# Diagonal Movement - Better or Worse?



## vhailor (Sep 24, 2008)

I am new to D&D, but even I can see that the rules about diagonal movement are unacceptable.
We haven't started yet with my party, but the DM(old school) told us that we will use the old 1.5 distance diagonal rules.
Has anyone noticed any problems if we decide to go with the 1.5 distance rules?

Example:  If a character has speed 6(=30 feet), and uses his movement to move diagonal, he can cover SQRT(30*30+30*30)=42.43 feet, when in straight line he could cover only 30. That's almost 13 feet more than normal (almost half his speed).


----------



## Nebulous (Sep 24, 2008)

We use 1:1 per the rules and have no problem with it.  It's all just a simulation anyway, so we don't really care about the minutiae like that. Players move that way and so do monsters.


----------



## Foxman (Sep 24, 2008)

1) monsters have the same advantage as the players - so its a wash
2) the system is *designed* to use the 1:1 on the diag, you change that and there are numerous things that start to break down (lines don't go as far, blasts/bursts change shape, adventures designed with maps designed on the 1:1 ratio may be harder using the 1:1.5 ratio because movement is reduced, and MORE)
3) Using 1:1 *speeds up* play - it may be a simplification, but so are HP . Why? Easier to count distance for movement/spells/attacks, etc. 
4) Mobility, the game is designed to include more mobility, moving around and getting to do cool stuff, that gets cut down.

When I heard they were going to 1:1 I was annoyed and didnt like the idea. After using it, I think it works. Not a huge fan, but it does *work*. 

Its like the butterfly effect - change one small rule, and you have a mydrid of effects that change the whole game system that you need to adjust. If you adjust those, they have further effects. It just ripples out from there.


----------



## Mengu (Sep 24, 2008)

After 7 years of D&D 3.x, we still have players who can't move their own characters because they don't know how to count diagonals. going back to 1:1 is a huge blessing.

It took a bit of getting used to but firecubes instead of fireballs isn't that big of an issue either. The new way also makes determining areas a lot easier than counting out diagonals to determine how much of an area a 3.x critter with reach 20 on a 10x10 base is threatening.


----------



## James McMurray (Sep 24, 2008)

We use 1:1 and really like it. It's a lot faster, especially when you start having to calculate distances between creatures with different altitudes. Is it realistic? Not at all. But then again, it's D&D, so very little is going to be realistic.


----------



## James McMurray (Sep 24, 2008)

Mengu said:


> how much of an area a 3.x critter with reach 20 on a 10x10 base is threatening.




With or without a reach weapon?


----------



## Benimoto (Sep 24, 2008)

Count me as another player who fully understands how the 1.5 diagonal rules are superior, but uses the 1:1 rules just because they're faster and easier.

Which is more silly: that you can cover more distance moving diagonally than orthogonally or that every unencumbered member of a race has exactly the same movement speed?  They're both abstractions for the sake of the game.

But, I don't think there should be any problems if you go back to the old distance rules.  Like Foxman was saying, using the old method will reduce the size of burst/blasts, so you might want to adjust them so that they cover the same area, but are circular/cone shaped instead of square.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 24, 2008)

vhailor said:


> I am new to D&D, but even I can see that the rules about diagonal movement are unacceptable.
> We haven't started yet with my party, but the DM(old school) told us that we will use the old 1.5 distance diagonal rules.
> Has anyone noticed any problems if we decide to go with the 1.5 distance rules?
> 
> Example:  If a character has speed 6(=30 feet), and uses his movement to move diagonal, he can cover SQRT(30*30+30*30)=42.43 feet, when in straight line he could cover only 30. That's almost 13 feet more than normal (almost half his speed).



"Unacceptable" is a pretty strong word, but your group will always be the best judge of what's best for itself.

I don't think it breaks anything if you use 1-2-1-2 movement, areas, and ranges.  It will make it more _difficult_ to work with zones and ranges (both of which are more common in 4e than 3e), but if it's important enough to your group, it'll work out.

I'd strongly recommend making up some templates.  I don't think the wire  ones would work (I forget who manufactures them), since they have even-number measurements (going from corners) while 4e has odd-number measurements (going from a center square).

Finally, I'd suggest turning Blasts into Cones if you go this route, but YMMV.

None of those are particularly difficult changes, I think.  If your group doesn't mind the small bit of additional work, it should work out great.

We went ahead with the 1:1 4e default, and my players love it.  I love it too, since it makes my job just a tiny bit easier for the aforementioned area effects.

-O


----------



## KidSnide (Sep 24, 2008)

I didn't like the 1:1 rules when I first read about them either, but I love them in play.  Now all my players can quickly measure distance on the map.  Before, I used to get frustrated and counted out the distance for them.  

Also, a combat in 4e has a lot more rounds in it, and - because full attack doesn't eat up the move action - characters move in most of their rounds.  In 3e, counting diagonals wasn't so bad because you only had to do it a few times in a fight.  In 4e, the much higher amount of movement carries with it the need to calculate that movement faster.

-SS


----------



## Asmor (Sep 24, 2008)

The diagonal rules were the first (and, AFAICR, only) thing I heard about leading up to 4e that I disliked (yeah, I was a f4nboy from the beginning ). I had all the same issues as everyone else (maybe even moreso, I'm a math major!).

But I decided to give it a try and it really does speed up game play. A lot.

Is it right for you? I dunno. But give it a try before you decide not to use it. At least then you'll know for sure that it doesn't work for you.

Personally, I wish they'd sidestep the whole issue and just go with hexes.


----------



## Ander00 (Sep 24, 2008)

I was considering houseruling the old distance rules back in, but after actually using the new rules for a while, I quite like them.

If you want to change things, it shouldn't really be a problem, but has your DM/group tried the rules in actual play yet? You may find that it doesn't take all that much getting used to, after all.


cheers


----------



## James McMurray (Sep 24, 2008)

Asmor said:


> Personally, I wish they'd sidestep the whole issue and just go with hexes.




Hexes make for very ugly rooms and corridors in dungeons. You're almost forced to end up with lots of half-hexes laying around.


