Player too good at geometry, keeps missplaying

[Boci]

Okay, so title is a little tongue in cheek, but maybe you can guess where this is going. Is have a player who twice now has gotten tripped up on diagonals not being longer on the battle map. This is over the course of years, so its not a frequent problem, but it does happen. The first time he had enemies feared, and boxed then in, or so he thought, only to have them split up and reposition on his flanks. He argued they couldn't do this, since they would be moving closer, but I pointed out that they were still 8 squares away, just now in a straight line rather than diagonally, which in D&D rules was the same. He wasn't happy with this, but reluctantly accepted that by the rules of D&D they hadn't moved closer to him, they still needed 40ft of movement to approach him, same as before they moved.

More recently they were fighting a monster, which they ID as having a 20ft aura. On the monsters's turn I told everyone within 20ft to make a wisdom save. He didn't roll, saying he was beyond the range, and I checked, he was 4 squares away from it diagonally, which yes, mathematically is more than 20ft, but not for the purposes of a 5th ed D&D battle map. He didn't argue this time, but was a bit annoyed rolling his save.

So firstly, just triple checking, I am right here, in both cases? And assuming so, has anyone else encountered this problem? Is there anything that can be done about it?

[animorte]

That's why I love Hex! This problem is encountered significantly less often.

[Derges]

I'd say the first is debatable, "moving closer" has a little room for interpretation although most would rule as you did.

2nd is 100% correct. Auras are squares in 5e grid play.

[LudicSavant]

Okay, so title is a little tongue in cheek, but maybe you can guess where this is going. Is have a player who twice now has gotten tripped up on diagonals not being longer on the battle map. This is over the course of years, so its not a frequent problem, but it does happen. The first time he had enemies feared, and boxed then in, or so he thought, only to have them split up and reposition on his flanks. He argued they couldn't do this, since they would be moving closer, but I pointed out that they were still 8 squares away, just now in a straight line rather than diagonally, which in D&D rules was the same. He wasn't happy with this, but reluctantly accepted that by the rules of D&D they hadn't moved closer to him, they still needed 40ft of movement to approach him, same as before they moved.

More recently they were fighting a monster, which they ID as having a 20ft aura. On the monsters's turn I told everyone within 20ft to make a wisdom save. He didn't roll, saying he was beyond the range, and I checked, he was 4 squares away from it diagonally, which yes, mathematically is more than 20ft, but not for the purposes of a 5th ed D&D battle map. He didn't argue this time, but was a bit annoyed rolling his save.

So firstly, just triple checking, I am right here, in both cases? And assuming so, has anyone else encountered this problem? Is there anything that can be done about it?

There's a rule for more realistic diagonals on pg.252 of the DMG (aka the "circles are not gorram squares" rule). Most GMs I know use this rule in order to avoid problems just like the one you mentioned.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1100254020314091621/1129346158096044154/image.png

[Kane0]

First recommendation: use hexes
Second recommendation: use 3.5 style diagonal calculations
Third recommendation: use theatre of the mind

Basically... anything but the default 5e handling of grid distances. Because that way leads to square circles.

[MoiMagnus]

There's a rule for more realistic diagonals on pg.252 of the DMG (aka the "circles are not gorram squares" rule). Most GMs I know use this rule in order to avoid problems just like the one you mentioned.

That rule works well enough, though I find the way it is written in the PHB to be impractical to use.
I prefer to see it as "Diagonal is 50% more, rounded generously"
(so the distance you measure are rounded down, meaning that the amount of squares you can go through while moving is rounded up)

Hexagonal is great too (and no need for any math), though rectangular rooms become a little awkward to draw.

[J-H]

I run Fireballs and AOE spellss as circles but most other things as squares by distance... including letting characters move diagonally without movement penalty. It hasn't come up with auras yet.
It's a very minor bit of cognitive dissonance.

[Eldariel]

It's worth remembering that grid itself is a variant rule. Therefore, "circles as squares" is a variant...and I wouldn't recommend you use it. It's just bad: spell effects differ from movement (you can get out of an explosion even though the explosion is as big as the distance you moved for instance, but only if you move diagonally for some godawful reason). The benefits far as calculation go basically don't exist on VTT and even on TT, they are miniscule (remembering to 1.5x the diagonal comes to you naturally after few hours of playing).

