Diagonal Movement [Archive] - Wizards Community

Diagonal Movement [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
oreththecentaur
08-19-07, 04:38 PM Hey guys, i'm a first time poster, so i don't know if this is the right place to ask this but.....

I'm a 7 level scout at the moment and diagonnal movement is annoying me.

My question is,...is their a good reason why every second square of diagonal movement costs 10 ft of movement.

I really don't see why this is the case.

Imagine a 120 circular room with no obstacles. Why does running north west take more time than running north??

I'm trying to get my DM to get rid of the rule, and i'd like to present a decent case.
Salla
08-19-07, 04:49 PM Because a square 5' on a side is something like 7 feet from corner to corner. Moving two squares diagonally is moving 14', which is close enough to 15' for most purposes.

It's just for the ease of math that they go '5-15-20-30' than '7-and-a-half-Fifteen-twenty-two-and-a-half-thirty'.

In short, it's perfectly logical.
tvar1
08-19-07, 04:50 PM Well, I'm not sure if you are familiar with basic geometry, but if you are you would know about Pythagorean theorem: a^2 + b^2 = c^2 to describe the lengths of sides of a right triangle.

So, if you have a 1 inch square, what is the length of the diagonal? About 1.41 inches. This means that each square you move in the diagonal, you are moving close to 1.5 the distance you would have gone if you have moved in the vertical or horizontal.

Counting every other square as double is merely WotC's way of accounting for this. But in my opinion, if they were smart, they would have just used hexes instead of squares! Maybe in 4e... ;)
oreththecentaur
08-19-07, 05:26 PM Wow that was quick. Thanks guys.

But in my opinion, if they were smart, they would have just used hexes instead of squares! Maybe in 4e... ;)

Yeah we already said that.
sensestaker
08-19-07, 05:46 PM Stupid 3.5 overcomplicated nerfs. :rolleyes:

We still just play 1 square = 1 square in my group. Since everyone, including enemies, treat it the same, it balances out and makes counting easier.
Dheran
08-19-07, 08:28 PM We still just play 1 square = 1 square in my group. Since everyone, including enemies, treat it the same, it balances out and makes counting easier. Then I assume you make your magical effects work in squares rather than circles? Because it's too easy to get out of the area of effect with "free" diagonal movement if you don't.
tarkin
08-20-07, 02:26 PM You have to be rather foolish to make diagonal squares always 5 ft. It demonstrates a lack of geometrical sense, allowing the smarter people a HUGE advantage, if they bother to use it.

The simples way to negate the diagonal problem is to:

Use Hexagonal grids

It is perfect for tactical maps, where you care about distance between two points, which is exactly what we are doing.

Each hex is always 5ft regardless of which direction you move in.
mvincent
08-21-07, 02:00 PM One nice side effect of the 1.5 rule is that it also makes calculating 3-D distances easier. i.e. just add 1/2 half of the shorter distance (vertical or horizontal) to the longer distance.
Ranger REG
08-22-07, 02:17 AM You have to be rather foolish to make diagonal squares always 5 ft. It demonstrates a lack of geometrical sense, allowing the smarter people a HUGE advantage, if they bother to use it.

The simples way to negate the diagonal problem is to:

Use Hexagonal grids
You try drawing a dungeon or a castle floorplan using hexes.

Take it from an old-school wargamer, square is hip.
Robespierre
08-22-07, 03:10 AM Why do people use squares any way? I understand the thing with the minitures, but even there it sucks. If one converts the movement from squares to inches it works the same way and you have completely free movement.
Tedronai
08-22-07, 03:19 AM Do you ever use hallways that intersect diagonally with rooms or other hallways? Or spiral staircases?
You'll run into the same problems in those situations using squares that you'll run into using hexes in standard construction, yet hexes work exceedingly better for tactical purposes (which, last I checked, was the only time spacing was relevant) than their square competition.
You'll end up with some partial spaces around the borders of the rooms and hallways. Your players won't care (unless they're just OCPD case studies, in which case you likely have bigger issues - google it if you aren't familiar), and the idea that all buildings are designed in increments of 5' is absurd enough as it is, so you really shouldn't either.
Nom
08-22-07, 03:42 AM The simples way to negate the diagonal problem is to:

Use Hexagonal gridsAnd like most "simple" solutions, you just exchange one issue for a bunch of others.
It is perfect for tactical maps, where you care about distance between two points, which is exactly what we are doing.We obviously have different directions of "perfect".

Squares with diagonals have 4 axes of movement, but with different distance metrics along each pair of axes.

Hexes have 3 axes of movement (one less), but a standard distance measurement.

Sqaures provide natural movement and measurement along the 4 major axes (orthogonal and diagonal), and "clean" lines when not on those axes. By clean, I mean that any line on the grid crosses the grid itself at well defined points - arbitrary lines on hex grids tend to criss-cross back and forth between hexrows. Squares provide a more accurate distance approximation when off an axis. Hexes often look slightly less artificial when dealing with natural terrain.