----------



## taza (Sep 24, 2008)

If you're going to go with a 1.5 diagonal rule, you might want to consider moving to hex instead.  I'm considering house ruling hex spaces for a more realistic feel. Blasts translate particularly well, and as long as your players don't mind kind of wavy looking walls everything should be fine.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 24, 2008)

I hated the rule when I heard about it and declared I'd make it my first house rule, without even trying it.

Well, I did end up trying it for the one session of KotS we played.  The most rules-intensive player in my group, who I was sure would also hate the 1:1 movement, complained about pretty much everything except the 1:1 movement, which he actually praised pretty highly.  Everyone else just did it naturally and found it easier.

I think I still like 1:2 better, but it's not a big enough deal for me to worry about it.  Especially since I appear to be in an extreme minority.  It really ain't that bad.


----------



## Skyscraper (Sep 24, 2008)

1:1 is much better. Try it before you switch to 1:1.5

Sky


----------



## keterys (Sep 24, 2008)

1:1 movement is something that irks a lot of mathematically offended people... and for good reason.

My advice remains the same: play with it for several sessions. If you still object, change away. You may be pleasantly surprised.

I firmly support 1:1 as a rules change. Big gameplay improvement. Well worth the cost.


----------



## Asmor (Sep 24, 2008)

James McMurray said:


> Hexes make for very ugly rooms and corridors in dungeons. You're almost forced to end up with lots of half-hexes laying around.




Actually, it's not that hard at all to make right angles on a hex map, if you don't mind the proportions being a bit off (e.g. vertical hallways appearing thinner than horizontal hallways, even though both are 1 hex wide).

The secret is drawing in the lines between the hexes, and snipping off 1 or 2 corners. You end up without full hexes, but you get 90% of the hex on one side and 10% on the other side, so it's clear where you can fit and where you can't.


----------



## James McMurray (Sep 24, 2008)

True, but I'd just rather follow the lines.  

We've used hx mapping on and off. I've got an unopened hex map in the basement, and the flip side of the map we use every week is hexed. But it got too annoying when trying to draw anything involving walls. Works great for outdoor stuff though.

Luckily, 1:1 counting makes hex mapping unnecessary.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 24, 2008)

James McMurray said:


> True, but I'd just rather follow the lines.
> 
> We've used hx mapping on and off. I've got an unopened hex map in the basement, and the flip side of the map we use every week is hexed. But it got too annoying when trying to draw anything involving walls. Works great for outdoor stuff though.
> 
> Luckily, 1:1 counting makes hex mapping unnecessary.



My issue with hexes isn't so much the mapping as it is that I've found lateral movement to be much more common than diagonal.  With squares, you have to grit your teeth 20% (making up numbers) of the time, but hexes make you grit your teeth 35% of the time.  Even if it was an equal frequency, I find lateral hex movement to be significantly more jarring than diagonal grid movement.  In all honesty, I can't fathom why anyone favors hexes for anything.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 24, 2008)

Can't stand the 1-1-1-1 diagonal movement and square explosions. Not a big fan of grids in general though. They have their uses, though IMHO the are something you 'grow out of'. Grids to me say "You are not _trusted_ to measure honestly and or accurately."  Hexes to me feel more organic than square grids, though by the time the group can handle hex based movement, they generaly are ready to get rid of the grid and measure.


----------



## Regicide (Sep 24, 2008)

We use 1:1 and every so often get a laugh over how silly it is, but whatever.  "The monster form a circle around you and the largest of them steps out and challenges you"  "that looks like a square"  "yes, yes it does, you're in a squared circle!"

I can't believe people find it faster though.  I mean... really?


----------



## Asmor (Sep 24, 2008)

frankthedm said:


> Grids to me say "You are not _trusted_ to measure honestly and or accurately."




Grids to me say, "Here's everything you need to know; no guesswork required."

I can't stand ambiguity in games... (in Mage Knight tournaments, the only free-form movement game I've ever played, you were allowed to specifically say something like "It's my intention that this dude is just outside the range of that dude" so that ambiguities could be avoided, and assuming what you were saying was geometrically possible).

On the other hand, if I were looking for a more simulationist experience, I'd definitely prefer free-form.



			
				Regicide said:
			
		

> I can't believe people find it faster though. I mean... really?




Yes, really. If you can make a complicated movement involving alternately taking orthogonal and diagonal steps, with some difficult terrain thrown in, without asking, "wait, is this an even or an odd move," then you're a better man than I (or anyone I've ever played with).


----------



## Regicide (Sep 24, 2008)

Asmor said:


> Yes, really. If you can make a complicated movement involving alternately taking orthogonal and diagonal steps, with some difficult terrain thrown in, without asking, "wait, is this an even or an odd move," then you're a better man than I (or anyone I've ever played with).




  I'd point fingers and laugh, but I'm sure you're simply making a straw man to defend the new system.  Adding 1.5 on diagonals then rounding down is grade 1 math, and I doubt you're playing with people who are under 5 years old.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 24, 2008)

It screwed with my head too when I first heard about it. After a couple sessions we haven't noticed anything earth shattering about the rule. There is the occasional "bargain" move to be had from time to time but both sides have this advantange.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 24, 2008)

Mercule said:


> In all honesty, I can't fathom why anyone favors hexes for anything.




They work rather well for games that take facing into account.


----------



## James McMurray (Sep 24, 2008)

frankthedm said:


> Hexes to me feel more organic than square grids, though by the time the group can handle hex based movement, they generaly are ready to get rid of the grid and measure.




Ewww! No thanks! We measured for a tiny fraction of one campaign and that was enough for me. I don't mind it when I'm playing a tactical combat game like Battletech or Warhammer, but when I'm RPing the slow down is way too much.



Regicide said:


> I can't believe people find it faster though.  I mean... really?




It's fractionally faster when you're just walking across the board. It's incredibly faster when you're going to move, think about attacking, look up a rule, decide not to attack that target, attack a different target, answer the door because the pizza's here and you're buying, then try to remember how far you've moved so you can move again. The increase in speed approaches infinity if that rule lookup turns into a rules debate and by the time you're done two different people remember you starting in two different squares.