Solutions, well, Kane0 outlined the options listed in 5e rules books and all of them are better. Hexes work great, 1.5x diagonals work great, TotM (the "Default/RAW") works great. It also gives you more space on maps without having to make maps bigger, which makes for more interesting encounters.

[thoroughlyS]

Here to echo the recommendation for hex grids. I actually like hexes for a handful of minor reasons: fewer people can surround a single hex (which feels a little more realistic to me), you can distinguish circles and squares better, and diagonals feel better. There is one major hurdle each for DMs and players. For DMs, it takes some time to figure out rectangular rooms. For players, it takes a little time to figure out how to move across hexes (as opposed to along hexes).

[clash]

Grids themselves are just a tool in my opinion. I use them to measure approximate difference for movement but area effects affect their proper shape at my table. Circle is circle diagonal is diagonal anyone. Anyone not completely in an aoe gets advantage on their save and we call it good. The grid rules provided have always just seemed like ammo or defense for or against rules lawyers. Much better to just follow normal world geography

[diplomancer]

I run Fireballs and AOE spellss as circles but most other things as squares by distance... including letting characters move diagonally without movement penalty. It hasn't come up with auras yet.
It's a very minor bit of cognitive dissonance.

My groups usually do the same. I actually prefer the one square/two squares when moving diagonally rule, but if you are going to use the "diagonal movement costs the same as vertical/horizontal rule", I definitely prefer it to be kept strictly to movement.

[Telok]

Hexagonal is great too (and no need for any math), though rectangular rooms become a little awkward to draw.

Rectangular rooms aren't any harder to draw. You just want to line up the grid with the walls, which wouldn't work anyways if you used a real building as stuff isn't always exact 90 degree angles and exactly 5' measurements. As soon as you stop bending the gameplay to fit the battlemap then those squares have the same "it doesn't fit in the lines" issues that hexes do.

Personally I prefer neither hexes nor squares, just a ruler and AoE templates. That also frees me from the tyranny of tiny ass maps where nothing is more than 200' away because it "won't fit the grid".

[Skrum]

I agree with your first ruling, but not the second. Auras aren't squares. I play on a virtual table, and when a token has an aura, an actual circle emanates from the token, and any square that is at least 50% covered is affected. IIRC, something like Spirit Guardians (15' radius) affects 3 squares in each direction, but does not affect the corners.

[MoiMagnus]

Rectangular rooms aren't any harder to draw. You just want to line up the grid with the walls, which wouldn't work anyways if you used a real building as stuff isn't always exact 90 degree angles and exactly 5' measurements. As soon as you stop bending the gameplay to fit the battlemap then those squares have the same "it doesn't fit in the lines" issues that hexes do.

Personally I prefer neither hexes nor squares, just a ruler and AoE templates. That also frees me from the tyranny of tiny ass maps where nothing is more than 200' away because it "won't fit the grid".

Yes, but if you don't bind gameplay to fit the battlemap, then I see zero reason of using a square grid in the first place.
The only reason I have to (sometimes) use a square grid is that it gives clean battlegrounds, because I want an aesthetically pleasing look that match the gameplay at the cost of realism.

When I don't, I'm on the "Theatre of the Mind" side, where I can also "break free of the tyranny" of constant speed of movement and/or constant duration of a round and/or sequentiality of character turns, rather than having everything fit nicely within the rules.

And that's why I put it as a drawback of hexagonal grids, since it negates one of the few reasons I ever use square grids. Though admittedly, I could also bend the world to the gameplay of an hexagonal grid by forcing every room to be hexagonal. But I've yet to be used to it so it's not intuitive enough for me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

At the table, I use a grid but don't actually stick anything to it. It's there purely as a quick rough measuring tool for movement (counting grid squares, not feet). I've done whiteboard + ruler before as well.

On a VTT, it's on a grid, but effects are still their regular shapes and I ignore its built in "these squares are affected" rules.

Either way, I have zero desire to do pythagorean math or do anything differently with diagonals. If straight and diagonal are the same, I can just do one side to figure out ranges and movement. This is especially useful when it's not a straight 45 degree diagonal--having to use fractional squares is annoying. And I'm already overloaded enough by the actually important parts of DMing that I just can't be bothered to care.

