WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
Moderator: Moderators
WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
Hat tip to Imban for this.
To get the least funny news out of the way-
- Cone effects are gone (Not sure about this)
- HP is no longer rolled (Yay!)
Now for the funny news (to me)
- Moving diagonally is a square only, not 1.5
Now, while this is meant to make movement on a grid easier, it's still funny. I for one, welcome WotC back to the denying geometry fold.
To get the least funny news out of the way-
- Cone effects are gone (Not sure about this)
- HP is no longer rolled (Yay!)
Now for the funny news (to me)
- Moving diagonally is a square only, not 1.5
Now, while this is meant to make movement on a grid easier, it's still funny. I for one, welcome WotC back to the denying geometry fold.
- the_taken
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 830
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Lost in the Sea of Awesome
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
That is so fvcked up. It's like strafe running in an FPS, but stupider cause it takes the same amount of time to run to the corner of a square room than either of the sidesl. Fvcked up.
I had a signature here once but I've since lost it.
My current project: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=56456
My current project: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=56456
-
- Prince
- Posts: 3506
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
I can deal with the removal of the 1.5 diagonal move. I always though it was pointless anyway and counting the 1.5s got real annoying. The Saga 2x rule was the worst though. I think I can live with 1. Thats easy to work with and in the sense of a game doesnt make much difference Another nice thing is that it means airborne targets just add the elevation to the range, which is much easier than trying to calculate the distance for someone shooting a bow at a flying dragon.
- CatharzGodfoot
- King
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: North Carolina
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1202598356[/unixtime]]Another nice thing is that it means airborne targets just add the elevation to the range, which is much easier than trying to calculate the distance for someone shooting a bow at a flying dragon.
It means absolutely nothing for hitting airborne targets.
Squares are just plain dumb. If you aren't using a board, they don't exist in any meaningful way. If you are using a board, you can just measure the distance yourself.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
The 1.5 was just annoying, honestly. It was a bad move to retain maps on grids when you could just move to hexes if you want that granularity.
The hypotenuse of a right triangle with sides on the right being equal to one isn't one point five. (It's 1.41)
Besides, it just gets annoying counting the halvesies when you're going around obstacles.
-Crissa
The hypotenuse of a right triangle with sides on the right being equal to one isn't one point five. (It's 1.41)
Besides, it just gets annoying counting the halvesies when you're going around obstacles.
-Crissa
- Desdan_Mervolam
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 985
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
Hexes are better than squares for diagonal movement only in certain directions. If you're not moving in directions that hexes find efficent, you may as well be using squares. Catharz is right, if you want to use minis, use measuring tape to decide move distance.
-Desdan
-Desdan
Don't bother trying to impress gamers. They're too busy trying to impress you to care.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 562
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
Just like 3.5 Power Attack. They gave 2x for two handers instead of 1.5, and no PA for light weaopns instead of .5. They changed it so its easier, but also less balanced. At least this is just as easy to houserule like 3.5 Power Attack was.
There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1202599446[/unixtime]]The 1.5 was just annoying, honestly. It was a bad move to retain maps on grids when you could just move to hexes if you want that granularity.
The hypotenuse of a right triangle with sides on the right being equal to one isn't one point five. (It's 1.41)
Besides, it just gets annoying counting the halvesies when you're going around obstacles.
-Crissa
Yeh, I've always been a hex fan myself.
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
I've always been a Makai Kingdom fan, without grids of any variety. People threaten a 5' radius circle around them, for instance.
Of course, I also rarely bother with minis or anything and just use the rule of "Whatever".
Of course, I also rarely bother with minis or anything and just use the rule of "Whatever".
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
Considering me (or Imban) run our D&D games online, it'll only be relevant if we use MapTool or such a like tool.
... but still, I'm just amused.
... but still, I'm just amused.
-
- King
- Posts: 6403
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
Big fat squares for the win. (or anything resembling them).
Or at the very least free vector based movement and ranges.
How hard is it to use a fricking measure? Its standard fare in table top miniatures games...
Or at the very least free vector based movement and ranges.
How hard is it to use a fricking measure? Its standard fare in table top miniatures games...
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
Phonelobster's Latest RPG Rule Set
The world's most definitive Star Wars Saga Edition Review
That Time I reviewed D20Modern Classes
Stories from Phonelobster's ridiculous life about local gaming stores, board game clubs and brothels
Australia is a horror setting thread
Phonelobster's totally legit history of the island of Malta
The utterly infamous Our Favourite Edition Is 2nd Edition thread
The world's most definitive Star Wars Saga Edition Review
That Time I reviewed D20Modern Classes
Stories from Phonelobster's ridiculous life about local gaming stores, board game clubs and brothels
Australia is a horror setting thread
Phonelobster's totally legit history of the island of Malta
The utterly infamous Our Favourite Edition Is 2nd Edition thread
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
I'm cool with squares being 1 movement, as thats how I play it at the moment. I'm not looking for simulationist efficiency from the game. If I cared, I'd get a hex grid and a bit of handwaving.