It's never gotten quite that bad for us, but close. We did it for years in previous editions, and we'll do it again when another game calls for it. But there's no way I'd house rule going back to it in 4e. It's too fun and there's too much stuff tied to it that would have to be ignored or changed.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 25, 2008)

Regicide said:


> I'd point fingers and laugh, but I'm sure you're simply making a straw man to defend the new system.  Adding 1.5 on diagonals then rounding down is grade 1 math, and I doubt you're playing with people who are under 5 years old.



 While the math is not be that hard, don't you think taking jabs like that one is just a _wee_ bit over the line for enworld?


----------



## Stogoe (Sep 25, 2008)

James McMurray said:


> It's fractionally faster when you're just walking across the board. It's incredibly faster when you're going to move, think about attacking, look up a rule, decide not to attack that target, attack a different target, answer the door because the pizza's here and you're buying, then try to remember how far you've moved so you can move again. The increase in speed approaches infinity if that rule lookup turns into a rules debate and by the time you're done two different people remember you starting in two different squares.
> 
> It's never gotten quite that bad for us, but close. We did it for years in previous editions, and we'll do it again when another game calls for it. But there's no way I'd house rule going back to it in 4e. It's too fun and there's too much stuff tied to it that would have to be ignored or changed.



This deserves to be read and re-read and re-re-read by people still unconvinced that 1:1 speeds up the game immensely.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 25, 2008)

I would -hate- to be on a 1.5 diagonal table when I had to adjudicate a push power or pull power....

....good thing that rarely happens in D&D4 eh?


----------



## Kitirat (Sep 25, 2008)

frankthedm said:


> While the math is not be that hard, don't you think taking jabs like that one is just a _wee_ bit over the line for enworld?




"I'd point fingers and laugh, but I'm sure you're simply making a straw man to defend the new system. Adding 1.5 on diagonals then rounding down is grade 1 math, and I doubt you're playing with people who are under 5 years old."


I have a 5 year old boy who is extremely advanced in math, 1st in his class.  adding 1.5 on diagonals and rounding down is not grade 1, it is grade 3.  They are still in add and subtract at 5 years old.  Stop belittling little ones.  

I did not like the rule at ALL, then played 4th and found it was really that much faster and far more importantly greatly reduces the time it takes to determine the "most advantagous" path to places.  It is not the counting, it is possibility of alternate paths giving vastly different results and the iterative process of a player (or most commonly group of players since terrain effects most everyone but bow rangers in the back) going through each interation to determine what gives him the best result.  Because every step is "1" it GREATLY reduces the total iterative time per person for movement as terrain effects, not when to shift is the only factor outside of mob placement.   It is for this reason we found the 1:1 rule works best for game play.

I find humor as a Master level Engineer whom uses math heavily each day how much people will "Self indulge" the stroking of their intellect and not try something new due to their pre-bias.  If scientists on the leading edge of technology only did what models could predict, we'd have very little progress.  A true sign of intellect is the capacity to look beyond logic and bias and explore new possibilities and determine if they have advantage unforeseen prior to experimentation.

I'd suggest you try it out Regicide before calling "strawman on others."

See ya,
Kitirat


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2008)

There's a lot of suggestions of, "if you don't like doing it my way, then you're stupid," going on in here, as if the choice cannot be a matter of convenience or personal preference.  Such insults are not appropriate for these forums.

Next person to make such a suggestion can expect to be given a vacation without warning.

If you want to discuss why, please take to e-mail with one of the mods - our addresses are in a post stickied to the top of the Meta forum.


----------



## Henry (Sep 25, 2008)

Speaking as someone who was speaking out against the 1:1 diagonal thing prior to trying it, it DOES speed up table actions among our group dramatically, as does the simplified spell areas. Our group has actually resorted to homemade templates for cones, circles, etc. in the manner of the Steel Squire templates prior to 4e -- and we still use them for our 3e games. For the 4e games, we've dropped a LOT of the play aids that we picked up over the years because in 4e there's no need for them.

As for changing the table realities too much, I have found that it's made very little difference. People talk about the problem of moving further on diagonals, but I realized in most cases that it really doesn't matter on a battlemat. You've moved further diagonally -- what does it matter if your target is directly north or east of you? You'd still need to move horizontally to get back to your destination, anyway. The only time it does matter is when your goal is diagonal to you, and doesn't make more than 1 or 2 squares difference per move.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 25, 2008)

I run a houseruled 3.5E game, but I don't like the 3E or the 4E model for diagonal movement. I took a page from the wargamers' books and use cloth ribbons, cut into 6" lengths with marks every inch, and use them on my 1" square battlemat - characters stop in the square the end of the ribbon lies in. This allows characters to not only move the same distance for straight and diagonal moves, but also allows non-linear movement (i.e.: zig-zag movement, curved movement, etc.) that is equal in length. I've been using it with my current group of 2 (one has played for a few years, the other is a brand new rookie) and it works great (both for the players and for NPC's/Monsters).


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Sep 25, 2008)

I play with the rules as written in 4e and no-one's cared so far, or mentioned it at all. I'd suggest sticking with it - particularly in regards to Push/Pull/Slide powers.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 25, 2008)

I prefer hexes or 1.5 diagonals.  Personal taste.

But I certainly do believe that 1:1 grid is better for most people most of the time.  Size matters.  The more confined the space, the more convenient 1:1 is and the less the distortion matters.

When you are fighting in a 10' corridor, using 1:1 is almost purely advantageous -- a little zigzagging is just not an issue in such a restricted area, and I cannot see how a hex grid would be any help.

IME the majority of D&D combats are in space where 1:1 works well enough.

The real downside of 1:1 is in large areas with interesting terrain.  Then zooming around diagonally bizarrely distorts obstacles.


----------



## My Lego (Sep 25, 2008)

Our group settled for flat hexes or brick shaped squares. Works great in most cases, we even got our blasts and burst in shape. The hardest part of of hexes is how many squares a large creature is going to take (a triangle).