[Lord Ruby34]

There's a rule for more realistic diagonals on pg.252 of the DMG (aka the "circles are not gorram squares" rule). Most GMs I know use this rule in order to avoid problems just like the one you mentioned.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1100254020314091621/1129346158096044154/image.png

My group has also been using this rule since we started playing. It's easy to use, and makes diagonals work in a way that makes a little more sense.

[Keravath]

Personally, I tend to leave movement along diagonals costing 1 for simplicity but most everything else is run as a circle if it is described as a circle and then I simply rule on whether a square is affected by the AoE usually based on coverage > 50%. Most DMs I've run into run it this way as well.

I can easily ignore the cognitive dissonance caused by diagonal movement but I don't like a 20' cube spell like hypnotic pattern and a 10' radius spell like Shatter having the same area of effect. I also don't like the ~25% increase in the AoE of spells like Fireball when calculated using 40'x40' vs a 20' radius.

However, I have met some DMs who use the square area interpretation and as long as they make it clear to the players at the beginning, it isn't a big deal though there will be players who forget since everything in the PHB refers to circles, cones, lines and other AoE that are independent of the optional playing on a grid rules. The actual written rules are more intuitive and having circle AoE being interpreted as squares really isn't intuitive.

[Atranen]

You're right according to RAW, but I'm with your player that the RAW here is significantly different from what we know ought to happen and therefore you should use one of the modifications brought up in this thread. If you're counting each diagonal as only 5 ft, then all spheres becomes cubes. But we know that a 20 ft radius sphere and a 40 ft cube are not the same thing.

So, I'm with your player that the ruling would bother me. As a DM, I'd switch to the 1.5x rule.

The only time I use the RAW ruling is when playing AL games at Tier 1 with new players, for whom it's worth the simplification of 'every square = 5 ft' and the edge cases come up less often.

[Segev]

I also use the optional 5-10-5-10 diagonal rule; I picked it up in 3.5.

You could also do away with the grid and use rulers, or string cut to lengths.

[LudicSavant]

Personally, I tend to leave movement along diagonals costing 1 for simplicity but most everything else is run as a circle if it is described as a circle and then I simply rule on whether a square is affected by the AoE usually based on coverage > 50%. Most DMs I've run into run it this way as well.

I can easily ignore the cognitive dissonance caused by diagonal movement but I don't like a 20' cube spell like hypnotic pattern and a 10' radius spell like Shatter having the same area of effect. I also don't like the ~25% increase in the AoE of spells like Fireball when calculated using 40'x40' vs a 20' radius.

However, I have met some DMs who use the square area interpretation and as long as they make it clear to the players at the beginning, it isn't a big deal though there will be players who forget since everything in the PHB refers to circles, cones, lines and other AoE that are independent of the optional playing on a grid rules. The actual written rules are more intuitive and having circle AoE being interpreted as squares really isn't intuitive.

This is a good point to consider too. In addition to the cognitive dissonance which is fine for some but will really bother others, the "circles are squares" take tends to add to already existing balance issues. Most of the best AoEs are already spherical or circular (like Fireball, Spirit Guardians, etc etc), even when circles are merely circles. Making the circles into considerably larger squares just puts things like poor Lightning Bolt even further behind.

[False God]

That's why I love Hex! This problem is encountered significantly less often.

Hexagons are the bestagons.

And also resolve almost all of these corner cases.


Rectangular rooms aren't any harder to draw. You just want to line up the grid with the walls, which wouldn't work anyways if you used a real building as stuff isn't always exact 90 degree angles and exactly 5' measurements. As soon as you stop bending the gameplay to fit the battlemap then those squares have the same "it doesn't fit in the lines" issues that hexes do.

The existence of "partial" spaces should be part and parcel with pretty much any map. NO, this is NOT a full 5-foot square, but that doesn't mean it can't be occupied or used to someone's advantage, it just requires a little extra work to do so.

[Hytheter]

NO, this is NOT a full 5-foot square, but that doesn't mean it can't be occupied

Isn't this why we have squeezing rules?

[False God]

Isn't this why we have squeezing rules?

Yes it is. A lot of maps don't put them to use though, making a lot of structures take up an exact number of full spaces. I'm saying that squeezing should be a lot more common and people should think of it as a regular tactic (my experience is they don't).

[Chronos]

It's really tough to say that "RAW, circles are squares" when the grid itself is an optional rule, and there's another optional rule that makes it make sense.

