The other players are right. Running in some sort of sawtooth pattern shouldn't give you some sort of speed advantage.
I continually wonder why they didn't use hexes from the get-go, it's a much better movement system imo.
I continually wonder why they didn't use hexes from the get-go, it's a much better movement system imo.
This! Even the bees understood that...
Use Hexes, if it worked for Street Fighter it works for everything :)
Yuck!
That's deeply disappointing. To have to actually pay attention to diagonals throughout the whole turn... bleh!
Yeah, it's a beach.
But it could be worse. You have to count stuff, but at least your character will not be killed by the Angel of Death. If you played in my campaign, your character would be, for trying to cheat the laws of nature and being too lazy to even use magic.
Well, he would probably just get a stern talking to from the Angel of Stern Talking-Tos (I strongly believe in anthropomorphisation!), at least for the first offence. AoD for repeated infractions, though.
Anyway, the 1-2 rule is a decent approximation that makes things a lot less complicated without turning fireballs into firecubes and making the rules change too much depending on whether you use a grid or no.
Other options would be "just count all diagonals as 1", but that would be utterly ridiculous, as your speed would now be dependant on your direction.
The other option would be to let a diagonal movement count as 1.41421356 squares.
I continually wonder why they didn't use hexes from the get-go, it's a much better movement system imo.they use squares cuz its easier to draw maps on, i use squares but i think hex maps look way cooler. i have thrown out the movement rule on diaganal movement, 1 square equals 5 feet, unless hampered or some other thing accurs.i also allow the use of a tape measure for when someone wants to retreat in a straight line.
Yeah, but I don't care if all the buildings/rooms are hex shaped, the movement would just be smoother.
That's deeply disappointing. To have to actually pay attention to diagonals throughout the whole turn... bleh!
What's the problem? Just count a diagonal as 1 1/2 and you're fine. At the end of the movement you round any fraction down like normal for D&D.
-James
That's what I do. Not that hard at all.
|
The other option would be to let a diagonal movement count as 1.41421356 squares.
Then assuming you rounded down every turn moving diagonal would be 5' 5' 10' 5' 10' 5' 5' 10'... If you rounded up it would be slightly different, I think 5' 10' 5' 5' 10'...
If you wanted to ensure accuracy you should also track inter turn movement so if you move 5' diagonal this round you can't make a 5' step on a diagonal next round.
I just use a ruler, and plot most character paths.
Batts
i have thrown out the movement rule on diaganal movement, 1 square equals 5 feet, unless hampered or some other thing accurs.i also allow the use of a tape measure for when someone wants to retreat in a straight line.
Try this then.
Pick a spot on the 1 inch battle-grid. Move a character from that spot 30' (six squares) vertically. Measure with your tape measure. I believe you will find that it is 6 inches (I am very sure of it, given that I stipulated a 1 inch battle-grid which is what Pathfinder uses).
Then pick the same spot and move a character from that spot six squares diagonally, which by your "thrown out" houserule, should be a normal 30' move. Now measure that with your tape measure. I believe you will find that it is very nearly 8.5 inches.
So, by "throwing out" the extra diagonal distance, you're allowing people to move farther. Which probably wouldn't be a problem, except you also use a tape measure for "when someone wants to retreat in a straight line". Which means that I could game your system and reatreat in a not-quite straight line and all my 30' moves could be 8.5 inches, but someone using the tape measure would only go 6 inches.
You might want to consider picking one or the other, for the sake of consistencly.
|
--It isn't Vrocket Science
LMAO !!!!
Maybe my game is much different than others, but most encounter locals are relatively small areas, unless we are in a large open field, and how often does that occur? Ignoring the rule and making diagonal movement the same as straight-line is not a major issue. We have played it both ways, depending on who is GM'ing, and neither has caused any broken conditions. For an all-adult gaming group, it might be more important to stick to RAW for the "realism", but if your audience is much younger, suspending the rule can simplfy the rules and make it more enjoyable.
I played with a DM who insisted on hexes. I didn't like it. Human buildings almost always have right angle walls.
I agree. (I'll elaborate later...)
Unless you're in a campaign setting where an intelligent humanoid bee race serves as the architects of society's buildings, hexes are just a pain in the neck.
Heh. You know, I always wanted to use Abeils from the 3.0 Monster Manual II. They were beelike elfoids. The idea of having an adventure with many Abeils, with all its combat using hex maps, amuses me. The idea had never occurred to me before. Come to think of it, when I DID run a Doctor Who adventure with Menoptera (beelike humanoids), for the one battle in which I used a combat map, it happened to use hexes. I didn't think it significant at the time. It was just a coincidence. That was the most appropriate map I happened to have handy.