----------



## SteveC (Sep 25, 2008)

I'd say that Henry has the right of it: diagonals *seemed *like they would be a huge issue at our table, and a couple of the players really got into how horrible this rule sounded.

Once we started playing, not a peep. I'd recommend everyone actually try the rules first before getting too upset at them.

--Steve


----------



## Sebby (Sep 25, 2008)

I can relate to anyone who's geometrically bothered by the 1:1 move rule. I thought it was unnecessary and excessive simplification, did not believe the "it's faster" arguments, and thought it would cause so much glaring weirdness it would be impossible not to notice and get used to.

I participated in debates, mainly on Wizard's forums. With other posters I did lots of maths, not so much because this 1:1 vs. 1:1.5 thing is _serious buisness_, but because I like doing math, and defended it. Because I make it a point to always allow for the possibility that I may be wrong in any debate I participate in, I said I would try 1:1 before deciding if we should go back to 1:1.5. Can't base a whole argument on science* without doing all the science, and that includes the experimentation.

And now that we've tried it?

1) We did not notice the weirdness;
2) In the various maps we've had fights on, we almost never did any long diagonal moves, the kind of moves that would have had the largest error vs. 1:1.5 or correct euclidian movement;
3) It did speed up play a bit because there's never any recount. I can't say how much time is gained, though, as other changes from 3.5e to 4e also contributes to the speed-up;
4) No one had problems adapting;

I don't think 1:1 is better, but it's disadvantages are far less than I had anticipated, so small in fact as to be unnoticeable. Now I think it's not an issue worth losing any sleep over. I might change my mind again as we start using large AoE attacks that are too obviously square, but for now, 1:1 is fine.

So, I suggest you give it a try before deciding, like I and many here have done. Right now, you're convinced it's a stupid rule, and I completely understand you. Try it, and then you'll know, one way or the other.


*Can you believe it? "The science of D&D movement." That sounds so silly now.


----------



## jbear (Sep 25, 2008)

As a DM teaching a group of friends who had never played role before the 1:1 system is wonderful. I was introducing them to dnd 3.5 when 4th edition was announced. They all much prefer the simplified 1:1 system and I think there is enough in the game for them to wrap there head around as it is. We all just play dnd to get together and have a good time, and everyone is really enjoying 4th edition. Must admit there are no mathematicians in the group, but I have a good friend who now has a phd in some kind of hard core maths who once tried to explain that it was possible to prove 1+1 does not equal 2 so... 1:1 is cool with me


----------



## Asmor (Sep 25, 2008)

Oh, just one more bit of anecdotal evidence...

My biggest issue was the worry that monsters and PCs alike could heedlessly charge past the frontline and attack the squishies directly.

For a lot of reasons, that is not often the case and when it is the defender is still able to do his job thanks to marking. Even if the mooks are next to the cleric, they gotta think twice before attacking him over the fighter.

So basically my biggest problem with this from a gamist standpoint turned out to be a non-issue.


----------



## Skyscraper (Sep 25, 2008)

Edited to remove non-constructive post.

Sky


----------



## Bleoberis De Ganis (Sep 25, 2008)

I like the ribbon idea - it makes sense - I'm just wandering how much more accurate it is. It doesn't solve the problem of area effects though, but I suppose you could mock something up.

Math junkies don't like the 1:1 system because it is less accurate and less simulational, but D&D is soooo abstract distance and movement rules should be way way down their list of things that need to be "fixed".

The thing is - the other variaties are only marginally more accurate and with the draw back of being a major pain in the backside (well not 'that' much of a pain, but still a pain.)

How about circles. No - I'm not actually being sarcastic. When using custom maps the circles can be arranged in any way the designer wishes. On a large area they can be formed into a hex pattern. A winding tunnel can go all migledy pigledy all over the place. A corridor 2 wide - they can be placed in a paralell way like squares. Small rooms, where diagonals are less of an issue, can be placed in a square like pattern.

Just a thought. It will take more imaginative design when doing battlemaps, but if you give it some serious thought you may realize that the idea isn't as stupid as it might sound.

Basically - design the map first - add the circles later - touch up the map after so the circles can be jostled for better, more logical, placing.

1 Move = 1 circle.

Remember - the grids are there for easy use when moving, ranges and deciding if entities are caught in area effects. They are not there for accuracy - they aren't trying to make a fantasy ordinance survey map.

EDIT - Just wandering what is so great about having a fixed grid. Even when using squares - why not have the squares go diagonally when a corridor is going diagonally. As long as the joins between different orientations are well placed, what would be the problem. Why not have hexes and squares. Of course, area effects would have a varying number of effected squares between hex and square, but I'm wandering just how much of a real effect it would have. It is worth experimentation at least.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Sep 26, 2008)

Bleoberis De Ganis said:


> EDIT - Just wandering what is so great about having a fixed grid. Even when using squares - why not have the squares go diagonally when a corridor is going diagonally. As long as the joins between different orientations are well placed, what would be the problem. Why not have hexes and squares. Of course, area effects would have a varying number of effected squares between hex and square, but I'm wandering just how much of a real effect it would have. It is worth experimentation at least.




Again - convenience. Is it easier for the map drawer to slap down a uniform grid, or to create a custom grid that lines up with each portion of the map?

That said, I'd prefer that map creators totally ignored the grid when creating maps, and it was thrown down after they'd finished.

Incidentally: I was going to suggest tape measures in jest, because it seems obvious to me that such a system would dramatically slow down the game. The fact that the 1.5 system requires _any_ extra work would, to my mind, require that it actually added something to the game that made that work worthwhile. Personally I can see zero benefit, except satisfying someone's feeling of geometric incorrectness.


----------



## Asmor (Sep 26, 2008)

Bleoberis De Ganis said:


> Math junkies don't like the 1:1 system because




Yay! I finally get to rail against the whole generalizations thing!