If you do insist on using a grid, there are five options:

1: Square, with diagonals being the same as orthogonals.
2: Square, with diagonals being double of orthogonals.
3: Hex
4: Square, with diagonals being 1.5 times orthogonals.
5: Euclidean

Options 1 and 2 are the simplest (1 perhaps a hair simpler than 2), but both are wildly unrealistic. 5 is the most realistic, but also by far the most complicated (you usually end up with non-integer positions, and you need to take square roots to find distances). 3 is more realistic than 1 or 2, but also more complicated. 4, though, is almost as simple as 1 or 2, and also a very good approximation of reality. In particular, squares with diagonals being 1.5 is both simpler than hexes, and also a better approximation of reality. Given that, there's basically no reason to ever use hexes.

[animorte]

Given that, there's basically no reason to ever use hexes.
That vulgar use of language is wildly unnecessary, thank you. :smalltongue:

I disagree with 1.5 being easier than hex, though it is more realistic.

[Zhorn]

You could also do away with the grid and use rulers, or string cut to lengths.
Or have the grid AND have a string and rulers on the table too.

Call me a geometric stickler, but anyone at my table trying to handwave circles into squares is on a fast track to having something thrown at them for comical effect.

At one stage to make a point I made up a perspex square with an edge-to-edge circle

https://geometryhelp.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Circle-inscribed-in-a-square.jpg
aligning the centre over a token I'd use it for denoting measurements, but would rotate it to be the most annoying interpretation of distance at the time.
Point a flat side perpendicular to a target to say it's out of range, but a diagonal when enemies were checking if they were in range for attacking.
Only ever sees use for a few minutes out of an entire campaign, but it gets everyone agreeing pretty quick to just use a consistent measure approach that doesn't stretch/skew based on direction.
Circles and spheres are circular
Squares and cubes are square
There is no changing my mind

[Kane0]

3 is more realistic than 1 or 2, but also more complicated.

Given that, there's basically no reason to ever use hexes.

What? How?

[Bohandas]

Theoretically you could replace the grid with a tape measure

[LudicSavant]

Theoretically you could replace the grid with a tape measure

Many tabletop games do this and it works just fine. It also works effortlessly on VTTs!


It's really tough to say that "RAW, circles are squares" when the grid itself is an optional rule, and there's another optional rule that makes it make sense.

Very true.

Default rule is TotM and the various rules and tables relating to it.

Then there are like 6 different variant rules for using grids (and like 60 different ways I know of from across tabletop gaming at large), and of them "circles are squares" is one of my least favorites of all of them. It makes no physical sense, overrides various more sensible rules, and actually widens gaps in balance (since it benefits ranged combat more than melee, benefits casters more than non-casters, and buffs circular and spherical AoEs like Fireball and Spirit Guardians while leaving stuff like Lightning Bolt further behind)


Yes it is. A lot of maps don't put them to use though, making a lot of structures take up an exact number of full spaces. I'm saying that squeezing should be a lot more common and people should think of it as a regular tactic (my experience is they don't).

Add more squeezing to your D&D games today! :smallsmile:

[Bohandas]

You could also try incorporating either Lovecraftian or Alice In Wonderland themes into the campaign, in either of which cases the game occurring in Chebyshev space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chebyshev_distance) becomes a feature rather than a bug

[LudicSavant]

You could also try incorporating either Lovecraftian or Alice In Wonderland themes into the campaign, in either of which cases the game occurring in Chebyshev space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chebyshev_distance) becomes a feature rather than a bug

Come now, we all know that Lovecraftian geometries are non-Euclidean.

Which is especially funny since non-Euclidean geometry is just regular geometry for creatures that live on a sphere (you know... like humans).

[Hytheter]

Which is especially funny since non-Euclidean geometry is just regular geometry for creatures that live on a sphere (you know... like humans).

I mean, we could be talking hyperbolic.

