Grid Diagonals: how do you like them?

[Foxhound438]

So by now i've seen 4 different ways of dealing with diagonal movement on grids, and was wondering what's popular for what reasons.

there's two things that you might be looking for, either simplicity in play or simulational accuracy. Optimally for the former, you would be able to move to or target a square and just know without any effort that's in your range, while for simulational accuracy you would ditch the grid, and instead a measuring tape to determine absolutely where you can or can't go or target. However, often we use methods of compromise between the two. These are what i've seen in action:

1) diagonal movement is secretly once horizontal and once diagonal, so one square touching yours by a corner only is 10 feet. This one's probably the easiest to deal with, but often feels restrictive to motion. It's also quite inaccurate from a simulationist perspective. (you could go from [0, 0] to [3, 3] or at a 30 degree you'd end at [4, 2])

2) a square touching your corner is 5 feet away. This one's as easy to deal with and as inaccurate as the last, but instead of being restrictive it's almost too much movement. Larger maps start to feel smaller when someone can dash from one corner to the complete opposite. (you would be able to go from [0, 0] out to [6, x] or [x, 6])

3) alternate 5/10 each diagonal. This one gets pretty close on average but has the issue of unevenly dividing your movement, so if you want to go directly diagonal and only have 25 feet of movement, you're not going to end up quite on target. Same would go for line effects and ranges. (you could go from [0, 0] out to [4, 4], or to [5, 2] at 30 degrees)

4) a "knight move" is 10 feet, but to go 2 squares at 45 degrees diagonal would require 15 feet. It ends up being close to the same as (3) for 45 deg. and gives a bit more freedom going 30 or 60 deg. over a long distance. It's a bit more area that you can cover, but not as ludicrously large an area as (2). (you could go from [0, 0] to [4, 5], [5, 4], or to [6, 3], so as said same for 45 but more for 30 than the above)

So what does everyone use? what's best and why?

[JoeJ]

The easiest way to deal with diagonal movement on a grid is to use a hexagonal grid.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I tend to use method 3 when I bother, because I started out playing 3.5 and that was the official method, but these days I tend not to pay too much attention to exact ranges and movement speeds. (I blame two years of running Mutants and Masterminds; when characters routinely break the speed of sound it's real hard to keep caring about exact distracts)

[RickAllison]

Pythagoras is my friend. I just keep my calculator handy and it tells me all I want to know. Of course, I also like flying so I have to keep track of it in 3-D where it is easier to figure it through d^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 than it is to do it figure it from standard movement.

[Telok]

I prefer hex for the best combination on ease and verisimilitude. Sadly my group literally cannt break themselves of gridlock. One game (not d&d) I needed to draw something not to scale and not at 1" = 5' and they still used the grid like it was the only way to do anything. One of them was actually unable to comprehend a half-size mini on a grid intersection not being a huge monster.

They want to play with each square being five feet away. They've stopped complaining about it when I abuse diagonals and square Fireballs. They also lost the wire "x foot radius" templates that I made for them.

[Dimcair]

3) the 5/10 method. because its official. And i am happy with it. theater of mind is not really something i can appreciate.

[Penthau]

Staggered squares; plays like hexes, draws like squares. Each square is surrounded by 6 others at approximately 1 unit distance (1.1 for the "diagonals"), but it has plenty of straight lines to help draw walls and such. I wish I could find mats like that.

[Madbox]

My group uses 2). Of course, this has the odd result that my DM had to rule that an x-foot radius sphere is identical to a 2x*2x*2x cube, to maintain the balance on certain spells. For example, Hunger of Hadar becomes a lot less useful, as using rule 2 without modifying spells means that a creature with a 30ft move is now able to escape in one turn.

As Hunger of Hadar focuses on a point, on a grid there are four positions that can be considered the "center" square of the AoE. Therefore, I will demonstrate with one quadrant of the AoE. Measurements are assuming a one inch square to five foot square ratio.
C=Creature in the "center"
A=Area of Effect
Q=Questionable whether or not it is open, as square is partially in the AoE if AoE is measured as an actual circle
O=Definitely open, square is not in the AoE

A Q Q O
A A A Q
A A A Q
C A A A

So, despite being a 20ft sphere which counts as difficult terrain, if diagonals only count as 5ft then a creature could move to the 'O' with a 30ft speed, even though Theater of the Mind would have such a thing be impossible.

[MrStabby]

hex for outside, squares for inside. Outside it is accurate enough with hex. Inside, most rooms/corridors are aligned to the grid so unless the rooms are huge fireball radius or movement at diagonals is not often an issue and you can just eyeball it. The occasions where it is at a diagonal are sufficiently rare that doing a quick calculation isn't that tough.

Another note, that for longer distances you can get a decent enough estimate by using movement in lines along the grid coupled with 3/4/5 right angled triangles to quickly gauge distance.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I went with knight moves for a move at maximum rate. 10' below your max move (assuming 30')? Matters not.

Hexes are best out of doors, though.

[coredump]

Staggered squares; plays like hexes, draws like squares. Each square is surrounded by 6 others at approximately 1 unit distance (1.1 for the "diagonals"), but it has plenty of straight lines to help draw walls and such. I wish I could find mats like that.

That's pretty clever.. I need to think about that.

[Nu]

Pretty much 2) because it's easier. The grid is meant to be an abstraction anyway, used for the convenience of utilizing game terms and mechanics, not an absolutely accurate representation of movement and positioning. Plus, it's what I was used to after playing 4th edition for a few years prior.

