Diagonal Movement Dispute, Friendship at Risk

[Spermy The Cat]

Would you help me settle a fight with a friend.

He says that moving diagonally is the same as moving in a straight line. I say it alternates from five to ten, five to ten, repeating.

Which is it, and where explicitly does it say so?

[Weirdo]

Core Rulebook p193 wrote:

Diagonals: When measuring distance, the first diagonal counts as 1 square, the second counts as 2 squares, the third counts as 1, the fourth as 2, and so on.

[Istelyn]

You are correct... your friend is unfortunately wrong. Core Rulebook 193

[Spermy The Cat]

Weirdo wrote:

Core Rulebook p193 wrote:

Diagonals: When measuring distance, the first diagonal counts as 1 square, the second counts as 2 squares, the third counts as 1, the fourth as 2, and so on.

Just for clarification, what if you move diagonally, then straight, then diagonally again? Is it 5-5-5 or 5-5-10?

E: "Which printing?"

[Thaine]

5-5-10

Diagonals alternate between 5 and 10 whether they are taken in order or not.

[Spermy The Cat]

Thaine wrote:

5-5-10

Diagonals alternate between 5 and 10 whether they are taken in order or not.

To quote:

"Which printing? There are six."

[Weirdo]

Not sure what printing I've got. I think they do try to make sure the page numbers line up so it should be the same page regardless.

In any case look in the combat chapter under Movement, Position and Distance; Measuring Distance; Diagonals.

EDIT: By the way, this is a very silly thing to risk a friendship for.

[Thaine]

Spermy The Cat wrote:

Thaine wrote:

5-5-10

Diagonals alternate between 5 and 10 whether they are taken in order or not.

To quote:

"Which printing? There are six."

Mine's first. Here is the online rule quote.

[Gisher]

It's on page 193 for my 6th printing pdf. It's here on the PRD as well.

[Serisan]

Diagonal movement has not changed since first printing. I don't think it's a change from 3.5, either.

[aboyd]

To be fair, in D&D 5th edition, they did away with the 5-10 diagonals. Everything is just 5' movement. Maybe this person's friend is thinking of that.

[Spermy The Cat]

Ok, so we just talked on the phone, and it turns out we had...a miscommunication. The last time we played, I told him the movement stacks regardless of sequence. He interpreted that as the feet used, not the squares.

So I said 5-10-5, and he thought I said 5-10-15. He says "it's still a dumb holdover from earlier D&D because it breaks the game anyways."

I'm...annoyed.

[Serisan]

Spermy The Cat wrote:

Ok, so we just talked on the phone, and it turns out we had...a miscommunication. The last time we played, I told him the movement stacks regardless of sequence. He interpreted that as the feet used, not the squares.

So I said 5-10-5, and he thought I said 5-10-15. He says "it's still a dumb holdover from earlier D&D because it breaks the game anyways."

I'm...annoyed.

Squares are a bad holdover. Diagonal movement rules keep you from having interior spherical maps due to distance traveled diagonally curving "up" when every square is 5'.

[Grimmy]

I can't tell you how many friends I've lost over this same issue. I used to have so much love in my life, now I am all alone.

Spoiler:

just kidding. seriously though, try to keep things in perspective.

[Kobold Catgirl]

We never would have worked out anyways, Grimmy. But you thinking diagonals each counted as 7.5 feet? That was low. Even for you. I couldn't take that kind of sick, twisted betrayal.

[Claxon]

I've killed a man for less. Approximately 2.5 feet less.

[Nefreet]

It's also apparently easy to lose respect when calculating jump DCs.

[Sad TOZ]

:(

[mardaddy]

Sad TOZ is sad.

[Krodjin]

Grimmy wrote:

I can't tell you how many friends I've lost over this same issue. I used to have so much love in my life, now I am all alone.

** spoiler omitted **

I'm on my 3rd marriage thanks to these damn diagonals.

[Electric Bacon]

I always felt hex maps made more sense.

[GlennH]

Wait until you try to calculate 3 dimensional movement of a flying creature who is ascending or descending.

[Saethori]

Electric Bacon wrote:

I always felt hex maps made more sense.

We aren't friends anymore.

I mean, we weren't friends before, I never met you before now, but this, this... you overstepped the lines of our friendship that I didn't know we had before but certainly don't have now.

(But yeah, diagonals are tricky, but so are hexes if you don't have appropriate maps)

[Nefreet]

Personally, I'm a fan of 90° angles.

[Umbral Reaver]

From now on player characters must move directly forward until they hit an obstacle, then may turn 90° left or right.

[Saethori]

For an alternate rule, party members can only move in either straight cardinal directions, diagonal intercardinal directions, or awkward L shapes, depending on class.

[Komoda]

Umbral Reaver wrote:

From now on player characters must move directly forward until they hit an obstacle, then may turn 90° left or right.

But not up or down.

[Darrell Impey UK]

No, no, no. Only clerics can turn.

(sorry)

[DM Livgin]

At the start of the game each player draws a random chess piece, that is their move set.

[Benjamin Medrano]

I used to use a measuring tape, and characters could move that far, squares be darned.

I've grown lazy, and use squares now. >_<

[Mulgar]

aboyd wrote:

To be fair, in D&D 5th edition, they did away with the 5-10 diagonals. Everything is just 5' movement. Maybe this person's friend is thinking of that.

Dang, i'd so take advantage of that. The only fair way to make all movement 5 feet is a hexagonal grid.