[Bohandas]

It's clearly hyperbolic based on the description of one area that initially seems to bend away from them and then seems to bend the other way after they pass it, and more tellingly the description of angles seeming more obtuse than they actually are; given sufficient space the internal angles of a shape in hyperbolic space can be made arbitrarily small (and given sides of infinite length the internal angles can be decreased to zero)

[Atranen]

Theoretically you could replace the grid with a tape measure

Is there any good battlemat that you can draw on, like the chessex one, without squares/hexes? I like the idea, but I worry about drawing things out. And playing without squares on a mat with squares sounds...bad

[Zhorn]

And playing without squares on a mat with squares sounds...bad
Keep the grid, just don't use the "move by [x] spaces" style of thinking; as that's where the breakdown and disagreements stem from.

Grids are great for keeping a visual scale on what distances are there, same for hexes, so having them is always helpful.
But the game isn't chess; and an arbitrary insistent of grid alignment while flubbing the measurements those grids are supposed to help with... that way lies madness

[MoiMagnus]

You could also try incorporating either Lovecraftian or Alice In Wonderland themes into the campaign, in either of which cases the game occurring in Chebyshev space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chebyshev_distance) becomes a feature rather than a bug

We have a few homebrew artifact that are returning guests from campaign to campaign, even across universes and RPG systems.

One of them is a cube in a sphere that when enabled keeps allow its user to see a square grid around, and warp reality so that the "diagonal = 1" applies.

[Segev]

We have a few homebrew artifact that are returning guests from campaign to campaign, even across universes and RPG systems.

One of them is a cube in a sphere that when enabled keeps allow its user to see a square grid around, and warp reality so that the "diagonal = 1" applies.

Can they rotate their reference to force the diagonals to be in advantageous directions?

[MoiMagnus]

Can they rotate their reference to force the diagonals to be in advantageous directions?

It depends on the universe/rpg and the expecte powerlevel.

On high power level, yes.

On lower power level, they can't rotate it but since it keeps a stable orientation it is usefull as a compass.

(And in video-game-like campaigns it's orientation depends on the room you're in, but you can use the fact that it activates itself to detect that a combat started.)

[Atranen]

Keep the grid, just don't use the "move by [x] spaces" style of thinking; as that's where the breakdown and disagreements stem from.

Grids are great for keeping a visual scale on what distances are there, same for hexes, so having them is always helpful.
But the game isn't chess; and an arbitrary insistent of grid alignment while flubbing the measurements those grids are supposed to help with... that way lies madness

I'll give it a try!

[greenstone]

And assuming so, has anyone else encountered this problem? Is there anything that can be done about it?

Yes, I've seen it at a few tables.

My answer is to repeat, "circles are squares, solely to make it easier for us players at the table."

In my games, everything is a square (or cube, if there are fliers). Movement, throwing range, spell range, magic auras, illumination - everything. It doesn't make sense in reality, but D&D is not a reality simulator.

"Everything is squares" is a sanity rule.

[LudicSavant]

"Everything is squares" is a sanity rule.

Then why does it drive so many people insane?

[Quietus]

Then why does it drive so many people insane?

Probably something to do with that Lovecraftian geometry people were talking about up-thread.

[LudicSavant]

Probably something to do with that Lovecraftian geometry people were talking about up-thread.

But non-euclidean geometry has curves! CURVES!

[GeoffWatson]

One problem with using circles instead of squares is that diagonal movement lets you move though less dangerous terrain/area than you would from orthogonal movement.
E.g. Approaching an enemy with 10' reach from straight on would give an attack of opportunity, but not if they approached from a diagonal, where they move from 15' away (2 diagonals) to 5' away in one step.

[Bohandas]

But non-euclidean geometry has curves! CURVES!

Tindalos didn't

[Chronos]

"Non-Euclidean geometry" isn't any one thing. Spherical and hyperbolic geometries are examples of non-Euclidean geometries, but so are all three of the square-grid rules here and hex grids. Spherical and hyperbolic geometries are notable mostly because they still retain many of the other features of Euclidean geometry (all of the standard axioms aside from the Parallel Postulate or its equivalents still hold, and thus all theorems that don't depend on the Parallel Postulate).

[LudicSavant]

"Non-Euclidean geometry" isn't any one thing.

Well obviously; it refers to any geometry that isn't Euclidean geometry.

[stoutstien]

Here I am over here using teams whiteboard like a heathen.