[tieren]

We generally use 2, except in a case where the path is partly obstructed. We can't move diagonally from 5 feet in one corridor to 5 feet in another perpendicular corridor, then we have to use 1. Same result if there is a table or something in one of the adjacent squares not technically in the diagonal path.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I use 3, because it's close enough that spell effects line up reasonably well and distance is still easily countable on the map.

[obryn]

I've grown very used to 1-1-1 diagonal counting, and find that it's by far the fastest and easiest in play, particularly for AoE effects. I couldn't give a fig about the simulation issues with it. :smallsmile:

[coredump]

I am in AL, so we use 2)... but its the one thing I hate about it. I would *really* prefer using 3). It makes a *lot* more sense, and is plenty easy to do.

[MaxWilson]

Often gridless, either ToTM or sketched on a whiteboard, but when I need a grid method I alternate 10/5/10/5, because that's what the Gold Box games did.

[oxybe]

1:1:1 quick, simple and not anymore immersion breaking then a magical elf shooting rainbows at a tentacle poop monster.

[RickAllison]

Often gridless, either ToTM or sketched on a whiteboard, but when I need a grid method I alternate 10/5/10/5, because that's what the Gold Box games did.

The issue I see with the 5/10/5/10 method is that it doesn't function as well with non-direct diagonals. For example:

I is the initial position, E is the end, X is empty space.

XXXE
XXXX
XXXX
XXIX

How are angles like differentiated in the system?

[JoeJ]

hex for outside, squares for inside. Outside it is accurate enough with hex. Inside, most rooms/corridors are aligned to the grid so unless the rooms are huge fireball radius or movement at diagonals is not often an issue and you can just eyeball it. The occasions where it is at a diagonal are sufficiently rare that doing a quick calculation isn't that tough.

Another note, that for longer distances you can get a decent enough estimate by using movement in lines along the grid coupled with 3/4/5 right angled triangles to quickly gauge distance.

That fact that most rooms and corridors are rectangular is a big reason why I don't use squares. With hexagons the grid doesn't usually line up exactly with anything, which serves as a reminder to everyone that it's only there to help with measure distances, not to regulate anything. Characters don't have to move in 5' increments, and spell effects don't have to be aligned with anything on the map.

[Gtdead]

Counting squares is extremely boring. I'd probably try to do something along the lines of "for every 4 diagonals, use lose 1 square of movement". Something that is easy to remember. Sure it can be abused but I wouldn't care too much.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

The issue I see with the 5/10/5/10 method is that it doesn't function as well with non-direct diagonals. For example:

I is the initial position, E is the end, X is empty space.

XXXE
XXXX
XXXX
XXIX

How are angles like differentiated in the system?

It gets counted as 15' feet, when it should be counted as 15.8'. Close enough for the 30' range of most players. The system functions like leap years, only correcting when things get too far from the true value.

XXXXE
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXIXX

And this gets counted as 20', when it should be 18'.

XXXXXE
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXIXXX

This gets counted as 20' as well, when it should be 21.2'.

Things stay close, so visual examinations of ranges and distances still give you a decent idea.

[tzar1990]

I prefer either 1->2->1 (the most accurate, given that a diagonal is actually ~1.4142 squares) or 1 all the way for player movement, but use closest fit to the actual circle when determining what squares are in a given area of effect.

[RickAllison]

It gets counted as 15' feet, when it should be counted as 15.8'. Close enough for the 30' range of most players. The system functions like leap years, only correcting when things get too far from the true value.

XXXXE
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXIXX

And this gets counted as 20', when it should be 18'.

XXXXXE
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXIXXX

This gets counted as 20' as well, when it should be 21.2'.

Things stay close, so visual examinations of ranges and distances still give you a decent idea.

But what are the rules for it? It kind of defeats the purpose of having a go-to ruleset for movement if you still have to break out the calculator to verify whether it is closer to 15' or 20'. Keeping in mind that what you described is the method I actually use, so this is just trying to figure out how a system that is trying to avoid calculations gets around this while staying consistent.

[coredump]

The issue I see with the 5/10/5/10 method is that it doesn't function as well with non-direct diagonals. For example:

I is the initial position, E is the end, X is empty space.

XXXE
XXXX
XXXX
XXIX

How are angles like differentiated in the system?

It's easy. The first diagonal is 5', the second is 10'. Repeat.

[RickAllison]

It's easy. The first diagonal is 5', the second is 10'. Repeat.

Fair enough :smallsmile: Still doesn't work for me, but I tend to enjoy flying. Unless someone here wanted to tackle a modified system to take into account three-dimensional diagonals! :smallbiggrin:

[EscherEnigma]

Played 3.Xe with the "alternate 5/10 for diagonals", played with 4e with "everything is 1", played other games where we just don't sweat it.

I like playing fast and loose with distance or just using the 4e/5e "everything is 1 square" method. Sure, it's not as "accurate", but it makes running the game simpler and easier.

[Daishain]

I just say that moving diagonally takes 7.5 feet a pop. It is close to the actual equivalent distance (roughly 7.1), and is simple enough to keep track of. A typical 30' move can go up to four squares diagonally that way.

[ProphetSword]

I've grown very used to 1-1-1 diagonal counting, and find that it's by far the fastest and easiest in play, particularly for AoE effects. I couldn't give a fig about the simulation issues with it. :smallsmile:

Same here. Easiest to deal with.