Diagonal movement

I'm checking out this site just now, and it seems amazing, good work. However, I noticed that the tool that measures distance on the grid is somewhat flawed. It counts diagonal movement in the same regards as vertical and horizontal movement. This makes diagonal movement simply geometrically favorable, as you can cover much more ground within the same movement speed. A good solution to this (the one used by every other grid-based game I can think of) is that every other square should count as two squares. For instance, four squares of movement in a diagonal line would be counted as 5, 15, 20 and then 30 feet. Hope I helped :)

That's indeed the best approximation of dear old Pythagore's theorem (using 1 and 1.5 and rounding down).

But approximation is something that you need only when you don't have a measuring tool. It's designed and intended for use when you count squares instead of measuring.

It depends, I suppose (and first of all if you consider moving tied to the squares). The real value for a diagonal move is 1.4141213562... Imho, using 1.5 is keeping well within the approximation of the simulation model of my RPG, so makes no real difference to me. Does your system find a significant difference between moving 1.5 and 1.4141213562 square?

If he plays 3rd edition, yes. 4e got rid of that 5/10/5 nonsense and simply reduced it to Squares. To be honest, the advantage is insignificant. It only makes a difference of 2 squares when you move in a straight diagonal line which honestly isn't much in D&D. Besides, it's not exactly an advantage if everyone can do it.

Does your system find a significant difference between moving 1.5 and 1.4141213562 square? I don't actually play any systems that use a square grid. But for example consider a target that is twelve squares to the east and six squares to the north. It actual range is 13.4 squares, which ought to round to 13, but the D&D 4 metric says it is at a range of 12 and the D&D 3 metric says it is at a range of 15. When you actually measure, instead of counting, there is no need for approximations that were designed for when you are counting as a second-best substitute for measuring. You're measuring, so you can measure. Also, as we see, there are various games (indeed, various versions of D&D) that use different metrics on the grid. If Roll20 is to be system-agnostic none should be imposed rather than the others. The natural default is that the measuring tool should measure. The various square-counting metrics ought to be implemented as options, or perhaps ought to be user-definable.

It doesn't work this way with movement on squares. Because you have to have easily finite values to calculate movement allowance (and you have to follow a path through squares). If you don't want to have different ways to calculate distances for moving and doing other things, you have to accept that simplification. If I move two squares diagonally, knowing that I have moved 3 "units" is enough for me, I have no use to know that it was in reality 2.828224.... And counting a diagonal at 1.5 and a straight line at 1 works easily for that (that's probably why the others VTT I know use it. What I was saying is that it is insignificant given the approximation of a system where you have to keep within squares representing 5 feet square.

What I was saying is that you don't need to measure when you can count squares, that being the whole point of the squares. I was also saying that five-foot squares are not a system-agnostic thing, they are only a D&D 3.x and D&D 4 thing. In fact, they are two different things, because D&D 3.x implements it differently from D&D 4. Not every game designer does accept the simplification, and Roll20 ought not to impose it on everyone. Neither D&D version. In short, Roll20 doesn't have to stay within five-foot squares. Indeed, it can't do so. You seem to be suggesting that Roll20 ought to adopt the D&D 3.x metric for distance and impose it on D&D 4 players and everyone else. It doesn't matter how good a rule it is: it just isn't practical to do that. Obsolete D&D doesn't trump current D&D and all other games. People will insist on using the rules of the game they are playing. I expect that Roll20 will probably end up with a choice of distance metrics for the measuring tool, or perhaps a customisable formula. But if it does have to end up with only one, there is one thing I'd like to point out. If you want to use a method that depends on counting squares and applying a simple formula, and the built-in measuring tool doesn't support it, then you are no worse off than on a real table. But if you are playing a game that depends on real measurement and the measuring tool doesn't support it you face quite the problem. Real-distance measurement has a claim to be the highest priority distance measurement because it is the hardest to do without if you need it . People playing games like AD&D that use real distance need a measuring tool more than the rest of us.

