As you may know, I'm generally "up" about 4E and looking forward to it. I wanted to make this clear before I engage my rant-warp drive, lest people think I'm just looking for something 4E to complain about...
So, the word is that in 4E, diagonals...count...as...five....feet. WORST CHANGE EVAR. Seriously, I can't articulate how illogical this is. No doubt people will say "just ignore it," but it completely crushes suspension of disbelief by severing the situation depicted on the battlemat from any relationship to physical reality. Why have a visual representation that stubbornly, gleefully defies logic?
Boo WOTC! As painful as this admission is, I think the "dumbing it down" complaint hits the nail on the head with this one. This will go down as one of the worst changes of 4E.
I think I just multi-classed into "Grognard." I have to go sob and rock back and forth in the shower now.
It could be worse... they could simply have said that all things in the world may only move orthogonally along the straight lines of squares and may not travel on the diagonal. ;)
Mommy, make the bad man stop!
I honestly can't decide if this is a bad thing or not. I'd be lying if I said that diagonal movement being equal to orthogonal movement was a brilliant idea. I just can't decide if it's a better or worse idea than every other diagonal move being equal to two orthogonal moves.
There's no way to deny that the new system makes everything a lot easier. What used to be "five, ten, fifteen, twenty-five, thirty, thirty... wait, thirty-five or fourty?" is now "one, two, three, four, five, six."
Where this breaks down is geometry. The old system was clumsy as hell and unintuitive to a fault, but that's because it was based on real-world geometry. I'm really curious to see how they'll handle burst effects. There's two ways to do it, by my reckoning. First, they'll keep the old burst template, and try to pretend that it's a circle in-game as well as out-of-game. Second, they'll conform to in-game geometry, and a circle will now be represented on the grid as a square. (As a refresher for those of you who weren't great in geometry, a circle's edge is defined by all points a certain distance away from a single point; if diagonals are as long as orthagonals, the corners of a square are exactly as far away from the center of the square as the centers of each side, which are really the only points we can measure.) If they keep the old burst template, then very silly things happen; in terms of in-game geometry, a burst would then be a big square with scoops taken out of the sides.
I think I'd have more problems with this if the bizzare laws of 3rd edition geometry hadn't already caused innumerable headaches for me. You'd be amazed at what constitutes a straight line in 3e.
One wonders why they just didn't go to hexs. Or at worst a staggered square set up (each row is half a square shifted, this is like the hex set up but using squares).
I'm just looking at it as hexes by another shape. Squares make dungeons generally easy to map out, but hexes make movement easier, I suppose.
I really dont care about this, and it helps address the "Large creatures get 10-foot reach all around" issue.
|
Second, they'll conform to in-game geometry, and a circle will now be represented on the grid as a square. (As a refresher for those of you who weren't great in geometry, a circle's edge is defined by all points a certain distance away from a single point; if diagonals are as long as orthagonals, the corners of a square are exactly as far away from the center of the square as the centers of each side, which are really the only points we can measure.)
If the goal is to make the geometry easier and make everything fit on a grid, just do away with circles all together.
My cleric casts magic square against evil!
-Skeld
Pi = 3
Sqrt(2) = 1.5
Pi = 3
To threadjack just a wee bit, that makes me think of the Berserker books by Saberhagen. In one of them (I think it was Berserker Man), there is a ring for which Pi = 3. There is alos a knucklebone that always rolls 1. This confuses the characters a great deal.
|
|
I kind of wish they would just switch to movement points. If your speed is 3o, you get 12 MPs. Straight movement costs 2 and diagonal costs 3. done.
Better yet, only allow diagonal movement if the distance traveled can be described with a pythagorean triplet. Moving e east and 4 north is 5 diagonally.
-Skeld
Contributor
|
Sqrt(2) = 1.5
Pi = 3To threadjack just a wee bit, that makes me think of the Berserker books by Saberhagen. In one of them (I think it was Berserker Man), there is a ring for which Pi = 3. There is alos a knucklebone that always rolls 1. This confuses the characters a great deal.
There was another series of books set in a world where pi=3. I can't remember the author, but one of the books was called "The Ragged Astronauts." Fun read!
Sqrt(2) = 1.5You fail WotC geometry. No real numbers. Integers only, please.
-Skeld
Until 4E is out, I'm right. Then Sqrt(2) = 1.
I kind of wish they would just switch to movement points. If your speed is 3o, you get 12 MPs. Straight movement costs 2 and diagonal costs 3. done.
Well, that's easy to house rule.
Thanks, Scribe.
Or at worst a staggered square set up (each row is half a square shifted, this is like the hex set up but using squares).This would be the worst idea ever. Can you even find graph paper that looks like that? You'd have to make your own and that would be a huge time sink.