But anyway, hexes are a pain when, for example, the hexes line up east-to-west, northeast-to-southwest, and northwest-to-southeast. What if you want to travel straight north or south? In a simulation game, the answer is to travel a jagged line, so to travel from a hex to the next northward hex would actually cost you TWO hexes of movement.
But how much is it really? Finding the answer to that question was the one time in my life when I found a practical use for trigonometry. Use the law of sines, and you'll get the answer: the square root of 3, which is about 1.7320508075688772935274463415059... So for example, if a hex on a map is 24 miles, then a "northward hex" would be the sqaure root of 3 times 24 miles, which is about 41.569 miles. The few times I experimented running 3.X games on a hex grid, I ruled that the first "Straight northward" hex was worth 2 hexes, the second was worth 1, the third was worth 2, etc. This is no less a pain in the @$$ than the square-diagonal rule. And since so many buildings and rooms are square (except for, say, round towers,) I'd stick with squares.
|
Not to throw simplicity into the equation, but for other than the math-obsessed, is there much reason to go beyond the "a square is a square is a square" notion? Yes, the rules may dictate diagonals are extra-mathy, but do we really feel the need to follow this? If the monsters move on a "1 square equals 1 square" basis, and so do the PCs, how does it actually matter?
Sheesh, we're more comfortable with flying, flame-breathing dragons than imagining that math isn't the most important aspect of the game.
I continually wonder why they didn't use hexes from the get-go, it's a much better movement system imo.
i use squares but i think hex maps look way cooler
Use Hexes, if it worked for Street Fighter it works for everything :)
You know, I always wished I could ask Steve Jackson this question... and now I have the opportunity, at least, to ask stuart haffenden, Rhubarb, possibly Xum, and anyone else reading this thread who likes hexes: Why? Why do you like hexes better than squares?
Not to throw simplicity into the equation, but for other than the math-obsessed, is there much reason to go beyond the "a square is a square is a square" notion? Yes, the rules may dictate diagonals are extra-mathy, but do we really feel the need to follow this? If the monsters move on a "1 square equals 1 square" basis, and so do the PCs, how does it actually matter?
Sheesh, we're more comfortable with flying, flame-breathing dragons than imagining that math isn't the most important aspect of the game.
Because it means that moving diagonally is moving physically faster then someone of the same speed but moving in line with the squares. This can have an impact on the combat. For instance. The PC's and the baddy need to get to a specific point to snatch up important widget X. The bad guy is 30ft north of the PCs. Widget X is 30ft East of the PCs. If you have all squares are 5 feat and dont have the 1- 2 - 1 rule for diagonal movement, the bad guy will reach widget X in the same amount of movement as the PC's even though the PCs are actually closer.
This sort of thing can also come up when people are trying run away, protect someone/something, or other situations where speed and movement are important.
|
|
I can come up with some examples where it would matter. If you're in the center of a wall of fog and need to run out, it's faster to run the diagnols if you're not penalizing running the diagnals
If you are going to ignore raw and make diagonal travel = straight line travel, you have to adjust area affects to match as well. This eliminates the issue you descrbe. A fireball essentially becomes a fire square. Visually not a great representation, but mechanically, it works very well.
|
|
Not to throw simplicity into the equation, but for other than the math-obsessed, is there much reason to go beyond the "a square is a square is a square" notion? Yes, the rules may dictate diagonals are extra-mathy, but do we really feel the need to follow this? If the monsters move on a "1 square equals 1 square" basis, and so do the PCs, how does it actually matter?
Sheesh, we're more comfortable with flying, flame-breathing dragons than imagining that math isn't the most important aspect of the game.
The OP asked which was the 'correct' way.
I actually couldn't care less either way, if a group wanted to play diagonals were 5' then it's not going to do anything horrible to the game. The thing is everyone in the group needs to be on the same page. If one person plays it one way and the rest the other then it's not fair.
You know, I always wished I could ask Steve Jackson this question... and now I have the opportunity, at least, to ask stuart haffenden, Rhubarb, possibly Xum, and anyone else reading this thread who likes hexes: Why? Why do you like hexes better than squares?
My answer: because it works so much better than squares!
I didn't get the point you made a few posts up; there isn't that much of a loss of distance by counting in a jagged line, and if there is, it probably isn't worst than the approximation of the 1-2-1-2 count when moving diagonally on a square grid.
As for architecture, that's a point that I can buy. I prefer putting emphasis on movement rather than ease of drawing a rectangle. As for the half hexes on the side of a wall, it isn't worst than drawing a round tower or an irregular cave wall on a square grid.
Human architectures, especially medieval and fantasy architecture, have a lot of towers and curved walls. Traditionally, D&D architectures are drawn with strait walls and 90 degrees angle because designers conceive their dungeons using a square grid, so we see less curves and round towers then we perhaps should.
I think than in the end, its a matter of preferences; those who prefer to emphasize movement will prefer hexes, those putting emphasis on (rectangular) architecture will prefer squares...