<-- Math major


----------



## darkadelphia (Sep 26, 2008)

Saeviomagy said:


> Again - convenience. Is it easier for the map drawer to slap down a uniform grid, or to create a custom grid that lines up with each portion of the map?
> 
> That said, I'd prefer that map creators totally ignored the grid when creating maps, and it was thrown down after they'd finished.
> 
> Incidentally: I was going to suggest tape measures in jest, because it seems obvious to me that such a system would dramatically slow down the game. The fact that the 1.5 system requires _any_ extra work would, to my mind, require that it actually added something to the game that made that work worthwhile. Personally I can see zero benefit, except satisfying someone's feeling of geometric incorrectness.



I generally prefer 1:1, the thing that does bug me is it's a little less intuitive to design maps.  If you have a large room with an obstacle in the middle, it's probably not an obstacle at all since the PCs can go around it.  Also, you can't have scattered squares of obstructed squares, since the PCs can just dodge around them--any difficult terrain has to be fairly large blocks.

I made a room where various items were scattered on the floor and they were meant to obstruct movement in the room, but everyone just zigged and zagged around the room with no difficulty.


----------



## HighTemplar (Sep 26, 2008)

Haha this thread is funny.
I'm a physics Ph.D student and I couldn't tolerate 1:1 movement

I didnt like 1-2-1-2 real much either because my players were always playing smart with the smarter monsters which I dont have time to lose to anticpate their future movements.

So we're actually playing 2-1-2-1 and the resulting equidistant curves really are very close to circular. Plus noone can shift diagonnally.

My battles are very strategy bases and so this becomse important. Anyways none cares about firecubeballs ^^


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 26, 2008)

darkadelphia said:


> I generally prefer 1:1, the thing that does bug me is it's a little less intuitive to design maps.  If you have a large room with an obstacle in the middle, it's probably not an obstacle at all since the PCs can go around it.  Also, you can't have scattered squares of obstructed squares, since the PCs can just dodge around them--any difficult terrain has to be fairly large blocks.
> 
> I made a room where various items were scattered on the floor and they were meant to obstruct movement in the room, but everyone just zigged and zagged around the room with no difficulty.




That would be the main downside.  Movement around obstacles in large room become a bit bizarre.

Rather than using obstacles painted along the gridlines, I would suggest drawing them along diagonals.  Diagonal obstacles will behave closer to what you would intuitively expect.


----------



## jbear (Sep 26, 2008)

darkadelphia said:


> I generally prefer 1:1, the thing that does bug me is it's a little less intuitive to design maps.  If you have a large room with an obstacle in the middle, it's probably not an obstacle at all since the PCs can go around it.  Also, you can't have scattered squares of obstructed squares, since the PCs can just dodge around them--any difficult terrain has to be fairly large blocks.
> 
> I made a room where various items were scattered on the floor and they were meant to obstruct movement in the room, but everyone just zigged and zagged around the room with no difficulty.



My understanding was that you cant do a diagonal move through corners, and I applied this to objects as well. So if there was a 2x4 sarcophagus in front of you, you have to step to the side of it and move forward, no cutting corners. If it was a large one square crate I imagined it would be the same, no cutting corners through them either, at least not without an athletics check or acrobacy to nimbly leap over it. Anyway, maybe I have misinterpreted that rule but that's how I'm personally dealing with objects in a room, the same as corners of a wall.


----------



## Bleoberis De Ganis (Sep 26, 2008)

Asmor said:


> Yay! I finally get to rail against the whole generalizations thing!
> 
> <-- Math major




No insult or generalization intended. I actually like maths and really love physics, but I also really love logical thought (philosophy) and it comes down to a balance - a ratio of effort to reward. I see very little reward for the effort of any other system than a simple 1:1.

In fact, when posting on the WOTC boards way before 4E came out, I was pushing strongly for 1:1 and expressing movement in squares because the overly complicated movement/distance rules were a pain. It isn't difficult to convert from squares to feet and it will very rarely, if ever, come up.

One thing I keep meaning to mention - a character, when moving, isn't just moving from one place to another at a specific speed. They are waiting for the right moment to do so. They have a lag between deciding to move, or realizing they should move, and actually moving. They will be moving at various speeds throughout the move sequence, pausing, walking (perhaps while rifling though their bags), jogging out of the way of an oncoming arrow, sprinting sideways out of the way of a falling rock or a flash of fire. 1:1 is the least of the problems of movement to a simulationist.

There is almost absolutley no benefit using any other system than a 1:1. It is a strong logic thing as much as a lazy or stupid thing. D&D, and all PnP RPGs, are very abstract. Worrying about 1.2.1 and all that isn't going to help. In fact the inconsistancies of the 1:1 add an element of movement randomness that can help take into account the varying speeds I have expressed above, so from a simulationist viewpoint you could say it is a more accurate model.


----------



## darkadelphia (Sep 26, 2008)

jbear said:


> My understanding was that you cant do a diagonal move through corners, and I applied this to objects as well. So if there was a 2x4 sarcophagus in front of you, you have to step to the side of it and move forward, no cutting corners. If it was a large one square crate I imagined it would be the same, no cutting corners through them either, at least not without an athletics check or acrobacy to nimbly leap over it. Anyway, maybe I have misinterpreted that rule but that's how I'm personally dealing with objects in a room, the same as corners of a wall.



Right, the specific circumstances was that there was an armory with gear scattered on the floor--weapons, shields, etc.--things that it would be hard to convince the players they couldn't cut the corner on


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 26, 2008)

James McMurray said:


> Hexes make for very ugly rooms and corridors in dungeons. You're almost forced to end up with lots of half-hexes laying around.




Squares make for very ugly circular rooms and diagonal corridors in dungeons. You're almost forced to end up with lots of partial squares laying around.


----------



## James McMurray (Sep 26, 2008)

True, but IMX straight lines along the axis are more common than curves and diagonals both in real life and dungeon architecture. Especially dungeon architecture I draw on a square mat. 

I'll never try drawing a dungeon on a hex grid again, whereas I don't mind the sacrifices needed to make a decent square map.  Although I supposed if I was designing some sort of giant bee hive it'd be perfect, and would give me an excuse to unwrap that hex mat.

