Just started my PFRP playtest, and when I got the battlemat out for the first fight (Oh, those naughty Goblins!) I thought:
You know, diagonal movement's a bit of a pain. 5' of movement, then 10', then 5', then 10'...
So I decided for this playtest I'd try making a square of diagonal cost 5' of movement down the line.
It made the fights much faster and more fun that in the 3.5 game I'm currently playing in.
So: thoughts? Anyone else tried it? And if so, did you standardise on 5' or 10' per diagonal step?
All I have to say to this is that I dropped the thought of playing 4E when they revealed that orthogonals and diagonals will be of equal length. If Pathfinder goes the same way, it will drop into the "Houserule Mine" category completely. At least, it'd be mostly compatible to my D20 games, in contrast to 4E.
Green Ronin's Advanced Gamemaster's Guide provides a couple of alternatives to eliminate the problems of diagonal movement.
The first is to use a hexagonal map. The other alternative is a staggered square map, where the columns are offset. I think either one is a fine idea to allow for quick movement in any direction on a map.
If Pathfinder adopted either idea, I think it would work well. If not, an alternative would be a clear vinyl sheet marked in one of the styles that could be overlaid on a regular battlemap.
You do realize that by going 5ft per diagonal greatly increases the total distance you travel? The increase is roughly 41%... i know this is fantasy but that's a really large margin of error just so you don't have to remember to use 10' every other diagonal.
D&D Miniatures already uses 5' diagonal movements. It also uses square area of effect spells (a square fireball, 40' per side). I incorporated those changes in my games, and so far, it's great. No more need for a template for the spells, no need to remember if it was the first or second diagonal.
Yes, it does seems odd, and my pythagorian side was screaming at first, but this works both side. The monsters also benefits from this rule. I've seen no advantage or disadvantage for either the monsters or the PCs, but overall, the combat are faster and simpler.
Since D&D Miniatures is influenced by D&D RPG, I suspect this rule will become official. We'll see in June.
- Zorg
It's definitely official for 4E - was just wondering if anyone else was trying it in PRPG...
It's definitely official for 4E - was just wondering if anyone else was trying it in PRPG...
Have all of your casters started lining up their Line-based area of effect spells on the diagonal?
There's an easy fix to counting 2-1-2 or half squares:
Double all movement allowances and costs. There're only full square costs then.
There's an easy fix to counting 2-1-2 or half squares:
Double all movement allowances and costs. There're only full square costs then.
Ouch.. that seems rather harsh. While I'm not in favor of the OP's idea, this seems to take it to far in the other direction.
|
The first is to use a hexagonal map. The other alternative is a staggered square map, where the columns are offset. I think either one is a fine idea to allow for quick movement in any direction on a map.
You forgot the ever important "Ditch the grid entirely" option.
I tried that out at my last session and it worked just find. The only issue was AoAs and even that wasn't bad. We used a 6" pencil for most moves though corners and curves were just best guesses. To be honest, how true a representation is a grid of your actual movement anyways?
As for the original post, I'm not sure this is really that significant an issue. The battle mat and how you manage it is individualistic. If 1-2-1 is too tricky for your players then use 1-1-1. It's not game breaking. Use whatever system you and your players feel most comfortable with and satisfies your sense of realism.
-- Dennis
Ouch.. that seems rather harsh. While I'm not in favor of the OP's idea, this seems to take it to far in the other direction.
Ehm. I obviously didn't phrase it understandably. *curses his fading knowledge of this language*
There is no alteration in the distance you can actually move. It's only a different way to count. In the official rules, there's a problem to count 0.5 squares. If you double all costs and allowances, the 0.5 becomes a 1. That's all - a counting trick for those who don't like to count half numbers.
|
You forgot the ever important "Ditch the grid entirely" option.
I tried that out at my last session and it worked just find. The only issue was AoAs and even that wasn't bad. We used a 6" pencil for most moves though corners and curves were just best guesses. To be honest, how true a representation is a grid of your actual movement anyways?
As a Warhammer 40K player, I've thought over the last couple years that ditching the grid and just using a tape measure would probably be the easiest thing to do. I'm not sure why this option hasn't been bandied about more often.
