WotC rejects the tyranny of Euclidean Geometery

[RandomCasualty]

1202653675[/unixtime]]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.

Yeah, you're right actually. I hadn't even though of that. Well that makes things easier anyway then. It's now alot easier to calculate if someone gets hit by a fireball that's elevated 20 ft ff the ground. So long as his altitude is less than the radius of the fireball, he gets hit if he's in the area. That's actually plain and easy.

And I agree with K, measuring shit with rulers takes forever. I hate that shit.

It'd not bad if you decide what you're going to do and then measure, but if you try different movement paths and AoEs and such, it takes forever.

[K]

1202680907[/unixtime]]I like how 95% of the time, this rule change makes no difference to anyone whatsoever.

Well, I generally find that every rule change actually makes it easier for someone to adopt a homebrew rule.

I mean, now that diagonal movement counts as one, its not even hard to convince someone to change their game to hex maps.

[JonSetanta]

1202687819[/unixtime]]
I mean, now that diagonal movement counts as one, its not even hard to convince someone to change their game to hex maps.

Depends on the gamer.
There will always be a certain portion of RPGers that avoids hex maps by personal taste. And the world spins on.

[Ice9]

The realism, or lack thereof, may not be that noticable in most games, but the significant, visible effect it has on movement tactics will be rather hard to ignore.

In short, any group that wants to defend their back line types like mages and archers can do it twice as well if they're aligned diagonally to the foes instead of orthagonally. Conversely, an all-melee group is much better off orthagonally aligned.

The result of this? Most battles start with the two sides quickly shifting in a diagonal alignment, or jockeying sideways for position. In a large open area where the sides see each-other coming, they could end up veering quite a distance sideways as they moved in to engage. Also, if someone is retreating, and has a choice of diagonal or orthagonal hallway, diagonal is twice as good a choice.

And I don't buy that people won't do this. Similar to the "pretty princess dress-up" issue with per/day items, it may look stupid, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.


And while many people may not use a square grid, that has no bearing on whether this is a good rule or not. If you aren't using a square grid, the 1.5 square rule didn't have an effect either, so this doesn't make things any easier for you.

[Username17]

In short, any group that wants to defend their back line types like mages and archers can do it twice as well if they're aligned diagonally to the foes instead of orthagonally. Conversely, an all-melee group is much better off orthagonally aligned.

This is not true. With 1 square = Diagonals you are the same diagonally as orthagonally. You have a "front" of three squares either way. They just happen to be up, right, and up-right instead of up, up-left, and up-right.

When diagonals are somehow special, the frontage is different, but if you count diagonals as one-for-one then it's even steven. The thing you lose is having the measured distance on the board have a one-for-one correspondence with actual in-game distance. Think Polar Coordinates.

-Username17

[Fwib]

...and Fireballs become Firecubes

[Ice9]

You have a "front" of three squares either way. They just happen to be up, right, and up-right instead of up, up-left, and up-right.

The front is the same, but the distance to reach it is greater. You've got your "wall" of defenders, its width depending on how many there are and whether they have reach weapons, and then you have the mages/archers behind it. If the "wall" is aligned orthagonally, attackers can just detour around it by moving diagonally, avoiding AoOs without even being slowed down. If the "wall" is aligned diagonally, they have to move orthagonally for the same effect, taking twice as many squares of movement.

[Diagram to be added later today]

[RandomCasualty]

1202732716[/unixtime]]
When diagonals are somehow special, the frontage is different, but if you count diagonals as one-for-one then it's even steven. The thing you lose is having the measured distance on the board have a one-for-one correspondence with actual in-game distance. Think Polar Coordinates.

Yeah, it's one reason that all the 4E stuff is in squares and not in feet.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

Hah! People align themselves? Laughable concept.

Our battles start with:
1 - the mage/wizard-type (who will usually win initiative) will fly up, go invisible, gain displacement, or other fairly defensive ability (Vertigo Field, Blinding Color Surge, Slow, flying boots, etc.)
2 - the thief/Jester will put himself within Sneak Attack/Scorching Ray range and let go a decent attack
3 - the Knight/Barbarian/melee type will rush to the enemy that looks most like he will hit the thief-type
4 - the enemies go, confronted with 1 clear target, 1 secondary target, 1 target that has not acted, and one target that is out of range, invisible, or otherwise difficult to hit. Stupid enemies hit the clear target, smarter enemies may avoid the AoOs and for for the thief-type (who typically has decent AC anyways), and only experienced adventuring-party style enemies will target the spellcaster.
5 - The cleric-type (who inevitably loses initiative) will do something that is situationally dependent. This may be a Heal-type spell, a FlameStrike, a solid buff, Dismissal, Dispel enemy magic, blow up undead, or defend the thief-type by moving over and attacking.