I have played a lot of games, but no D&D (well, maybe once at the beginning of the 80's, I don't remember the details), so I have no idea if it fits one edition or another. Still all the games I play have one system of squares, hexes or whatever to regulate movements. The grid can vary from game to game, but it is there. All the VTT I know use a grid and grid measurements. And almost all of the tactical maps I can think of have a grid added upon them. On the other hand, I don't know a game using real measurement (tabletop wargames, only), that you think should be the basis for all the games.

I think the crux of it is, the tool MUST provide a true accurate measure of distance by Pythagoras. that number might not be useful to every game system, but it is a facty fact of distance. It would be great if the tool has toggles to use different mechanics for calculating distance to enable other systems. I suspect that for ranged combat, if everybody was stuck with phythagoras, that wouldn't be too much of a problem. It's a straight-line and it's mathematically correct. As agamegos's earlier example used 13.4 feet, it simple to check the range of the weapon and decide if it can hit. it's certainly not worth the mental drama to calculate it by you're game's alternate measuring rules. However, figure movement is a different matter. It can be a squiggly line as the token moves around corners and obstacles. It is NOT a simple matter of calculating distance from starting point to ending point by Pythagoras. this is really why game systems dedicated ink to their method of calculation. They needed something fast to count how many squares you moved against your allotment of 4,6 or 12 squares. Since the distance involved does tend to be small during movement, compared to ranged combat, I think humans could do the counting by their game rules manually, rather than engage the VTT to do it. And really, unless the VTT had your speed#, and made you walk your token across the map so it could count squares moved, it's not practical for the VTT to do it. Since you can just drag and drop your token to any place, the VTT is clearly not managing that aspect of the game and it is the humans responsibility. Just like on a real table.

I think it is worth mentioning that the distance tool still measures simply the greater of A squares down or B squares over instead of either a fraction calculated by pythagorus, or an approximate method of your choice. This means for diagonal lines, the measurement tool is usually less accurate than eyeballing, not much of a tool at all. I am with Janx that the raw pythagorean decimal (not even snapping the start and finish location of the arrow to the center of squares) should be used, to allow you to measure map distances and other things swiftly and accurately. Allowing checkmarks, or even a whole seperate tool to sleect movement rules and display should be a job for another day, once you can use the measuring tool to measure.

Any love here from the roll20 folks? Anything but the current metric would be an improvement for me, but I agree that the default for a measurement tool should be ... measure the distance! Right now we have to measure X, then measure Y, and do the math ourselves, which is only slightly faster than counting squares (but ends up with fewer fingerprints on the screen). Also for a laugh, use the measurement tool in hex grid mode.

Oh, one current workaround is to set an aura on a token, that draws a circle in nearly a proper distance (it currently adds 1/2 a square to the radius).

Even if some of these points have already been taken into consideration for the last update in the Ruler Tool, I want to say that I agree with them: I don't actually play any systems that use a square grid. (. . .) The natural default is that the measuring tool should measure. The various square-counting metrics ought to be implemented as options, or perhaps ought to be user-definable. I was also saying that five-foot squares are not a system-agnostic thing, they are only a D&D 3.x and D&D 4 thing. In fact, they are two different things, because D&D 3.x implements it differently from D&D 4. Not every game designer does accept the simplification, and Roll20 ought not to impose it on everyone. Neither D&D version. In short, Roll20 doesn't have to stay within five-foot squares. Indeed, it can't do so. (. . .) Real-distance measurement has a claim to be the highest priority distance measurement because it is the hardest to do without if you need it . People playing games like AD&D that use real distance need a measuring tool more than the rest of us. Patrick C. wrote: On the other hand, I don't know a game using real measurement I do. For instance, GURPS. Even if it can use 1 yard hexes for tactical situations and combat, the general idea is using real measurement for everything, instead of "gamist", arbitrary units. Here is a quote from GURPS Basic Set, page 5: The GURPS system breaks everything down into plain English and simple numbers. Distances are given in feet and miles, rather than arbitrary units; times are given in minutes and seconds. That’s what makes it generic. That also makes it easy to translate.