- JonSetanta
- King
- Posts: 5525
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: interbutts
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I don't see how declaring movement 'changed' has actually changed anything.
Most player's I've met, and I've met a lot, never use grids, and the grognards that do will probably ignore that new rule.
Rolling HP is for idiots. Some insist on doing so only because they feel lucky, that they can get an edge over their fellows, but then bitch and moan when "1" and "2" come up for more than half their levels.
What's even worse is when a DM won't even let a player take average HP for each level; it's a sign of an inexperienced DM chock full of assumptions and you're better off joining a different group or not playing at all.
And cones have always sucked, I hate calculating who gets hit nearest the point of origin. Rather just write "area attack" and it could be an orb, a cone, a spiral, a bunch of squares, anything.. it hits more than one target and that's whats important. Fancy shapes mean bullshit in a dynamic abstract environment.
When I play an RPG, I don't want an algebra session to triangulate trajectories (or was that trigonometry? I barely passed it all anyway)
In fact, I might begin an attempt to redesign how distance is measured in an RPG in a 'fuzzy math' sense, one of relative distances rather than absolute.
For instance, a Close range is worse than a Medium is worse than a Long, and no numbers would be assigned. Encounter distance would be determined within those parameters.
And I know about the Big Squares idea but the concept should be taken to the fullest extent.
Most player's I've met, and I've met a lot, never use grids, and the grognards that do will probably ignore that new rule.
Rolling HP is for idiots. Some insist on doing so only because they feel lucky, that they can get an edge over their fellows, but then bitch and moan when "1" and "2" come up for more than half their levels.
What's even worse is when a DM won't even let a player take average HP for each level; it's a sign of an inexperienced DM chock full of assumptions and you're better off joining a different group or not playing at all.
And cones have always sucked, I hate calculating who gets hit nearest the point of origin. Rather just write "area attack" and it could be an orb, a cone, a spiral, a bunch of squares, anything.. it hits more than one target and that's whats important. Fancy shapes mean bullshit in a dynamic abstract environment.
When I play an RPG, I don't want an algebra session to triangulate trajectories (or was that trigonometry? I barely passed it all anyway)
In fact, I might begin an attempt to redesign how distance is measured in an RPG in a 'fuzzy math' sense, one of relative distances rather than absolute.
For instance, a Close range is worse than a Medium is worse than a Long, and no numbers would be assigned. Encounter distance would be determined within those parameters.
And I know about the Big Squares idea but the concept should be taken to the fullest extent.
The Adventurer's Almanac wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pmNobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
Because grids/hexes are easier than measuring. Honestly. It's really a matter of simplicity.
Normally, I've never actually used a mat at all, until gaming here in the bay. Measured ranged are best for when you're not using minis, but once you are... You need to choose a tolerance of level in the beginning, else you have what is within this mm or no?
The Big Squares is a good idea, but works best with diagonals being equal to 1.
-Crissa
Normally, I've never actually used a mat at all, until gaming here in the bay. Measured ranged are best for when you're not using minis, but once you are... You need to choose a tolerance of level in the beginning, else you have what is within this mm or no?
The Big Squares is a good idea, but works best with diagonals being equal to 1.
-Crissa
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
If you are going to use squares at all, you should allow people to go from one square to another at a cost of 1 square. It's better geometry.
There isn't any such thing as half a square of movement. There seriously isn't. You move from one square to another and it either costs you one square of movement or it costs you two squares of movement. It can't cost you some fractional square of movement because you don't keep track of fractional squares.
If you count a diagonal as one square then the distance between you and your target is the largest of the distance along the X axis and the distance along the Y axis. If you count a diagonal as two squares then the distance between you and your target is the distance along the X axis plus the distance along the Y axis. In "reality" the distance between you and another point is the square root of the summed squares of the X distance and the Y axis distance. And you know what? That's closer to the first option than the second!.
If the X axis distance is 3 and the Y axis distance is 4, the true distance is five. And if you add the X and Y axis together you get 7 (2 off) and if you just use the larger axal difference you get 4 (1 off).
And if you alternate 1 and 2 for a diagonal, then some characters will end up paying the lower distance and some will end up paying a higher price, and that's even more unbalanced and retarded than the other options.
-Username17
There isn't any such thing as half a square of movement. There seriously isn't. You move from one square to another and it either costs you one square of movement or it costs you two squares of movement. It can't cost you some fractional square of movement because you don't keep track of fractional squares.