As a Warhammer 40K player, I've thought over the last couple years that ditching the grid and just using a tape measure would probably be the easiest thing to do. I'm not sure why this option hasn't been bandied about more often.
Not everyone uses miniatures.
I agree that 1.5 squares for diagonal movement gives me a headache. Especially for flying where upward movement counts double; I have to figure out which component is the "upward" component (both straight and diagonal), and which is the "forward" component (straight and diagonal). I usually just give up and use Euclidean ("tape measure") geometry instead of D&Dian geometry.
|
|
Stop counting in feet and count in squares. It's easier to do the math of 1-3-4-6, than 5'-15'-20'-30'. Ditching the grid makes AoO's a little trickier. Counting is something you should've mastered before gradeschool people.
I agree on all counts here, though I don't think the problem is counting in feet. This just isn't that big an issue.
Ditching the grid does make AoO's trickier but not impossible. If people want to curve around someone to avoid AoOs it reduces their movement. It's not a precise science but then our guestimates on the gridless system are probably as accurate as the grid is in simulating movement. Most people who pan the idea talk about AoOs but they rarely actually try it out to see how much of an issue it is.
-- Dennis
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Stop counting in feet and count in squares. It's easier to do the math of 1-3-4-6, than 5'-15'-20'-30'. Ditching the grid makes AoO's a little trickier. Counting is something you should've mastered before gradeschool people.I agree on all counts here, though I don't think the problem is counting in feet. This just isn't that big an issue.
Ditching the grid does make AoO's trickier but not impossible. If people want to curve around someone to avoid AoOs it reduces their movement. It's not a precise science but then our guestimates on the gridless system are probably as accurate as the grid is in simulating movement. Most people who pan the idea talk about AoOs but they rarely actually try it out to see how much of an issue it is.
-- Dennis
Well when you play a character with a 20' reach and 5 AoO's that's a LOT of ground for enemies to skirt!
|
Ummm, no...
I've thought of ditching the grid as well and just suing a tape measurer...I run my games kind of loose with movement anyway...but not that loose, and no square fi4eballs!!!
Making games to the lowest common denominator is just plain silly. That's what killed 40k for me. When you make a game too simple it loses it's flavor.
We use a combination of a one inch grid and a tape measure, or objects such as my pencil which I know to be 6 inches.
I don't think there will ever be one good way to solve this, and really, I hope it doesn't get solved completely. If it did, then it would seem too much like a board game and not a role playing game with fluid battles... to me anyway. I don't think this is an area of 3.5 that needs to be addressed in depth. What is written already is good enough for me, and is already rich in detail. I think that tabletop movement will be modified from group to group anyway, as it seems to be the case reading through this thread. That is one of the nice features of this game... that it is encouraged to bend the rules to your liking.
I hope they keep calling movement in feet by the way, and not squares or inches like of old.
|
|
We use a combination of a one inch grid and a tape measure, or objects such as my pencil which I know to be 6 inches.
I don't think there will ever be one good way to solve this, and really, I hope it doesn't get solved completely. If it did, then it would seem too much like a board game and not a role playing game with fluid battles... to me anyway. I don't think this is an area of 3.5 that needs to be addressed in depth. What is written already is good enough for me, and is already rich in detail. I think that tabletop movement will be modified from group to group anyway, as it seems to be the case reading through this thread. That is one of the nice features of this game... that it is encouraged to bend the rules to your liking.
I hope they keep calling movement in feet by the way, and not squares or inches like of old.
Exactly. I like my gridless ways but think whats in the book is fine and does not need to be altered.
-- dennis
I wouldn't change it myself, but then I understand the math behind it. And honestly an easier fix for diagonal counting is move him like a knight from chess, it equates to almost same total movement and makes it easier to count. Also this way if you alter course it doesn't create any headaches in your counting.
S
*12
**34
***56
****E
All you do to make the cost equal (see diagram) is if you end on a non-diagonal after a diagonal move you advance to the next diagonal in the line. S=Start, #s=square count, E = Ending position.
The only problem with hex maps is drawing buildings on them...