I do. For instance, GURPS. Even if it can use 1 yard hexes for tactical situations and combat, the general idea is using real measurement for everything, instead of "gamist", arbitrary units. Here is a quote from GURPS Basic Set, page 5: The GURPS system breaks everything down into plain English and simple numbers. Distances are given in feet and miles, rather than arbitrary units; times are given in minutes and seconds. That’s what makes it generic. That also makes it easy to translate. It means that distances are given in feet and miles and yards, that's all. From what can be seen in the system, in the scenarios, in the maps sold by SJG, even from what can be deduced from the evolution of the game (from TFT to Man to Man to GURPS 1 to 4th ed), it seems that tactical combat is expected to be played on 1 yard hexes. That just means that your grid is expressed in real world units, no more. All grids, in all games, are expressed in real life units, even D&D ones. On the above discussion, using real measurements did mean no grid and no movement or distance regulations through a grid, just measuring, like wargamers on a tabletop.

We used to play shadowrun on a large mat and used measuring tape for distances; I don't know if that's normal for the game or not. For small interiors we would sometimes use a 1-meter with the "Large side + 1/2 small side" approximation which has a smaller worst-case error than hex-grid, while still working with man-made buildings.

Well, Pythagoras aside, if would be convenient to have a second tool that measures diagonals using the D&D 3.x/Pathfinder convention (5/10/5/10/5...) in addition to the tool that measures using D&D 4e convention (5/5/5/5...). If this is meant to be a usable tool for role-players, I think there is a significant user base who would like to see the 5/10/5 tool in addition to the 5/5/5 tool. Ideally, this would be a user configurable option for the page.

It means that distances are given in feet and miles and yards, that's all. (. . .) On the above discussion, using real measurements did mean no grid and no movement or distance regulations through a grid, just measuring, like wargamers on a tabletop. However, some GURPS players use measurement without any grid for tactical situations, because a grid (hex, square, whatever) annoys them. Actually, the grid is a kind of suggestion , like other optional rules and alternate ways of handling this or that. I like using grids, though. But it's interesting to note that Steve Jackson Games released a free tool supporting this way of handling things: it's the GURPS Range Ruler (free at <a href="http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=SJG37-0206" rel="nofollow">http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=SJG37-0206</a>). Here are a couple of quotes from its brief instructions: The GURPS Range Ruler is a tool for finding combat ranges on your battle map quickly, without counting hexes. The Range Ruler is a mere convenience when you’ve got a hex map – but if you’re playing au naturel (without a map, silly!), it really comes in handy. Ditch hexes! Go raw!

Roll20 supports hex maps. The game system I use, (HarnMaster Gold) does too, OR.. it supports simply measuring. With a convenient enough measuring procedure I don't need a grid at all. The ruler tool as it stands now is completely and utterly worthless to me because it is locked into a game system specific orientation that is not the one I use. The results it provides are simply wrong. It is counter to the stated design philosophy. I imagine DnD in it's various forms is still the most popular RPG, and it's probably worth including an option to configure the ruler to adhere to those rules as an option. But the option (and indeed default) setting for a ruler to measure straight line distance should be available to us.

This topic has already been discussed elsewhere and I think that the devs (Riley?) had proposed a solution in a future update. But I can't find the message again. So, maybe something is already decided.

It's pointless to say things like "use hex maps" or "it doesn't make much of a difference." A large number of people play 3.5 or Pathfinder using this tool. The tool should support (at least optionally) the basic measurement conventions of those games.

If he plays 3rd edition, yes. 4e got rid of that 5/10/5 nonsense and simply reduced it to Squares. To be honest, the advantage is insignificant. It only makes a difference of 2 squares when you move in a straight diagonal line which honestly isn't much in D&D. Besides, it's not exactly an advantage if everyone can do it. Let's say you have a weapon with a 20 square range increment, and you're firing it across a diagonal. Your "insignificant" change increases the effective range of that weapon by half over the "nonsense" that keeps its range consistent from one direction to another.