Neither is "perfect". The choice is whether a single distance metric is worth the other drawbacks of hexes.
mvincent
08-22-07, 12:18 PM Why do people use squares any way?Er... I'm surprised at the question. But we should at least point out that offset squares (i.e. arranged kinda like a bricklayer would) function just like hexes, without many of the drawbacks.
tvar1
08-22-07, 12:29 PM Er... I'm surprised at the question. But we should at least point out that offset squares (i.e. arranged kinda like a bricklayer would) function just like hexes, without many of the drawbacks.

It seems to me that the "brick wall" grid is functionally identical to hexes, actually. In each case, every square/hex borders exactly six others, and every vertex touches three squares/hexes. I can't really think of any differences from a tactical point of view. Are there any?
Devlonir
08-22-07, 12:43 PM What i would like to know, when using Hexes or offset squares, how do you implement charge rules or run rules, because these need to be done in straight lines always.

When following current rules, using Squares 3 medium sized creatures can simultaneously charge 1 medium sized creature. Because 3 squares next to each other have 3 squares next to the charged creature they could go to in a straight line and have it be the closest.

With offset, only two could do this and couldnt charge in a straight line. And with Hexes it seems to me only one could do it.

And flanking has the same problem.. Any 3 squares on each side could flank with 3 squares on the other side with normal square grids. Offset its two.. at best and hex its just one.
mvincent
08-22-07, 12:48 PM I can't really think of any differences from a tactical point of view. Are there any?When arranging (right angle) walls, partial hexes can be more plentiful, less intuitive and less convenient to adjudicate than offset squares.

Heck, even when I was a hardcore GURPS guru I still used (non-offset) squares in my GURPS games. Plus, D&D mechanics are extremely integrated to regular squares.

Still, it would be nice to use my heroscape terrain more often in D&D :)
tvar1
08-22-07, 12:54 PM What i would like to know, when using Hexes or offset squares, how do you implement charge rules or run rules, because these need to be done in straight lines always.

I think you are over thinking the "straight line" rule for charging. Do you really think there are only 8 directions you can legally charge on a normal square grid? No, you can charge no matter what angle you are from your foe.

But in general, going from squares to hexes would have some other minor side effects due to spaces having 2 less surrounding spaces. So instead of 4 flanking possibilities, there would only be 3 for medium creatures.
Salla
08-22-07, 02:55 PM I think you are over thinking the "straight line" rule for charging. Do you really think there are only 8 directions you can legally charge on a normal square grid? No, you can charge no matter what angle you are from your foe.

Correct. All 'in a straight line' means is that you can't have any obstacles between you and your target you need to veer around. One good way to adjucate this is to get a ruler, or length of string, and connect the two figures. If the ruler/string doesn't intersect an object (tree, wall, etc), then you can charge, regardless of how 'crooked' your movement appears on the grid.
crashlogic
08-22-07, 06:00 PM Having used both hexes and squares (playing both DnD and Gurps) I prefer squares for the simplicity and ease of use. As a minitures gamer I am very familir with free movement, using only rulers. Having tried it in DnD, I find squares better because battlemats are marked in squares and are easy to draw on, squares make adjudicating areas of effect and threat zones easier, and finaly when a miniature is jostled or knocked out of place, its much easier to recall what square they were in.

Its my advice that you stick with the squares, despite some valid drawbacks. And stick with diagonal counting.
Ranger REG
08-22-07, 11:37 PM Why do people use squares any way?
Isn't that how real-world maps are drawn, with longitude and latitude? :smirk:
tvar1
08-23-07, 10:17 AM Isn't that how real-world maps are drawn, with longitude and latitude? :smirk:

The smirk means that's a joke, right? :)
mvincent
08-23-07, 12:17 PM The smirk means that's a joke, right? :)Joke? Aren't real-world maps pretty darn square-centric?
StevenO
08-23-07, 02:15 PM If you don't like the cost of 1.5 for diagonal movement you could use what the new StarWars book does and count each diagonal as a full 2 spaces of movement. I hate that in the SWminis game and would NEVER use that in the RPG but that is what the rules say. It is certainly simpler than counting each diagonal as 1.5 but far less accurate.

If not playing on a grid you may convince your DM to use a piece of string that is knotted at 1 inch intervals to measure distance. To move you lay the string down on the desired path and follow it. When measuring range for spells and such you just pull it tight.
tvar1
08-23-07, 06:12 PM Joke? Aren't real-world maps pretty darn square-centric?