Besides, you can't fit a circle on a hex map without leaving partials either.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 26, 2008)

James McMurray said:


> I'll never try drawing a dungeon on a hex grid again, whereas I don't mind the sacrifices needed to make a decent square map.




When I go back to DMing, I will be using hexes. The reason is that I can basically ignore room edges completely. I'll just draw the room. If it is oval, it's oval. Diagonal to another room, diagonal. Square, square. Irregular, irregular.

Hexes have several advantages here over squares (although you can do the same irregular drawing with squares):

1) Obstacles are obstacles once again. It takes more movement to move around a one hex (or larger sized) obstacle than it does if the obstacle did not exist.

2) I use a 1/3rd hex rule. If it is 1/3rd or less, it's unusable. If it's 2/3rds or less, it's a squeeze. If it's more than 2/3rds, it's usable normally. I find that it is easier to visualize whether a hex is in one of these 3 states than a square, basically because a hex is closer to a circle than a square. And if a room edge is drawn near the edge of a hex or through the middle, it's crystal clear.

3) A PC that is flanked diagonally with squares can shift one square and be 10 feet away from both opponents. This does not happen with a PC flanked orthogonally with squares or a PC flanked in a hex system. I don't prefer the same action having different results based on grid orientation.


As a DM, I also don't like the concept of being forced to create dungeons that are all 90 degrees and all with room and corridor dimensions with exact multiples of 5 feet. I like irregular shaped and sized caves and corridors. Hexes allows me to do that easier than squares (IMO, YMMV).


----------



## James McMurray (Sep 26, 2008)

Squares don't force you to make 90 degree angles, it's just easier. I don't think I've ever drawn (or possibly seen) a map (except perhaps for a small apartment) that had no cuves or diagonals on it.


----------



## Skyscraper (Sep 26, 2008)

Since everyone is throwing academic backgrounds around...

I did mechanical engineering. There is a concept when you make a product that is called tolerance. Tolerance is how precise you need to be when you cut, say, a flat surface on a metallic cube. If you have a tolerance of 0,001 millemeter on a surface, then that surface's distance from a reference baseline must not vary of more than 0,001 mm.

Now if you have two interacting surfaces on moving parts A, B and moving part A surface has a tolerance of 0,001 mm while the moving part B surface has a tolerance of 0,1 mm, then moving part A is uselessly precise in that the imprecisions in moving part B will by far overwhelm those of moving part A. In other words, if you have bumps of 0,1 mm on the moving part B surface, those will be 100 times larger than the largest bumps on the moving part A. You'll not even notice those of mocing part A.

Likewise, D&D has many approximations. Diagonal 1:1 movement is one of them. IMO, other approximations influence the game much more than diagonal 1:1 movement. Obvious examples are hit points, damage from weapons, healing, heck it's clear that D&D is not a simulation by any means. I think that refusing to use 1:1 diagonal, while acceptable if it rocks your boat, is being uselessly precise about something that will not change the final product you have since the other approximations are much more important.

Sky


----------



## Rhianni32 (Sep 26, 2008)

I hated the diagonal rules from 3.X
The only real result was that it took longer to move for counting out movement if a player is plotting their route.

There are so many things in 4ed that are in 'just because' to make it go quicker and smoother.
Why can a fighter only do a certain sword swing once every 8 hours. Just because.
I fully agree with Skyscraper. Some things will cause more work and headache then the effort will give you.


----------



## Regicide (Sep 26, 2008)

Skyscraper said:


> Likewise, D&D has many approximations. Diagonal 1:1 movement is one of them.




  It is funny how 4E is supposed to be a more "mobile" game where movement and positioning matter more, then at the same time it makes obstacles and creatures trivial to circumvent with no penalty.  Going from 2 squares in front of a fighter to two squares behind without going through any adjacent squares costs 8 squares of movement with 1.5 diagonals and a mere 6 with 1.  Likewise a pillar in your way has no impact on distance you can move with 1-cost diagonals.


----------



## Gort (Sep 26, 2008)

*shrug* I was okay playing it either way, to be honest. It's really just something that matters little enough to me that I can't be bothered to house-rule it.

This is another one of the things about 4e that plays far better than it reads.


----------



## balard (Sep 26, 2008)

As a DM and as a player, I didn't have any problems with 11, and I was also pretty upset with the new 11. But with the fisrt session i DMed i never thought again in the now ugly and weird 11. It really speeds up play.

Im a convert. Now I see the ways of 11.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 26, 2008)

Regicide said:


> It is funny how 4E is supposed to be a more "mobile" game where movement and positioning matter more, then at the same time it makes obstacles and creatures trivial to circumvent with no penalty.  Going from 2 squares in front of a fighter to two squares behind without going through any adjacent squares costs 8 squares of movement with 1.5 diagonals and a mere 6 with 1.  Likewise a pillar in your way has no impact on distance you can move with 1-cost diagonals.



It absolutely is a mobile game where movement and positioning matter more.

Because there is more movement per round, and because there are vastly more ranged and area effects, the developers also decided to simplify the range- and area-counting.  It's a tradeoff, sure, but a smart one in context.

As for the pillar...  Because ranged combat happens so much more often, that pillar is still critical for line-of-sight and cover purposes.  But if you want to slow people down, you need more than a single pillar or a single fighter standing in the middle of a wide open room.

-O


----------



## balard (Sep 26, 2008)

As a DM and as a player, I didn't have any problems with 1 : 2 : 1, and I was also pretty upset with the new 1 : 1 : 1. But with the fisrt session i DMed i never thought again in the now ugly and weird 1 : 2 : 1. It really speeds up play.

Im a convert. Now I see the ways of 1 : 1 : 1.


----------



## Thanee (Sep 26, 2008)

I prefer the 1.5 (1-2-1-2) distances, and so do all the others I know, so that's how we (still) play it.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## fba827 (Sep 26, 2008)

I like the concept of diagonals costing more movement squares.  But, personally, it ends up being more trouble than it's worth.

And, even personal opinion aside, our group's game time is limited -- we meet maybe once a month on average.  We don't have time to evaluate and form a concensus on everything.  So simplicity often wins out for the group as a whole as well.