-Skeld
Second, they'll conform to in-game geometry, and a circle will now be represented on the grid as a square. (As a refresher for those of you who weren't great in geometry, a circle's edge is defined by all points a certain distance away from a single point; if diagonals are as long as orthagonals, the corners of a square are exactly as far away from the center of the square as the centers of each side, which are really the only points we can measure.)If the goal is to make the geometry easier and make everything fit on a grid, just do away with circles all together.
My cleric casts magic square against evil!
-Skeld
That is apparently how the minis game will handle things, and *shudder* it appears D&D is going that route as well.
I cast...Firesquare!
Or at worst a staggered square set up (each row is half a square shifted, this is like the hex set up but using squares).This would be the worst idea ever. Can you even find graph paper that looks like that? You'd have to make your own and that would be a huge time sink.
-Skeld
Only for one person. And then once word gets around (provided they put it on the internet) it will get downloaded into every other players harddrive. WotC could make a basic one for their DDI (more incentive for that monster).
There you goOr at worst a staggered square set up (each row is half a square shifted, this is like the hex set up but using squares).This would be the worst idea ever. Can you even find graph paper that looks like that? You'd have to make your own and that would be a huge time sink.
-Skeld
Thank you, thank you very much.
As for houseruling it out, how do you know it won't be integral to several half-dozen abilities or spells? You may have benefits along the lines of "use this feat when moving diagonal out of AoO range" or something. Not that I'm saying one shouldn't try or if it would even be difficult. Just speculating.
Bah, back to hexes, and each turn of your facing costs one movement point!
Or something. :P
i've been using hexes in my D&D games since... well, forever.
So, the word is that in 4E, diagonals...count...as...five....feet.
Don't you mean that diagonals count as one square?
I don't think there has been any official word as to a square to distance conversion yet. (Although, five feet is a good guess.)
So, the word is that in 4E, diagonals...count...as...five....feet.Don't you mean that diagonals count as one square?
I don't think there has been any official word as to a square to distance conversion yet. (Although, five feet is a good guess.)
I'm okay with the square thing. It makes things overseas easier. Us dumb americans with our 'English' measures can say a square is 5 feet. Everyone else else can call it 2 meters. Yes, there's a difference, but it's close enough for government work, and allows everyone a better idea of what's going on, since it's in familiar units.
It's this utter diregard for geometry that bothers me. Sqrt(2) = 1.5 is shoddy, but it's close enough to keep diagonals sensible and it's about as good as you're going to get on a grid. Sqrt(2) = 1 is just wrong. It means I go run five squares SW, then 5 squares NW, and still tie my friend who ran 10 squares W.
Honestly, I think one of the best minature map systems I ever saw was a variation of the hex map used for the old Shadowrun DMZ and Battletech Battletroops box sets.
The map was marked out by placing dots where the center of a hex would be. No actual grid was shown and the spacing was slightly larger than what you would see in a 1" grid. Movement was from dot to dot.
It was essentially a hex map, but it looked more open and did not have the feel of artifical movement along a grid.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm not in love with the change, but it's just another question of which trumps: game play or simulationism. Not using a different scale for diagonal distance makes it easier to calculate ranges/movement (except for those gods among us who find all things easy, to whose awesomeness I defer).
Civlization and its many sequels do not differentiate between diagonal and non-diagonal movement, and that's even an instance where the computer could do the work quickly and easily for the human.
In any event, I don't have a huge amount of feeling about this. It's not extraordinarily complex to calculate diagonal movement and it's not extraordinarily "unrealistic" to ignore it. Six of one, half dozen of the other.
Edit: On the other hand, the fact that movement and range are now measured in abstract units almost makes me want to bypass the battlemat and play D&D war-game style with a ruler/tape measure. 1 square = 1 inch and you're good to go.
It's this utter diregard for geometry that bothers me. Sqrt(2) = 1.5 is shoddy, but it's close enough to keep diagonals sensible and it's about as good as you're going to get on a grid. Sqrt(2) = 1 is just wrong...
Exactly...great summary.
Holy cow! I had forgotten about that Thraxus! Those were the heady heydays of role-playing yes siree bob!
The dot to dot map system worked really well. Roll up maps with dots instead of hexes or squares? Flip maps with dots?
Completely off topic: Lilith may I steal your Half elf Pirate? I have an NE Witchwood druid NPC and your your pirate would be a beautiful match.
The first few times in using a real battlemat (somewhere in the ninties), I stopped trying to calculate diaganals. I just counted the number of squares between two points. Damn geometry I'm playing a game not engineering a bridge. There going to write 4e rules on diaganal movement the way I already play. It wouldn't matter to me if they changed it are not.