My answer: because it works so much better than squares!
You know, I always wished I could ask Steve Jackson this question... and now I have the opportunity, at least, to ask stuart haffenden, Rhubarb, possibly Xum, and anyone else reading this thread who likes hexes: Why? Why do you like hexes better than squares?
Again, I ask: why? Why do hexes work better than squares? Or to put that another way, HOW are hexes better than squares?
I didn't get the point you made a few posts up; there isn't that much of a loss of distance by counting in a jagged line, and if there is, it probably isn't worst than the approximation of the 1-2-1-2 count when moving diagonally on a square grid.
True, going 2-1-2-1 is no worse than going 1-2-1-2. Neither is it better. So again, why are hexes better?
As for architecture, that's a point that I can buy. I prefer putting emphasis on movement rather than ease of drawing a rectangle. As for the half hexes on the side of a wall, it isn't worst than drawing a round tower or an irregular cave wall on a square grid.
True. When drawing a round tower, squares are no better than hexes. Neither are they worse. But rectangular buildings, and rectangular rooms in any buildings, are easier with squares than hexes. So again, unless you're dealing with bee-architecture (say, in an adventure with the aforementioned Abeils or Menoptera,) I don't see any advantage of hexes over squares.
I think than in the end, its a matter of preferences; those who prefer to emphasize movement will prefer hexes, those putting emphasis on (rectangular) architecture will prefer squares...
But again, I don't see the advantage of hex-delineation over square-delineation, even for movement purposes. Is it simply because you'll get accurate distances in SIX directions instead of FOUR, and six is more than four? If that's the reasoning, then I'm afraid I'm not convinced. Six is still a small number. And if you want truly accurate distances - as you typically would with a large-scale, overland map, you would probably use a ruler... which would explain why overland maps these days typically have NO delineation at all.
Interestingly, you can get some strange mechanics if you rule that all diagonals are 5'.
A. First consider this simple diagram as a 3x3 section of squares on a battlegrid. You are at u, next to an Enemy E, and you want to move directly behind him to x. Note that it takes 15' to move behind your enemy no matter which way you go.
- - x
- E -
u - -
B. Now imagine the following 9 squares on a battlegrid. According to RAW, this takes also 15' of move (5' for first diagonal, 10' for second diagonal -or- you could move 5' up, 5' right, then 5' diagonally behind, either way it's 15')
- - -
uEx
- - -
But if you rule all diagonals are 5', then it's only 10' to move behind your enemy. It seems strange to me that in both cases you are adjacent to your enemy and wish to move directly behind him, but the distance is not the same even the shorties can tumble from u to x in a single move action.
It's even more strange if you consider tumbling to avoid an AoO. By RAW, the taller races can tumble in both A and B, but the shorter races cannot (or they take a penalty for moving fast). But if you rule that diagonal movement is always 5', then even the shorties can tumble behind their enemy, but only if their enemy is N, E, S, or W. Shorties cannot tumble past an enemy who stands NE, SE, SW, or NW from them.
Weird, eh?
Now consider this oddity. Suppose you are on this larger section of a battlemat. You are at U, and you need to move to x, but your enemy (E) is in the way.
u - -E- - x
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - y - - -
By RAW, there is no way to get from u to x without provoking an AoO (assuming you move 30'). But, if you houserule that all diagonals are just 5', then you could move to position y in 15' then from there to position x in another 15', for a total of 30', and you won't provoke an AoO from the Enemy at E (assuming it doesn't have reach).
So, maybe none of this really matters very much. It's just a game.
To me, however, as an engineer and a professional chess player, I see this kind of stuff instantly, and I know just how to "game the system" if I need to. Ultimately, "gamist" stuff like this breaks my immersion in the game (I know, ironic, huh?), which is why I prefer the 1-2-1-2 rule, and why I houseruled it back in for 4e when I played that system.
Same thing.
Flying creatures have 3 coordinates (instead of 2) take the difference between them in each and look at the 2 highest. Take the highest and add 1/2 the second highest. That will be the distance.
Not that this doesn't work rather well, but I thought I would point out that there is a difference between a "flat" diagonal" and a 3-d diagonal (if "up" from a 2d diagonal). One is ~1.4 squares, the other is ~1.7. Both approximate to 1.5 decently well though.
More complicated is this + half-speed rising, double-speed falling.
Two words: Holy. Crap.
James Maissen, that is a damn fascinating answer! I wouldn't have the brains to come up with an answer like that.
Not that I'm convinced, of course. It may be APPROPRIATE to allow someone to escape a diagonal-flank more easily, since diagonally-flankers are technically further away from the flankee than sideways-flankers. They're 7.07 feet away, instead of 5 feet.
And I strongly doubt that it's the reason why the advocates of the hexagon are saying that it's better.