[Zhorn]

Here I am over here using teams whiteboard like a heathen.
Hey man, as long as you are keeping an active game going, you're doing alright :smallsmile:

My current game I'm DMing over Foundry VTT
there's a sect in the automation community that keeps insisting on turning circles into squares and treating diagonals as equal to orthogonal distances... the more I see it the more screwy it looks:

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/14878515/160877997-267b01a5-e19f-475a-97ab-4fe2f381dd41.gif
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/14878515/160877936-8839866d-ae81-499b-b373-4032890b05ed.gif
just no...
1 ≠ 1.41
5 ≠ 7.07
10 ≠ 14.14
15 ≠ 21.21

[Kane0]

Here I am over here using teams whiteboard like a heathen.

I have the luxury of both whiteboard and a hex grid laid out on the table. But im not currently the forever DM and my replacement keeps trying to flip it over and use the square side of the mat like a philistine

[greenstone]

Is there any good battlemat that you can draw on, like the chessex one, without squares/hexes? I like the idea, but I worry about drawing things out. And playing without squares on a mat with squares sounds...bad

A clear acrylic sheet works well, something like https://www.mitre10.co.nz/shop/award-plastic-acrylic-sheet-600-x-1200-x-3mm-clear/p/353182. You can put maps underneath it and draw with whiteboard markers. Most hardware shops will cvut them to whatever size suits your table.

[greenstone]

Then why does it drive so many people insane?

What drives me insane is inconsistency.

I played in one game where the GM used circles for attacks and spells but used squares for movement. It bugged me immensely that my character could walk diagonally 30 ft and get next to a foe, but couldn't throw a dagger or cast a cantrip at that same foe... and the GM saw nothing wrong with this.

I much prefer hexes but my current players flatly refused to use them. We tried using no grid and pieces of string but one player hated it. Annoyingly, that's the player who complains about having to count squares…

[Bohandas]

An idea occurs. What if there were some way to reorient the grid on an adhoc basis independently of the map or miniatures, perhaps by projecting onto the map with either a downward facing projector or an upward facing projector coupled with a very thin map? That could combine the advantages of the grid method and the string method if it were made to work

(As for the many things that wouldn't be entirely on one square or another after the map was reoriented, these could either count as being on whatever square the largest portion of them occupies, or they could be handled in a quantum fashion, with a die being rolled to determine which square they count as being on until the next reorientati9n of the grid (the pieces wouldn't actually be repositioned though))

[MoiMagnus]

We tried using no grid and pieces of string but one player hated it. Annoyingly, that's the player who complains about having to count squares…

Make sense to me. If they're annoyed about the fact of having to care about distance (and their favourite setup is to hand-wave distances), using a string to measure is not particularly better: you still have to make a significant mental effort to determine if something is in range or not, coupled with the fact that using an unusual system means that they have to retrain their intuition.

[Segev]

I much prefer hexes but my current players flatly refused to use them. We tried using no grid and pieces of string but one player hated it. Annoyingly, that's the player who complains about having to count squares…

I think it's been suggested already, but I'll repeat it - if only one player hated it, and the others liked it, why not do both? Play on a grid, and use strings. Pull out the strings for anything that the grid is too imprecise for, allowing positioning "off square" for example, but let people use the squares if they prefer (as long as they're not trying to mis-use them).

Another thing that can help if the string is too annoying would be a "range template." A circle with radius equal to the move distance can, at least as far as open space shows, be easier to show how far he can move with. Though I am not sure what he found annoying about a six-inch string for a 30 foot movement. It's pretty easy to sweep around to wherever you want to go, and to also wrap around corners for ease of visualizing how he's moving. Was it because it was difficult to weave it around enemy figures while trying to stay out of their reach? I can totally see using a combination of string and grid, where grid is useful to eyeball enemy reach.

[da newt]

Gridless and every player is given a 30' long measuring stick (6") and the DM has an AOE disk.

I do like hex grids, but many folks have difficulty adjusting to them and they aren't perfect either.

Now add flying creatures, elevation differences, and spherical and conical effects and watch people buffer ... (The twilight Cleric who was flying w/ spirit guardians up and couldn't wrap his mind around how he couldn't be 15' above the ground out of melee range and affect everyone on the ground within 3 grid squares of the square he was over as if his SG aura was a 35' cube.)

I'm also fine with all circles are squares, all spheres are cubes, all cones are pyramids - it's not supper logical, but it is very easy to rule and adjudicate.