----------



## eamon (Sep 26, 2008)

If I were to change to 1:1.5 or to hexes I'd take the time to work out alternate shaped for blasts and busts such that the area remains the same, and work out alternate movement speeds such that the potential number of sqaures reached remains roughly same.

I like "realism", but I don't feel this particular enhancement is really worth the bother, however.  Both counting methods are inaccurate, and the discrete distinction between difficult terrain and non-difficult terrain is quite inaccurate, and the similarity in speed between characters is a little off, and the relative irrelevance of heavy armor is a bit off...

It's unfortunate, and if you can think of a better system at no cost to complexity, that'd be great.  Otherwise, it's a trade-off of believability and consistency vs. simplicity.  If you want to change the details of that trade-off, you're automatically losing a _lot_ - to be fair, you'd need to rebalance large sections of the game.

For example, even if you adjust speeds and areas such that they cover the same number of (possible) squares, you'll still need to deal will pulls and pushes - they'll now permit many more odd paths if you use the same rules.  You'll need to address charging, which will be much less flexible than it currently is.  I bet there are more things, and then you'll be left with indirect consequences - what do you do to classes that do a lot of movement, or have a lot of area effects, or that do a lot of charging, or pushing or pulling if each of these basic effects has been rebalanced?

So I think it's doable, but it's a serious undertaking if you want to change the distance counting measure.  If you change the measure because it's "more accurate" but then fail to look at all the consequences and potentially adjust those, you're buying fake accuracy with a dash of unbalancing game breakage for your time investment...

Having said that, if you _do_ systematically look at the consequences, I'd be _very_ curious to see the analysis posted.  Good gaming, anyhow!


----------



## Thanee (Sep 27, 2008)

I think it has absolutely no notable effect on game balance, really. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 27, 2008)

To those that prefer 1-2-1 diagonal movement...

Lets say on Round 1 you move three squares diagonally, costing you 1, 2, 1.  You stop and attack your foe.  On Round 2, you continue to move diagonally.  Does the starting move cost you 2 (since that would be next in line) or does it reset to 1, since it is the beginning of your movement for the next round?

If you say that it would cost you 2 squares, then don't you think that _could_ be a little bit difficult to remember than just starting back at 1 movement?  When you have to wait a whole rounds worth of people's actions and interruptions before it gets back to you?

If you say that it would reset and start back as costing 1 square of movement, then doesn't that counter the "suspension of disbelief" arguement?  If you argue that 1-2-1 is more "realistic" mathematically, then you should technically count the next diagonal as 2 (not 1), right?

Edit:  FWIW, in 3E we would reset the count back to 1 square...


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 28, 2008)

Regicide said:


> Likewise a pillar in your way has no impact on distance you can move with 1-cost diagonals.




I take it you haven't read the rules for obstacles on page 284 of the PHB, where it explicitly states that an obstacle which fills a square prevents you from entering that square and moving diagonally across the corner of that square.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 28, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:


> To those that prefer 1-2-1 diagonal movement...
> 
> Lets say on Round 1 you move three squares diagonally, costing you 1, 2, 1.  You stop and attack your foe.  On Round 2, you continue to move diagonally.  Does the starting move cost you 2 (since that would be next in line) or does it reset to 1, since it is the beginning of your movement for the next round?





No, no, no!  You should really track this in proper and precise Cartesian coordinates.

Movement would be (0.707, 0.707), (1.412, 1.412), (2.121, 2.121), etc.

Now your question never comes up.  Only the slovenly make silly approximations like you suggest!!!  

In all seriousness, there main advantage of the "realistic" movement options is that you eliminate the possibility of bizarre-looking paths around some tactical obstacles.  Getting it "right" down to the half square from round to round is of minuscule benefit towards this end, and unlikely to be worth the added bookkeeping.


----------



## Walknot (Sep 28, 2008)

Point for DM's who use the 1 diagonal = 1 square of movement rule:  To change it up for your players, if you draw or print out your own maps, then you might consider rotating the grid 45 degrees.  

In a "typical" encounter with the good guys on one side and bad guys on the other side, if you re-align by 45degrees, then you will see some interesting effects for movement.

With the 1=1 rule, and when the overall axis is aligned with the straight sides, a group  naturally fans out into a line. But re-align the axis to the diagonals, and you naturally fan out into a wedge.  This makes flanking take an extra round.  An object in the center divides the group.  Etcetera...


----------



## Danceofmasks (Sep 28, 2008)

You could also dispense with a grid entirely.
Stick some transparent circles under the minis ..
Use string to plot out movement and measure range.

But 1:1 is the fastest.

Not only that, _if_ we accept that everything in D&D works in 1:1, then the characters wouldn't see anything strange about it.
It's just the way space works for them.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Sep 28, 2008)

The 1-1-1 is a bit faster, overall. Movement is one thing, but finding blast/burst areas is very easy ... and when you add in 3 dimentional movement or calculations [flying creatures, and things in pits]. Being able to use a cube instead of a sphere or cone makes things easier.


----------



## Creamsteak (Sep 28, 2008)

This thread reminded me of the 'fake-hex' grid that was posted some months ago when the topic came up. Essentially, it's a normal grid where every second row is off 1/2 square. It gives you a fairly normal grid, while still having every square adjacent to six squares instead of 8. It acts just like a hex grid, but the lines are easier to understand.

I forget if they actually made a flip-mat like that. I might buy one just for novelties sake if I can find it.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Sep 28, 2008)

darkadelphia said:


> Right, the specific circumstances was that there was an armory with gear scattered on the floor--weapons, shields, etc.--things that it would be hard to convince the players they couldn't cut the corner on




Well, first up: how difficult do you really think such a place would be to navigate? If it's an amount such that you don't have enough to make every 2m square in the area difficult terrain, do you really think it should make any difference at all?

Imagine you're walking across the floor where 50% of it is unimpeded 2m squares. Do you really think it would cut you down to half speed?


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 28, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> I take it you haven't read the rules for obstacles on page 284 of the PHB, where it explicitly states that an obstacle which fills a square prevents you from entering that square and moving diagonally across the corner of that square.