But it's an interesting answer all the same.
And by the way, all this talk of 3-dimensional distance computation brings out one advantage of square maps over hexes. Cubes of the same size all fit together. Hexes simply don't work that way.
Granted, that argument is rather academic. A more practical advantage of squares is this: A square or rectangle can consist of smaller squares - hence, ease of mapping. What shape do you have when you put many hexes together? A mess. So hex maps aren't even practical with bee-architecture.
|
|
Two words: Holy. Crap.
James Maissen, that is a damn fascinating answer! I wouldn't have the brains to come up with an answer like that.
Not that I'm convinced, of course. It may be APPROPRIATE to allow someone to escape a diagonal-flank more easily, since diagonally-flankers are technically further away from the flankee than sideways-flankers. They're 7.07 feet away, instead of 5 feet.
Except how realistic is that? Are you really going to stand a different distance away if you are in one place than another? That's the whole point.
And I strongly doubt that it's the reason why the advocates of the hexagon are saying that it's better.
There are a lot of reasons the hex is better, it's not so much a single thing as it is the sum of things. Movement, flanking, modeling any shape other than a square... it's not really one thing, just all of it together.
Granted, that argument is rather academic. A more practical advantage of squares is this: A square or rectangle can consist of smaller squares - hence, ease of mapping. What shape do you have when you put many hexes together? A mess. So hex maps aren't even practical with bee-architecture.
If everywhere you go is a square building then this is true. If you go into forests, fields, caverns, round buildings, triangular buildings, hexagonal buildings... for pretty much anything other than a boxy dungeon the hex models more closely than the square.
|
James is this right?
Imagine a wizard at square 0,0,0 (x,y,z). He wants to determine the range to a target flying on square 3, 4, 5. In essence this target is 15 feet east (+3 x squares), 20 feet north (+4 y squares), and 25 feet up (+5 z squares).
To calculate the distance from wizard to target exactly, you propose I consider the two largest distances (20 feet N, and 25 feet up).
So using your formula, the highest distance is 25 feet (the altitude). The second highest distance is 20 feet (distance north). 25 feet + 0.5*20 feet comes to 35 feet. Is that correct?
Pretty much.
The distance along the x-y plane is the hypoteneuse of a Pythagorean triangle, with sides 3-4-5.So the horizontal distance would be 5 squares, if you wanted to stand under him.
Since the vertical distance is also 5 squares, the actual path in 3 dimensions forms a right-angled triangle with sides of 5-5-square root of 50.
Which is close as dammit to 7 squares, aka 35 feet.
And it works for any combination of 3, 4 and 5, in directions x, y and z.
My answer: because it works so much better than squares!
You know, I always wished I could ask Steve Jackson this question... and now I have the opportunity, at least, to ask stuart haffenden, Rhubarb, possibly Xum, and anyone else reading this thread who likes hexes: Why? Why do you like hexes better than squares?Again, I ask: why? Why do hexes work better than squares? Or to put that another way, HOW are hexes better than squares?
Because the hexagon is the optimal regular shape to fill a surface. The most optimal shape would be a circle (all edges are at equal distance from its centre) but you can't fill a surface with circles without 'holes' in between. Squeeze the circles together so that no 'holes' are left and you get a hex grid. That's why they naturally happen in nature such as in snow flakes, basalt formations and off course, beehive honeycombs: its the most ergonomic construction.
As far as gameplay is concerned, 6 directions is better than 4, for reasons that have been explained above. How better than 4? Well that's a matter of taste I guess. There are enough mathematical argument in favor of the hex grid, whether you like it or not is a different story. The game work well enough under the assumption of a square grid. I personally prefer hexes, unless they imply some kind of witch or something...
|
Flying isn't really all that hard either. I always have a spare pad of graph paper handy to draw out a quick sketch of the z axis if my players can't grasp it, though the new fly rules make things a ton easier than 3.5's flying rules. It helps I always scored off the charts in spatial relations tests.
--Vrocktoberfest
It's really rather elegantly simple (longest + half second). Even 5,5,5 is only off by 1 square (7.5 by formule, 8.6 actual).
Pretty much.
The distance along the x-y plane is the hypoteneuse of a Pythagorean triangle, with sides 3-4-5.
So the horizontal distance would be 5 squares, if you wanted to stand under him.
Since the vertical distance is also 5 squares, the actual path in 3 dimensions forms a right-angled triangle with sides of 5-5-square root of 50.
Which is close as dammit to 7 squares, aka 35 feet.And it works for any combination of 3, 4 and 5, in directions x, y and z.
The distance from any point to another, in any number of dimensions, is the square root of the sum of the squares of the differences in each dimension.
2d: a^2 + b^2 = c^2
3d: x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = d^2
1d: a^2 = a^2
4d: ... etc.