Imo I think its a better idea to count in 2s for orthogonal movement and 3s for diagonal. leaves out half numbers for players when they are counting on a grid.
It seems to me that counting in 1.5 is something that both wotc and paizo considered before deciding to do their “second diagonal counts double” method. Incidentally, i dont know anyone who actually plays that way. The playerbase of both dnd 5e and pathfinder 2e (which make up the vast vast vast majority of all ttrpg players) have pretty much universally rejected the 1.5 diagonal conversion. - Do you believe that changing the presentation to 1.5 rather than alternating 1 and 2 to be the secret to getting people to accept this system?
Maybe not, but it's working for me and it might work for viewers too, I've already had a few comments from people keen on trying this system. In my research I found no mention of 1.5 being discussed but must have missed that bit of history. I would be surprised if D&D and Pathfinder tried this because it would mean counting in 7.5ft steps... As you say, most D&D and Pathfinder players I know of just say Diagonals are 5ft, same as orthogonals, probably because most people don't care that much, which is fair. Maybe I am weird... No, I am weird. For those that do care, I think 1.5 is a much more rigorous and simpler system than alternating 1 and 2. Imo.
I would be really interested to know what online services like roll20 do for gridded distance actually, Id expect they calculate it exactly and round up to the nearest 5 but not sure
Is it too controversial for me to suggest 5/7 for 5ft squares, it works easily in 5ft resolution, if anything better than the 1.5x rule because you are keeping it in whole units and its like 2% error
No, that's completely fine and something I have considered, as you say it's much closer to reality. The only issue is I think generally people aren't so good at counting in 7s. There also is the potential that you end up needing just one extra foot. So if you wanted to move diagonally 3 times and straight twice that would 31feet and if you only have 30 that feels bad. Not the worst thing but worth considering.
8 днів тому
Also: straight is 2 meters, diagonal is 3 meters, 3D diagonal is 4 meters. Same math, no fractions, no big numbers.
yep, another good way of doing it. at the moment I am sticking with 1, 1.5,2 as then the smallest step is 1, which I think is intuitive but everything is still WIP so we'll see.
This is honestly amazing, never thought of 1.5 being the solution.
This is a variant rule that is presented in the 2014 dnd 5e core rulebooks.
Imo I think its a better idea to count in 2s for orthogonal movement and 3s for diagonal. leaves out half numbers for players when they are counting on a grid.
Yeah totally valid. I was very tempted to go for 2 and 3. It's a very good option.
It seems to me that counting in 1.5 is something that both wotc and paizo considered before deciding to do their “second diagonal counts double” method. Incidentally, i dont know anyone who actually plays that way. The playerbase of both dnd 5e and pathfinder 2e (which make up the vast vast vast majority of all ttrpg players) have pretty much universally rejected the 1.5 diagonal conversion.
-
Do you believe that changing the presentation to 1.5 rather than alternating 1 and 2 to be the secret to getting people to accept this system?
Maybe not, but it's working for me and it might work for viewers too, I've already had a few comments from people keen on trying this system.
In my research I found no mention of 1.5 being discussed but must have missed that bit of history. I would be surprised if D&D and Pathfinder tried this because it would mean counting in 7.5ft steps...
As you say, most D&D and Pathfinder players I know of just say Diagonals are 5ft, same as orthogonals, probably because most people don't care that much, which is fair. Maybe I am weird... No, I am weird.
For those that do care, I think 1.5 is a much more rigorous and simpler system than alternating 1 and 2. Imo.
I would be really interested to know what online services like roll20 do for gridded distance actually, Id expect they calculate it exactly and round up to the nearest 5 but not sure
Is it too controversial for me to suggest 5/7 for 5ft squares, it works easily in 5ft resolution, if anything better than the 1.5x rule because you are keeping it in whole units and its like 2% error
No, that's completely fine and something I have considered, as you say it's much closer to reality.
The only issue is I think generally people aren't so good at counting in 7s.
There also is the potential that you end up needing just one extra foot.
So if you wanted to move diagonally 3 times and straight twice that would 31feet and if you only have 30 that feels bad.
Not the worst thing but worth considering.
Also: straight is 2 meters, diagonal is 3 meters, 3D diagonal is 4 meters. Same math, no fractions, no big numbers.
yep, another good way of doing it. at the moment I am sticking with 1, 1.5,2 as then the smallest step is 1, which I think is intuitive but everything is still WIP so we'll see.