We've played successfully for 25 years without grids or miniatures; a quick sketch when things get crowded or complicated is ususally good enough. I'm absolutely not trying to take away from people who use them -- I've seen some amazing photos of models on these boards, and I've got total respect for the people who go to that effort. I'd mention just one thing, if you're counting squares: it's probably best to avoid a situation where the wizard keeps taking move actions just so his spells will line up on a diagonal, and thereby get 141% range without the use of metamagic. Then you run the risk of that player slowing up game play just to take advantage of a loophole. If you count diagonals, imposing some sort of penalty is almost imperative.
Please no! This change was one (there were several) of the major turn-offs for me with respect to the 4th edition.
I'm a miniature freak, so there's no way minis are going out of the table. I did run a couple of simple encounters with no minis, mostly chases and one opponent only. Easy to track.
At first, squares are odd, but my players and I are now used to it.
- Zorg
I played my first edition campaigns using a chalkboard, no minis or squares. It worked well for that game, but third is a bit more tactical (which I like, on the whole) and some of that is lost without the grid.
We started out with 1-1 diagonals in 3.0 and rapidly houseruled it (as we thought--I honestly don't know which was the official rule) to 1-2. It just felt too funny. So I *have* tried both, and know what I prefer. I wish I had a solution for flying, though: double-diagonal flying movement makes my head hurt. I have a pseudodragon PC now, and I think I'm going to have to make a chart....
Fliers with less than perfect manuverability make things much worse, because now you have to track turning as well as climbing and diagonals. I thought we would avoid that in this campaign as we removed Fly and related spells, but the pseudodragon brought it all back with a vengeance. (I took Improved Flight as soon as I possibly could!)
Mary
I feel the best method is using a tape measurer (maybe you could still have it on a grid solely for ball park guessing, if they pass this square, the ogre gets an attack of opportunity)
We've played successfully for 25 years without grids or miniatures; a quick sketch when things get crowded or complicated is ususally good enough. I'm absolutely not trying to take away from people who use them -- I've seen some amazing photos of models on these boards, and I've got total respect for the people who go to that effort. I'd mention just one thing, if you're counting squares: it's probably best to avoid a situation where the wizard keeps taking move actions just so his spells will line up on a diagonal, and thereby get 141% range without the use of metamagic. Then you run the risk of that player slowing up game play just to take advantage of a loophole. If you count diagonals, imposing some sort of penalty is almost imperative.
The one player I saw consistently do this (please note, my game and most games I play in use the 1, 2, 1 rule) played a high dex, ray specialist with a fair number of line spells and the improved initiative feat. He often got highest, or close to highest initiative and would often use ready action. It wasn't foolproof, but often gave him the opportunity to exploit the diagonal rule.
|
|
There's very little do with diagonal movement. I can only think of dividing movement into "movement points", and one square would use 2, diagonal movement would use 3 per square. Using movement points could also make some move actions (such as opening a door) a mere movement point cost thingy. I found it always so stupid you have to stop your turn after moving 10 feet and opening a door.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
There's very little do with diagonal movement. I can only think of dividing movement into "movement points", and one square would use 2, diagonal movement would use 3 per square. Using movement points could also make some move actions (such as opening a door) a mere movement point cost thingy. I found it always so stupid you have to stop your turn after moving 10 feet and opening a door.
I really like this. And it also works on a larger scale. If you move out of 6-second rounds and into 1 minute rounds for overland movement or other more abstract yet still tactical situation (with each square then representing 50' or whatever your scale is) the use of movement points allows for skill checks along the way as part of the overall move. We use this scale a lot in the Savage Tide game I play in and I will suggest to the DM that we use this system for tracking movement from here on.
There's very little do with diagonal movement. I can only think of dividing movement into "movement points", and one square would use 2, diagonal movement would use 3 per square. Using movement points could also make some move actions (such as opening a door) a mere movement point cost thingy. I found it always so stupid you have to stop your turn after moving 10 feet and opening a door.
I like it, but it makes it difficult to use a 3.5 stat block as-is.
S'pose you could say "double the footage to get movement points" and then you'd have a cost of 10pts per straight move and fifteen per diagonal.
Still feels a bit clunky...
|
|
There's very little do with diagonal movement. I can only think of dividing movement into "movement points", and one square would use 2, diagonal movement would use 3 per square. Using movement points could also make some move actions (such as opening a door) a mere movement point cost thingy. I found it always so stupid you have to stop your turn after moving 10 feet and opening a door.I like it, but it makes it difficult to use a 3.5 stat block as-is.
