 option, though. It is the only mechanical change in 4e so far that I completely disagree with.

I believe that WotC has gone too far in their attempts to simplify things. Believe it or not, there is a point where trying to simplify one thing too much can make the overall system more complicated, and I think that is exactly what will happen here. Counting diagonals as 1 is rounding against the real world by a factor of about 30%. Yes, this will make things easier at early levels, where movement and spell effects are small. But as you level up, PCs can move faster, spell effects get larger, and things move in 3 dimensions, this option will start creating more and more headaches as players learn to munchkinize it for their benefit. For example, it will only take a couple of combats to learn that they can increase the number of tiles affected by a 3 tile wide square from a total of 9 tiles to 13 by rotating the square 90 degrees. Things only get worse once you add in the 3rd dimension.

I am also of the opinion that this is a lesson WotC should have learned from their attempt at revising Power Attack between 3.0 and 3.5, but that's another rant altogether.

 

[delericho]

For example, it will only take a couple of combats to learn that they can increase the number of tiles affected by a 3 tile wide square from a total of 9 tiles to 13 by rotating the square 90 degrees. Things only get worse once you add in the 3rd dimension.

I'm pretty sure players won't be allowed to rotate their powers like that. After all, the very reason the game uses square and squared-circle templates is so that they match the grid.

I am also of the opinion that this is a lesson WotC should have learned from their attempt at revising Power Attack between 3.0 and 3.5, but that's another rant altogether.

Agreed.

 

[Desdichado]

I prefer no grid, no miniatures and no combat rules that make using grids and miniatures seem like a sensible option.

But when I play d20, which is often, I prefer one square = one square diagonals. The 1-2, 1-2 what-have-you was never to my taste. I kinda like hexgrids too.

 

[Deset Gled]

I'm pretty sure players won't be allowed to rotate their powers like that. After all, the very reason the game uses square and squared-circle templates is so that they match the grid.

It's certainly possible. But the idea that all area affects will not only be forced into square shapes, but that players have absolutely no options to rotate them in any way is just adding insult to injury.

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

I wonder why no one has mentioned a square grid with offset rows? It has all the benefits of hexes (no diagonals, easy circle templates) and squares (square rooms are easy to draw, you can count squares in any direction to get distance/dimensions).

 

[Hussar]

Despite my support for the 1-1-1 option (which will please some of my players), if I was DMing clones of me, I'd be very happy sticking with 1-2-1-2, despite the slight added complexity.

Cheers!

This.

I can live with 1-2-1, but, 1-1-1 works too.

It's been a while since I played Star Frontiers, but, IIRC, it used 1-1-1 movement and it never bothered me back then. I imagine it won't bother me now.

I'm becoming zen-like in my lack of caring on this issue.

 

[Campbell]

I prefer no grid, no miniatures and no combat rules that make using grids and miniatures seem like a sensible option.

But when I play d20, which is often, I prefer one square = one square diagonals. The 1-2, 1-2 what-have-you was never to my taste. I kinda like hexgrids too.

This. With grids I prefer some sort of constant cost for diagonal movement (1 or 2 squares both work fine for me).

 

[nick012000]

The group I tend to play with are made of a bunch of warhammer gamers, so if we're pulling out minis, they'd be warhammer minis on the table, with distances measured by tape measures.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Diagonal = 2 is just silly. It has all the same problems as diagonal = 1, just rotated 45 degrees. With diagonal = 1, you can bypass an obstacle to the north by going northeast, then northwest, and not lose any time. With diagonal = 2, you can't do that, but you can bypass an obstacle to the northeast by going north, then east--and again, not lose any time.

As a person who voted for diagonal = 2, I feel like someone should defend it.

Keep in mind that while diagonal = 2, does have its problems, it is not the same problems as diagonal = 1. In fact, in certain respects they are total opposites. You can control and defend more space with fewer people in diagonal = 2 than in real space, compared to diagonal = 1 which requires more people to control and defend space than reality.

Given that it's not actually any less Cthulhuesque than diagonal = 1, and it's more complicated, why would you ever go with diagonal = 2?

While I wont argue that it is a bit strange, why is it more complicated? Diagonal movement is either given a flat cost or removed altogether. It is extremely simple, and is certainly simpler than the 1,2,1,2 rule. In fact, it sticks to the idea of the grid more rigindly than diagonal=1, so I would say that it is simpler than diagonal = 1.

Further, it is not like diagonal = 2 is at all strange. It is widely used in many boardgames and videogames. It is used much more frequently in games than any other option on this poll. As such, despite being "Cthuluesque", it can still be familiar and easily understood even for a new player.

As for me, I ordered a hex battlemat last night. I'm gonna see if I can sell hexes to my group.

Oddly enough, despite your claims about diagonal = 2 being bad, you like hex grids, which work exactly like diagonal = 2 in the situations you are condemning diagonal = 2 for above. Other than the inherent difference between hexes and squares, they work a lot alike. Which is why I like both, I guess.