Yes, so they have a special rule that works in a few special circumstances, but does not always address the issue. For example:


```
. b .
. x .
. a .
```

It takes 4 moves for a to get to b. x is an obstacle because of the special rule.


```
. . b . .
. . . . .
. . x . .
. . . . .
. . a . .
```

It takes 4 moves for a to get to b. x is not an obstacle. Although the distance is double, the number of squares required is identical to the first example.


```
. . . . b
. . . . .
. . x . .
. . . . .
a . . . .
```

It takes 6 moves for a to get to b. x is an obstacle. The special rule increases the obstacle by 1 (6 moves instead of 5).

Obstacles really do not exist for long range orthogonal movement unless the DM puts in a lot of obstacles close to each other so that the special rule can come into play.


----------



## malraux (Sep 28, 2008)

One of my players pointed out an odd effect of the 1:1 movement.  Suddenly every square room is now round, as the walls are equidistant from the center.

Really though, I found just enough occations with the 1:2 movement wherein you had to count several times to optimize a path that I think the 1:1 movement is worth it.  That said, I've got some outdoor encounters coming up, I think I'll flip my battle mat over to the hex side just to see how it works out.


----------



## keterys (Sep 28, 2008)

malraux said:


> One of my players pointed out an odd effect of the 1:1 movement.  Suddenly every square room is now round, as the walls are equidistant from the center.




Nah, they're still square. For purposes of the combat you're just not sweating the fractions enough to care.

There are an awful lot of places where you do that - you don't track fractional damage/hp, ranges, bonuses, etc. 

I mean - it would certainly be more realistic to have a running tally "-.2 because you've got mud on your shoes, -.2 cause you moved and you're on gravel, -.1 because your stomach is upset, -.3 because you're _slightly_ stunned by that hit you just took, and -.2 because it's your fourth encounter so you're getting tired, etc" 

Remember, your characters aren't looking down on a gameboard twiddling thumbs waiting for their turn to be able to act. There is no initiative. There is no 'I can move exactly 6 squares'. They're moving back and forth constantly, in an active heroic combat. The rules just help you get there, but visualize how it makes sense as a story and you'll be better off.


----------



## Nail (Sep 28, 2008)

fba827 said:


> I like the concept of diagonals costing more movement squares.  But, personally, it ends up being more trouble than it's worth.



Yep.

I thought I would hate 4e's "square circles".  (Heck, I still have 3.xe's wire circle templates).  I thought the diagonal movement would be noticibly unrealistic.

Turns out, the ease of the new diagonal counting VASTLY out-weighs the downsides.  It's just much better.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 28, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> Obstacles really do not exist for long range orthogonal movement unless the DM puts in a lot of obstacles close to each other so that the special rule can come into play.




So, an obstacle isn't useful unless the DM sets it up to be a useful obstacle, such as placing enemies, traps, hazards, or other obstacles in a manner that makes the obstacle an impediment to movement?

A column in the middle of an empty room isn't really an impediment if there's no reason for me not to easily give it a wide berth... and that applies in-game as well as in real life.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 29, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> A column in the middle of an empty room isn't really an impediment if there's no reason for me not to easily give it a wide berth... and that applies in-game as well as in real life.




Who said anything about an empty room?

It's an obstacle for long range diagonal movement, but not long range orthagonal movement.

Your point?


----------



## FireLance (Sep 29, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:


> To those that prefer 1-2-1 diagonal movement...
> 
> Lets say on Round 1 you move three squares diagonally, costing you 1, 2, 1.  You stop and attack your foe.  On Round 2, you continue to move diagonally.  Does the starting move cost you 2 (since that would be next in line) or does it reset to 1, since it is the beginning of your movement for the next round?
> 
> ...



We go back to starting at 1 square. Making the even diagonals cost two squares is merely a way of approximating how far you have moved in that round. If you can move six squares with a move action, you can move up to four squares diagonally. As long as you have moved less than that, you don't have to worry about counting the next diagonal as 2.

The only case where it might be an issue is for a very slow-moving creature (1 square or 2 squares of movement) moving diagonally, and that would not come up often in play.


----------



## phloog (Sep 29, 2008)

I was a math/physics major, and the rounding isn't a big deal for me and my nerd friends.

Having said that, I think that the 1:1 movement is fine if you want to use it, and IF the 4E design was built around it you'll need to understand the complexity, depth, and range of the impacts to other things in 4E before you just jump to a different movement accounting system.

So I guess I have no real preference, until I start thinking about the role of obstacles, pits, etc. and Karinsdad's point about moving twice the distance in the same number of squares. The silliness factor does seem high...

I look at the first scenario - a and b right next to the obstacle X. It takes 4 movements to get from a to b. 

Now imagine that a is a step down (not a depicted scenario, but like the second but with b still right above x)...I can get from a to b in four.

Then you move b up to get the second scenario, and it takes...four steps.

I still don't advocate changing 4e's rules, but looking at it step by step makes it seem quite silly. 

I guess the silliness for me is a tactical one....4E seems to be much more heavily focused on combat maneuvers and stuff....and yet...

There is a tactical benefit to interposing the pillar between you and the foe in terms of movement, but only in certain arrangements that 'activate' the penalty of the obstacle.


----------



## 77IM (Sep 29, 2008)

+1 vote for "I thought 1:1 diagonal movement would suck, but I tried it, and it is totally awesome."

Some people prefer 1:1.5 [or 12^0.5)] and that's fine.  But to directly address the OP, don't knock it until you've tried it.  Square fireballs may look silly but they let you scorch more orcs with slightly less mental effort, which for many, many groups is a benefit.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Nikosandros (Sep 29, 2008)

I never had any problems with the 1-2 diagonal rules and I was annoyed when I learned about the new rule.

However, in actual play, I don't really have any problems with it.


----------



## Nail (Sep 29, 2008)

Where's the poll for this?    There should be a poll, 'cause it's all scientific and stuff.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 29, 2008)

The less D&D becomes Rolemaster, the better it is for all concerned.


----------