But yeah you are right

[Galnörag]

Mulgar wrote:

aboyd wrote:

To be fair, in D&D 5th edition, they did away with the 5-10 diagonals. Everything is just 5' movement. Maybe this person's friend is thinking of that.

Dang, i'd so take advantage of that. The only fair way to make all movement 5 feet is a hexagonal grid.

But yeah you are right

The change in diagonals was introduced in 4e,and continued into 5.

[Goth Guru]

Not being able to move past a corner, even a 5 foot step, seems incomplete. Shouldn't it be, if there is a foe in the corner, moving past the corner provokes an AOO?

[Byakko]

Mulgar wrote:

aboyd wrote:

To be fair, in D&D 5th edition, they did away with the 5-10 diagonals. Everything is just 5' movement. Maybe this person's friend is thinking of that.

Dang, i'd so take advantage of that. The only fair way to make all movement 5 feet is a hexagonal grid.

But yeah you are right

Pity about most of the advanced world liking to use rectangular structures in their buildings.

Hex grids also are slightly unfair when comparing N/S movement to E/W.

[Saethori]

Byakko wrote:

Mulgar wrote:

aboyd wrote:

To be fair, in D&D 5th edition, they did away with the 5-10 diagonals. Everything is just 5' movement. Maybe this person's friend is thinking of that.

Dang, i'd so take advantage of that. The only fair way to make all movement 5 feet is a hexagonal grid.

But yeah you are right

Pity about most of the advanced world liking to use rectangular structures in their buildings.

Hex grids also are slightly unfair when comparing N/S movement to E/W.

And this... is my precise aversion to hex grids. A lot of what goes on in campaigns I GM tend to involve buildings of some sort, and more combat occurs in structures than out of them.

I could just switch between as the party gets involved in urban vs outdoor, but I think that would just get incredibly complicated and disorienting.

[Krodjin]

Look, we can dance around this all day. The only question that matters is: how do I convince my GF to accept the measurement of my junk that was made on a diagonal?

It's an easy 8 when every second inch counts as two.

Ba-dum ching!

I'll be here all week, try the veal!

[zainale]

each squire is an inch right? if its going to ruin your friendship time to bust out the measuring tape and start playing with it. remember you still have to go around stuff in your way.

[pH unbalanced]

Saethori wrote:

Byakko wrote:

Mulgar wrote:

aboyd wrote:

To be fair, in D&D 5th edition, they did away with the 5-10 diagonals. Everything is just 5' movement. Maybe this person's friend is thinking of that.

Dang, i'd so take advantage of that. The only fair way to make all movement 5 feet is a hexagonal grid.

But yeah you are right

Pity about most of the advanced world liking to use rectangular structures in their buildings.

Hex grids also are slightly unfair when comparing N/S movement to E/W.

And this... is my precise aversion to hex grids. A lot of what goes on in campaigns I GM tend to involve buildings of some sort, and more combat occurs in structures than out of them.

I could just switch between as the party gets involved in urban vs outdoor, but I think that would just get incredibly complicated and disorienting.

Which is essentially how they did it in 1st edition, since all the indoor maps were in squares and the outdoor maps in hexes.

Back when all distances were in inches, but an inch was 10 ft indoors and 30 ft outdoors.

I prefer hexes as well, but I've learned to roll with squares just fine.
In my home games I run with the house rule that "Geometry always wins."

[Snowlilly]

Krodjin wrote:

Grimmy wrote:

I can't tell you how many friends I've lost over this same issue. I used to have so much love in my life, now I am all alone.

** spoiler omitted **

I'm on my 3rd marriage thanks to these damn diagonals.

A man should never allow a woman to measure him on the diagonal.

He always comes up short.

[Flashblade]

Spermy The Cat wrote:

DIAGONAL MOVEMENT DISPUTE, FRIENDSHIP AT RISK

Correct Answer: get better friends, ones who do not care so little for the value of your friendship that a disagreement about a fantasy tabletop roleplaying game puts that "friendship at risk".

[Khudzlin]

Snowlilly wrote:

A man should never allow a woman to measure him on the diagonal.

He always comes up short.

Indeed, counting every other diagonal as 2 squares is equivalent to approximating sqrt(2) with 1.5 (for ~1.414, so a ~6% error). And that's when staying on the same level. If you go 3d and use cubes, you have to think not only about crossing edges (the same as diagonals on the same level), but also about crossing vertices. The distance for that is sqrt(3) (1 being the edge length), so the best approximation is counting every second and third vertex-crossing as 2 squares. That gives you 1 (for ~1.732), 3 (for ~3.464) and 5 (for ~5.196), which yields a ~4% error the other way. Using hexes eliminates the rounding error, but opens up a whole new can of worms in 3d, since there are 2 ways to place a new level of hexes over the first one.

[Atarlost]

Mulgar wrote:

aboyd wrote:

To be fair, in D&D 5th edition, they did away with the 5-10 diagonals. Everything is just 5' movement. Maybe this person's friend is thinking of that.

Dang, i'd so take advantage of that. The only fair way to make all movement 5 feet is a hexagonal grid.

But yeah you are right

Hexagons are not circles.

Any movement rule is fair if the distance metric is consistent.

Pathfinder isn't. Spell area templates use Pythagorean Distance. Movement made over successive 5' steps uses Chebychev distance. Movement made in a single round uses a horrible bastardization of Chebychev and Manhattan distance.

odd diagonal doubled movement is possibly the worst thing you can do. A halfling moving travels farther diagonally in 3 turns than a human does in 2 because each turn starts counting at 5'.