S'pose you could say "double the footage to get movement points" and then you'd have a cost of 10pts per straight move and fifteen per diagonal.
Still feels a bit clunky...
Yeah, it's at an early stage of developing. Since all speeds are generally told in squares as well, it gives a guide number. A barbarian with his fast movement gets 16 movement points, a halfling in heavy armor 6 (and maybe it's just me, but counting in even numbers is easier!)
Since the system wouldn't really make much difference to the actual movement, people would be able to ignore this aspect and keep using feet, just knowing that using 10 ft. of movement (for example) can get you a door open without using a whole move action to it.
Then again to eliminate diagonal movement, I'd use a hex grid. It's not that good with 45° corners, but you can't always have everything.
|
|
There's very little do with diagonal movement. I can only think of dividing movement into "movement points" ...
Very interesting idea. Instead of calling them movement points, you could just call them "feet," as in, "It costs 5' to open a door."
I know it's a lot different, but a system like this could really simplify and pull together all the free action, partial action, etc. stuff that causes me no end of confusion.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I like it, but it makes it difficult to use a 3.5 stat block as-is.
S'pose you could say "double the footage to get movement points" and then you'd have a cost of 10pts per straight move and fifteen per diagonal.
Still feels a bit clunky...
There's going to be a certain amount of conversion between3.5 and 3.P no matter what is done, and this seems much easier than reconfiguring an NPC or monster's skills, feats, HD, ability scores, and special abilities. It really would be a simple doubling of the number of squares already alloted. And encumbrance would be much simpler as well: if encumbered, you have a -2 penalty to movement. This seems like such a simple and intuitive system that, whether it makes it into the official Paizo rules (which I doubt, as I'm sure Jason has his own ideas, if it gets changed at all) it can easily be done as a houserule on a table by table basis.
|
|
There's very little do with diagonal movement. I can only think of dividing movement into "movement points" ...Very interesting idea. Instead of calling them movement points, you could just call them "feet," as in, "It costs 5' to open a door."
I know it's a lot different, but a system like this could really simplify and pull together all the free action, partial action, etc. stuff that causes me no end of confusion.
Yeah, I also pictured that you could open a door without decreasing your movement if you manage to bash it open (an unlocked door would be around DC 15 Strength check).
And to be honest this idea popped up to me while fiddling with Fallout PnP. Incorporating "Action points" (as per Fallout) as a movement calculation made me think. Nevertheless using an action to open a *door* has annoyed me from day one. I hope the designers look into this issue.
|
|
Whether Paizo implements the OPs suggestions or not, I'll most likely house rule it. Seriously, I'm hoping Pathfinder does a lot of simplification to its 3.5 upgrade. This is one of those issues that could easily be included . . . and if it does, there really is no backward compatibility complication.
I have to say that ditching the "feet" for a numerical quantity is the easiest way to deal with this as 4.0 have done [did I say that out loud?]
Counting...
1 : 2-3 : 4 : 5-6 : 7
is easier than
5 : 10-15 : 20 : 25-30 : 35
and it's pretty easy to convert movement 30ft into movement 6 and so on.
Check out http://bonemanpress.com/ The not only have spell templates (avoiding square fireballs) they have - for lack of a better word - rulers that map from 0 ft to 60 ft. and every five feet in between. It has information on minuses that you get with certain weapons at those ranges etc..
They're heavy duty clear plastic with black writing... I've had mine for... about six years and they're still in fantastic condition.
Shameless plug because I know and game with the guys. They usually have a booth at GenCon as well.
1-1 diagonal movement is THE biggest gripe I have with 4E. The idea that that game mechanic might make it over to Pathfinder, too, is awful. Since one of the DMs in my group is thinking about using Pathfinder (and since despite everyone in the group being able to easily use the 1-2 rule, we played Star Wars Saga Edition and he kept the 2-2 diagonal rule even after asked to please not), I really hope Pathfinder doesn't end up screwing me out of a potentially immersive game.
Please, keep the 1-2 rule where it belongs. Suggest the tape measure, the 1-1 rule, and others as variants if you must, but not the primary rule.