[Bohandas]

Getting into pure theory here... Tying the hex grid suggestions into the discussion of non-euclidean spaces - and acknowledging that there would be tricky engineering difficulties that would have to be overcome before this could be a viable product - would a grid of even higher sided polygons (printed on a distorted mat approximating hyperbolic space and that could be locally straightened out*, a la hyperbolic crochet) create an even better approximation of a circle? It seems in particular like an octagonal grid would give you a more sensible version of the square grid's 8-directional movement (edit: and also would allow you to do a dungeon based on the lair of Bel Shamharoth)


*the aforementioned engineering problems being the matter of keeping the active section locally flat and keeping figures on the scrunched up inactive section from falling off (maybe something could be done with magnets or snap-on figures or whatever the principle behind colorforms is; or possibly it could just be a virtual table)

[Segev]

Getting into pure theory here... Tying the hex grid suggestions into the discussion of non-euclidean spaces - and acknowledging that there would be tricky engineering difficulties that would have to be overcome before this could be a viable product - would a grid of even higher sided polygons (printed on a distorted mat approximating hyperbolic space and that could be locally straightened out*, a la hyperbolic crochet) create an even better approximation of a circle? It seems in particular like an octagonal grid would give you a more sensible version of the square grid's 8-directional movement (edit: and also would allow you to do a dungeon based on the lair of Bel Shamharoth)


*the aforementioned engineering problems being the matter of keeping the active section locally flat and keeping figures on the scrunched up inactive section from falling off (maybe something could be done with magnets or snap-on figures or whatever the principle behind colorforms is; or possibly it could just be a virtual table)

I think the technical difficulties with trying to do this would mean that just using string/rulers/templates would generate superior results in both usability and fidelity.

[LtPowers]

E.g. Approaching an enemy with 10' reach from straight on would give an attack of opportunity, but not if they approached from a diagonal, where they move from 15' away (2 diagonals) to 5' away in one step.

That's not how attacks of opportunity work in 5th Edition. You have to leave a creature's reach to provoke an attack of opportunity.

Polearm Master gives you an additional option, but even then, it triggers when an enemy enters your reach, which would trigger in both of the situations you describe above.


Powers &8^]

[DomesticHausCat]

Getting one of these things helps heaps in my games. Place it on the map and draw out the aoe. That way there's no confusion.

https://a.co/d/iHZh7vY

[Reynaert]

I wonder how hard it would be to design a device that you hold above the table, which uses some kind of rangefinder to figure out how high it is, and would then display a dot and a circle of a specific radius? It could probably be the size of a laser pointer.

I know it's vastly overengineered for what it's trying to achieve but on the other hand I'm quite sure plenty of people would want it for the tech-gadget-ness alone.

[Boci]

Discussed it with the players last night. We agreed that proper fights won't work with TotM, we wouldn't find it satisfactory with how we play in the larger more significant fights. They felt hexagons or grid-less measurements were overkill, so we agreed to try the every 2nd diagonal is 2 squares rule. We don't like that this makes 5ft and 10ft the same diagonally, but otherwise we think it will be enough to solve everyone's dissatisfaction with the default grid system, hasn't some up yet since last session we only had minor skirmishes for which TotM was enough.

Thanks for the suggestions everyone!

[Bohandas]

I wonder how hard it would be to design a device that you hold above the table, which uses some kind of rangefinder to figure out how high it is, and would then display a dot and a circle of a specific radius? It could probably be the size of a laser pointer.

I know it's vastly overengineered for what it's trying to achieve but on the other hand I'm quite sure plenty of people would want it for the tech-gadget-ness alone.

An adjustable flashlight would take you a good portion of the way there

[Segev]

Discussed it with the players last night. We agreed that proper fights won't work with TotM, we wouldn't find it satisfactory with how we play in the larger more significant fights. They felt hexagons or grid-less measurements were overkill, so we agreed to try the every 2nd diagonal is 2 squares rule. We don't like that this makes 5ft and 10ft the same diagonally, but otherwise we think it will be enough to solve everyone's dissatisfaction with the default grid system, hasn't some up yet since last session we only had minor skirmishes for which TotM was enough.

Thanks for the suggestions everyone!

Technically, 10 feet diagonally puts you halfway through the second diagonal square, which is enough that it should include someone standing there in an AoE, but would not let you finish moving into that square.

You could also allow people to stand on corners as well as in squares, so if they move 10 feet diagonally, they're now on the corner of four squares, rather than in any of them.