I guess I was just trying to point out that lines of latitude and longitude lines do not intersect and make squares.
Dheran
08-23-07, 08:11 PM I guess I was just trying to point out that lines of latitude and longitude lines do not intersect and make squares. ... except when bracketing the Equator.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
oreththecentaur 08-19-07, 04:38 PM	Hey guys, i'm a first time poster, so i don't know if this is the right place to ask this but..... I'm a 7 level scout at the moment and diagonnal movement is annoying me. My question is,...is their a good reason why every second square of diagonal movement costs 10 ft of movement. I really don't see why this is the case. Imagine a 120 circular room with no obstacles. Why does running north west take more time than running north?? I'm trying to get my DM to get rid of the rule, and i'd like to present a decent case.
Salla 08-19-07, 04:49 PM	Because a square 5' on a side is something like 7 feet from corner to corner. Moving two squares diagonally is moving 14', which is close enough to 15' for most purposes. It's just for the ease of math that they go '5-15-20-30' than '7-and-a-half-Fifteen-twenty-two-and-a-half-thirty'. In short, it's perfectly logical.
tvar1 08-19-07, 04:50 PM	Well, I'm not sure if you are familiar with basic geometry, but if you are you would know about Pythagorean theorem: a^2 + b^2 = c^2 to describe the lengths of sides of a right triangle. So, if you have a 1 inch square, what is the length of the diagonal? About 1.41 inches. This means that each square you move in the diagonal, you are moving close to 1.5 the distance you would have gone if you have moved in the vertical or horizontal. Counting every other square as double is merely WotC's way of accounting for this. But in my opinion, if they were smart, they would have just used hexes instead of squares! Maybe in 4e... ;)
oreththecentaur 08-19-07, 05:26 PM	Wow that was quick. Thanks guys. But in my opinion, if they were smart, they would have just used hexes instead of squares! Maybe in 4e... ;) Yeah we already said that.
sensestaker 08-19-07, 05:46 PM	Stupid 3.5 overcomplicated nerfs. :rolleyes: We still just play 1 square = 1 square in my group. Since everyone, including enemies, treat it the same, it balances out and makes counting easier.
Dheran 08-19-07, 08:28 PM	We still just play 1 square = 1 square in my group. Since everyone, including enemies, treat it the same, it balances out and makes counting easier. Then I assume you make your magical effects work in squares rather than circles? Because it's too easy to get out of the area of effect with "free" diagonal movement if you don't.
tarkin 08-20-07, 02:26 PM	You have to be rather foolish to make diagonal squares always 5 ft. It demonstrates a lack of geometrical sense, allowing the smarter people a HUGE advantage, if they bother to use it. The simples way to negate the diagonal problem is to: Use Hexagonal grids It is perfect for tactical maps, where you care about distance between two points, which is exactly what we are doing. Each hex is always 5ft regardless of which direction you move in.
mvincent 08-21-07, 02:00 PM	One nice side effect of the 1.5 rule is that it also makes calculating 3-D distances easier. i.e. just add 1/2 half of the shorter distance (vertical or horizontal) to the longer distance.
Ranger REG 08-22-07, 02:17 AM	You have to be rather foolish to make diagonal squares always 5 ft. It demonstrates a lack of geometrical sense, allowing the smarter people a HUGE advantage, if they bother to use it. The simples way to negate the diagonal problem is to: Use Hexagonal grids You try drawing a dungeon or a castle floorplan using hexes. Take it from an old-school wargamer, square is hip.
Robespierre 08-22-07, 03:10 AM	Why do people use squares any way? I understand the thing with the minitures, but even there it sucks. If one converts the movement from squares to inches it works the same way and you have completely free movement.
Tedronai 08-22-07, 03:19 AM	Do you ever use hallways that intersect diagonally with rooms or other hallways? Or spiral staircases? You'll run into the same problems in those situations using squares that you'll run into using hexes in standard construction, yet hexes work exceedingly better for tactical purposes (which, last I checked, was the only time spacing was relevant) than their square competition. You'll end up with some partial spaces around the borders of the rooms and hallways. Your players won't care (unless they're just OCPD case studies, in which case you likely have bigger issues - google it if you aren't familiar), and the idea that all buildings are designed in increments of 5' is absurd enough as it is, so you really shouldn't either.
Nom 08-22-07, 03:42 AM	The simples way to negate the diagonal problem is to: Use Hexagonal gridsAnd like most "simple" solutions, you just exchange one issue for a bunch of others. It is perfect for tactical maps, where you care about distance between two points, which is exactly what we are doing.We obviously have different directions of "perfect". Squares with diagonals have 4 axes of movement, but with different distance metrics along each pair of axes. Hexes have 3 axes of movement (one less), but a standard distance measurement. Sqaures provide natural movement and measurement along the 4 major axes (orthogonal and diagonal), and "clean" lines when not on those axes. By clean, I mean that any line on the grid crosses the grid itself at well defined points - arbitrary lines on hex grids tend to criss-cross back and forth between hexrows. Squares provide a more accurate distance approximation when off an axis. Hexes often look slightly less artificial when dealing with natural terrain. Neither is "perfect". The choice is whether a single distance metric is worth the other drawbacks of hexes.