(except for those gods among us who find all things easy, to whose awesomeness I defer).
Yeah! Sabastian talked about me!
Then sit in a pond to vent your heat sinks...Bah, back to hexes, and each turn of your facing costs one movement point!
Or something. :P
Yes. Very handy if you were a missle boat (like the Archer I favored at the time).
Completely off topic: Lilith may I steal your Half elf Pirate? I have an NE Witchwood druid NPC and your your pirate would be a beautiful match.
You may "borrow" it, with the contingency to give credit back to my site. :)
Umm, okay, I'm confused.
I thought that when the 2.0 minis rules came out, people read them and said, "Hey, diagonals count as 1 square!"
And then, I read a post somewhere that the errata came out (or maybe it was just a post from a WotC person somewhere) and said, "Oops, that was a mistake, diagonals still count the same as they always did."
And I thought the entire premise that 4E would have diagonals count as 1 square came from that mistake, and wasn't really part of the information we've gotten from WotC about 4E at all.
Of course, I'm at work, and all the sites where I could try to look this up are blocked here. And Snopes.com doesn't have anything about it.
So does anyone have a confirmed source, either way, on this one?
I kind of wish they would just switch to movement points. If your speed is 3o, you get 12 MPs. Straight movement costs 2 and diagonal costs 3. done.
Best Post and Idea of the Thread award.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
So, the word is that in 4E, diagonals...count...as...five....feet. WORST CHANGE EVAR.
I hate to bring it up, but this is the same basic mechanic that Wiz Kids uses in its clicky games. A square is a square.
Sounds like WOTC is trying to blend in that dynamic with 4e D&D as it's been successful with yet another potential target audience.
Yeah, I really hate this one. I really think I might be dispensing with battlemaps entirely and moving to a dry erase board with a tape measure.
That way, at least 1"=1"
The only reason they are keeping the squares at this point is to keep Reaper in business, because for player characters, the canned minis don't function, and Wizards will never invest in the pewter lines because it's not profitable.
Umm, okay, I'm confused.
I thought that when the 2.0 minis rules came out, people read them and said, "Hey, diagonals count as 1 square!"
And then, I read a post somewhere that the errata came out (or maybe it was just a post from a WotC person somewhere) and said, "Oops, that was a mistake, diagonals still count the same as they always did."
And I thought the entire premise that 4E would have diagonals count as 1 square came from that mistake, and wasn't really part of the information we've gotten from WotC about 4E at all.
Of course, I'm at work, and all the sites where I could try to look this up are blocked here. And Snopes.com doesn't have anything about it.
So does anyone have a confirmed source, either way, on this one?
Not sure where you heard this. The 2.0 DDM rules very intentionally changed to diagonals = 1 square, and it's very pervasive throughout the rulebook. There has been no errata that says otherwise.
You can expect 4E to also have the same rule.
|
Contributor
|
Civlization and its many sequels do not differentiate between diagonal and non-diagonal movement, and that's even an instance where the computer could do the work quickly and easily for the human.
I distinctly remember Civilization using 1.5xmove cost diagonals. If you had only half a move left and tried to enter a square, you had a 50% chance of succeeding. There were other effects that affected this, such as terrain. It's been a while, and maybe I was hallucinating, but Civilization sticks in my mind as the first place I saw diagonal movement with 1.5xmove cost.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I distinctly remember Civilization using 1.5xmove cost diagonals. If you had only half a move left and tried to enter a square, you had a 50% chance of succeeding. There were other effects that affected this, such as terrain. It's been a while, and maybe I was hallucinating, but Civilization sticks in my mind as the first place I saw diagonal movement with 1.5xmove cost.
Okay, now that you say that, I do remember it with Civ I and (possibly) II. III and IV do not use diagonal movement.
Edit: And, now that I think more about it, a better analogy than Civ would probably be FF Tactics, D&D Tactics, or any other tactics type game, which do use significantly more complex measures to determine movement and range. So, screw my Civilization point, it's not particularly relevant.
Movement points are interesting, but they also suggest action points to me. These are common systems in video games, and I must admit that I'm surprised they don't come up more in rpgs. Maybe they're not very intuitive or friendly at the table. Is there an rpg out there that employs action points/movement points? How does that play?
|
Okay, now that you say that, I do remember it with Civ I and (possibly) II. III and IV do not use diagonal movement.
Yes they do.
Both Civ III and IV use a square grid, with movement allowed in all directions.The grid is aligned as a diamond, so it may not seem to be a square grid, but those are definitely squares, and diagonal movement is definitely allowed.
There is no penalty for diagonal movement. There is a possible failure to enter a square if you do not have enough movement points to enter it, but there is no additional cost for moving diagonally along the grid.