[Boci]

Technically, 10 feet diagonally puts you halfway through the second diagonal square, which is enough that it should include someone standing there in an AoE, but would not let you finish moving into that square.

You could also allow people to stand on corners as well as in squares, so if they move 10 feet diagonally, they're now on the corner of four squares, rather than in any of them.

And the paladin's 10ft aura? You get half their charisma as a bonus to saves if you're 2 squares away diagnonally? 50/50 of getting the full bonus or nothing? Just seems like a lot of messy calls to make if you're using a grid system.

[Segev]

And the paladin's 10ft aura? You get half their charisma as a bonus to saves if you're 2 squares away diagnonally? 50/50 of getting the full bonus or nothing? Just seems like a lot of messy calls to make if you're using a grid system.

If you're 2 squares away diagonally, you are "in" the aura, because the circular template covers at least half your square.

Think of it this way: if you were playing without a grid, and somebody were positioned such that their figure was half within 10 feet and half further than 10 feet away, how would you adjudicate whether he gets the paladin's aura or not? It's the same problem.

[Boci]

If you're 2 squares away diagonally, you are "in" the aura, because the circular template covers at least half your square.

So now there's no difference between diagonal 10ft and 15ft feet, which might be an improvement, but still feels messy.


Think of it this way: if you were playing without a grid, and somebody were positioned such that their figure was half within 10 feet and half further than 10 feet away, how would you adjudicate whether he gets the paladin's aura or not? It's the same problem.

Well no, because without a grid the scenario involve half squares. That's quite a substantial difference.

[Segev]

So now there's no difference between diagonal 10ft and 15ft feet, which might be an improvement, but still feels messy.Is there a difference with no grid and a ruler?


Well no, because without a grid the scenario involve half squares. That's quite a substantial difference.I am not sure why. You're having to adjudicate whether a creature's partial existence in and out of the affected area causes the creature to be affected or not either way. Either you're doing it based on the creature's base (gridless), or the creature's grid square.

I am not sure what the "substantial difference" is. I'm not sure what ANY functional difference is. If you see one, can you please elaborate on it?

[Boci]

Is there a difference with no grid and a ruler?

You mean a proposal me and my group dismissed as overkill and therefor don't use and have no plan to use? Kinda limited relevance to us no?

[Segev]

You mean a proposal me and my group dismissed as overkill and therefor don't use and have no plan to use? Kinda limited relevance to us no?

I suppose I didn't understand your objection, then.

Let me put it this way: The difference between 5 and 10 feet along the diagonal in the model you're planning to use is a difference between movement and area coverage. It takes 15 feet of movement to move two diagonal spaces. It takes only 10 feet of range to reach something two diagonal squares away. That's the functional difference. The second diagonal square is covering both 10 and 15 feet, yes, and you measure it somewhat differently depending on what you're doing with it. Which does create that difference between ten and fifteen feet on the diagonal.

[Boci]

The second diagonal square is covering both 10 and 15 feet, yes, and you measure it somewhat differently depending on what you're doing with it.

And you don't understand that people like consistency? A sentiment that had been expressed by others at least twice in this thread?

[Segev]

And you don't understand that people like consistency? A sentiment that had been expressed by others at least twice in this thread?

I just don't see the inconsistency, myself. Certainly not more than the inconsistency inherent to "circles are squares." Still, my condolences that it has frustrations for you; I was hoping to alleviate them by providing alternate ways to think about it. Sorry I seem to have done the opposite.

I do think, if you're not going to use templates and such, you're using the best square grid rule possible with the 5-10-5-10 diagonal rule. I hope it works out well for you and whatever frustrations it causes are alleviated with time.

[Telok]

You know, you could more easily keep squares if you cut them 2 feet sq. each and had medium critters take a 3x3 area. Or 1 sq. foot each, but that way lies accuracy & realism which are big no-no now. We could scale up to 15' squares and call them zones of control or something, but thats too close to theater of the mind & narrative games. Guess we'll have to stick with clunky hacks, ignoring pronlems, and 5' squares as the "simplest" solution.

Seriously tho, it's a super minor thing to do anything better than "i cast firecube". I've only seen issues with people who can't escape the "everything must fit perfectly in a square and all other shapes are blasphemy" mind set.