If you count a diagonal as one square then the distance between you and your target is the largest of the distance along the X axis and the distance along the Y axis. If you count a diagonal as two squares then the distance between you and your target is the distance along the X axis plus the distance along the Y axis. In "reality" the distance between you and another point is the square root of the summed squares of the X distance and the Y axis distance. And you know what? That's closer to the first option than the second!.
If the X axis distance is 3 and the Y axis distance is 4, the true distance is five. And if you add the X and Y axis together you get 7 (2 off) and if you just use the larger axal difference you get 4 (1 off).
And if you alternate 1 and 2 for a diagonal, then some characters will end up paying the lower distance and some will end up paying a higher price, and that's even more unbalanced and retarded than the other options.
-Username17
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
Taking your example, someone accepting the yoke of Euclidean geometry for their game will get exactly 5 "squares" - what gives?
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
Bigode at [unixtime wrote:1202650236[/unixtime]]Taking your example, someone accepting the yoke of Euclidean geometry for their game will get exactly 5 "squares" - what gives?
What, the yoke of actual Euclidean Geometry? The one where such a distance is genuinely calculated as 5? Sure. Bust out the measuring tape and take direct point to point distances. I've played enough war games to be down with that.
But the 3.5 bullshit with its half square notation counts differently depending on how you get there. Two 5' steps followed by a charge and it's 4 squares. A single double move and it eats up 5. And that's not OK. It's weird for the game to consistently report distances as high or low, but inconsistently reporting distances is flat unacceptable.
In 3.5 you can stand outside the threat range of a hill giant, and then take a 5' step in and be adjacent to him - but only if you move in "diagonally." WTF?!
And lest you think that the 1.5 diagonal is somehow "more accurate" - consider the example of an opponent who is 24 squares down the table and 7 squares to your left or right. The absolute true distance is 25.
-Username17
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
Actually, since going diagonally is just '1 square' the distance to an object in 3-D will be the greater of the distances in the X, Y and Z directions.RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1202598356[/unixtime]]I can deal with the removal of the 1.5 diagonal move. I always though it was pointless anyway and counting the 1.5s got real annoying. The Saga 2x rule was the worst though. I think I can live with 1. Thats easy to work with and in the sense of a game doesnt make much difference Another nice thing is that it means airborne targets just add the elevation to the range, which is much easier than trying to calculate the distance for someone shooting a bow at a flying dragon.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 948
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
We use hexes because they make more sense for everything. The 5' step thing across diagonals has always been retarded, even more so in games such as Fire Emblem when moving in a straight line (diagonally) costs you more movement than moving in straight, blocky lines.
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
How do hex-grids deal with 3-D?
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
Fwib at [unixtime wrote:1202658073[/unixtime]]How do hex-grids deal with 3-D?
Same way that square grids do.
Ain't nothing you can do about it, up is 90 degrees from whatever forward you choose.
-Username17
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
I'm not busting out tape. Combat takes long enough already even though its lasts 3-6 rounds. Doubling that time by making people measure is not a solution in any situation.
- Desdan_Mervolam
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 985
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
What are you talking about? It takes the same amount of time to measure out your movement distance than it does to count squares. Hell, less, since you just have to move the ruler a little to try a different path, but you have to count the squares again if you want to with squares.
-Desdan
-Desdan
Don't bother trying to impress gamers. They're too busy trying to impress you to care.
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
Desdan_Mervolam at [unixtime wrote:1202676527[/unixtime]]What are you talking about? It takes the same amount of time to measure out your movement distance than it does to count squares. Hell, less, since you just have to move the ruler a little to try a different path, but you have to count the squares again if you want to with squares.
-Desdan
Apparently our experiences differ. Every time I've seen someone try to measure a path with a ruler the game stops while they obscure the board with their ruler and try several paths on top of trying several paths for AoEs.
I just count squares and try paths in my head on someone else's turn. It takes no real time at all.
Re: WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery
I like how 95% of the time, this rule change makes no difference to anyone whatsoever. Let's see what has to happen in order for these rules to have an effect on tactical combat:
1. The players have to be using a square battle map instead of hexes, ruler and string, or some variant of Big Squares Method or the Vague Whiteboard Method.
2. A character wants to move diagonally for a distance that is exactly at the edge case of his maximum movement rate.
3. The orientation of the battle grid cannot be rotated to accommodate linear movement.
At this point, I think an insult for WotC would be redundant, so I'll hold my tongue.
1. The players have to be using a square battle map instead of hexes, ruler and string, or some variant of Big Squares Method or the Vague Whiteboard Method.
2. A character wants to move diagonally for a distance that is exactly at the edge case of his maximum movement rate.
3. The orientation of the battle grid cannot be rotated to accommodate linear movement.
At this point, I think an insult for WotC would be redundant, so I'll hold my tongue.