mvincent 08-22-07, 12:18 PM	Why do people use squares any way?Er... I'm surprised at the question. But we should at least point out that offset squares (i.e. arranged kinda like a bricklayer would) function just like hexes, without many of the drawbacks.
tvar1 08-22-07, 12:29 PM	Er... I'm surprised at the question. But we should at least point out that offset squares (i.e. arranged kinda like a bricklayer would) function just like hexes, without many of the drawbacks. It seems to me that the "brick wall" grid is functionally identical to hexes, actually. In each case, every square/hex borders exactly six others, and every vertex touches three squares/hexes. I can't really think of any differences from a tactical point of view. Are there any?
Devlonir 08-22-07, 12:43 PM	What i would like to know, when using Hexes or offset squares, how do you implement charge rules or run rules, because these need to be done in straight lines always. When following current rules, using Squares 3 medium sized creatures can simultaneously charge 1 medium sized creature. Because 3 squares next to each other have 3 squares next to the charged creature they could go to in a straight line and have it be the closest. With offset, only two could do this and couldnt charge in a straight line. And with Hexes it seems to me only one could do it. And flanking has the same problem.. Any 3 squares on each side could flank with 3 squares on the other side with normal square grids. Offset its two.. at best and hex its just one.
mvincent 08-22-07, 12:48 PM	I can't really think of any differences from a tactical point of view. Are there any?When arranging (right angle) walls, partial hexes can be more plentiful, less intuitive and less convenient to adjudicate than offset squares. Heck, even when I was a hardcore GURPS guru I still used (non-offset) squares in my GURPS games. Plus, D&D mechanics are extremely integrated to regular squares. Still, it would be nice to use my heroscape terrain more often in D&D :)
tvar1 08-22-07, 12:54 PM	What i would like to know, when using Hexes or offset squares, how do you implement charge rules or run rules, because these need to be done in straight lines always. I think you are over thinking the "straight line" rule for charging. Do you really think there are only 8 directions you can legally charge on a normal square grid? No, you can charge no matter what angle you are from your foe. But in general, going from squares to hexes would have some other minor side effects due to spaces having 2 less surrounding spaces. So instead of 4 flanking possibilities, there would only be 3 for medium creatures.
Salla 08-22-07, 02:55 PM	I think you are over thinking the "straight line" rule for charging. Do you really think there are only 8 directions you can legally charge on a normal square grid? No, you can charge no matter what angle you are from your foe. Correct. All 'in a straight line' means is that you can't have any obstacles between you and your target you need to veer around. One good way to adjucate this is to get a ruler, or length of string, and connect the two figures. If the ruler/string doesn't intersect an object (tree, wall, etc), then you can charge, regardless of how 'crooked' your movement appears on the grid.
crashlogic 08-22-07, 06:00 PM	Having used both hexes and squares (playing both DnD and Gurps) I prefer squares for the simplicity and ease of use. As a minitures gamer I am very familir with free movement, using only rulers. Having tried it in DnD, I find squares better because battlemats are marked in squares and are easy to draw on, squares make adjudicating areas of effect and threat zones easier, and finaly when a miniature is jostled or knocked out of place, its much easier to recall what square they were in. Its my advice that you stick with the squares, despite some valid drawbacks. And stick with diagonal counting.
Ranger REG 08-22-07, 11:37 PM	Why do people use squares any way? Isn't that how real-world maps are drawn, with longitude and latitude? :smirk:
tvar1 08-23-07, 10:17 AM	Isn't that how real-world maps are drawn, with longitude and latitude? :smirk: The smirk means that's a joke, right? :)
mvincent 08-23-07, 12:17 PM	The smirk means that's a joke, right? :)Joke? Aren't real-world maps pretty darn square-centric?
StevenO 08-23-07, 02:15 PM	If you don't like the cost of 1.5 for diagonal movement you could use what the new StarWars book does and count each diagonal as a full 2 spaces of movement. I hate that in the SWminis game and would NEVER use that in the RPG but that is what the rules say. It is certainly simpler than counting each diagonal as 1.5 but far less accurate. If not playing on a grid you may convince your DM to use a piece of string that is knotted at 1 inch intervals to measure distance. To move you lay the string down on the desired path and follow it. When measuring range for spells and such you just pull it tight.
tvar1 08-23-07, 06:12 PM	Joke? Aren't real-world maps pretty darn square-centric? I guess I was just trying to point out that lines of latitude and longitude lines do not intersect and make squares.
Dheran 08-23-07, 08:11 PM	I guess I was just trying to point out that lines of latitude and longitude lines do not intersect and make squares. ... except when bracketing the Equator.