What is your opinion on the diagonal rule from the DMG?
I personally believe that it really only hurts martial classes cause of spell ranges being very big, and it can cause movement on certain maps to be absolutely painful.
But I would like to hear other opinions on the rule.
Please state what the actual rule is. The rule that came to my mind makes little sense with what you're saying, so I think we're thinking of two different things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The only diagonal rule that immediately comes to mind is with movement: first square is 5 ft., the second is 10 ft. So moving 2 squares diagonally costs 15 ft of movement. It’s under Exploration in Running the Game.
The Player’s Handbook presents a simple method for counting movement and measuring range on a grid: count every square as 5 feet, even if you’re moving diagonally. Though this is fast in play, it breaks the laws of geometry and is inaccurate over long distances. This optional rule provides more realism, but it requires more effort during combat.
When measuring range or moving diagonally on a grid, the first diagonal square counts as 5 feet, but the second diagonal square counts as 10 feet. This pattern of 5 feet and then 10 feet continues whenever you’re counting diagonally, even if you move horizontally or vertically between different bits of diagonal movement. For example, a character might move one square diagonally (5 feet), then three squares straight (15 feet), and then another square diagonally (10 feet) for a total movement of 30 feet.
(it's really not that hard to count 5 feet for moving a space in any direction, I don't know how that becomes Pythagorean Theorem in anyone's head, and even the simple math of your movement speed divided by 5 is that hard to calculate either)
It's better than solving the Pythagorean Theorem for every diagonal movement.
Very true.
It's the default rule in 3.5e, and because I've played a lot of that, I'm quite accustomed to using it. Still requires more brain power than I'd like. It doesn't really add anything in my opinion. The grid is still jank regardless.
My group switched to the new way — every square is 5’ — as opposed to the old 5,10,5,10 back when 5e came out. I like it. The simplicity and speed it adds is worth more than the “realism” it takes away.
I don't find it realistic because it's more movement and range diagonally, when in a real world we are able to walk in at least 38 directions at the same speed (because angles exist). Also isn't Pythagorean Theorem for triangles and not squares?
My DM uses this rule. Martials deal with it for movement and attacks, but it affects spell range too. Wanna Guiding Bolt a baddie 120ft away diagonally? You'd better move position, son, because that's not how a hypotenuse works.
I disregard this when I DM. I don't care if it breaks geometry, it slows down combat when people have to count funny and re-evaluate their turns because they don't have the movement or range to do what they want. Also, I never liked geometry in school and this is my fantasy world, so I'm happy to stick it to Pythagoras.
My DM uses this rule. Martials deal with it for movement and attacks, but it affects spell range too. Wanna Guiding Bolt a baddie 120ft away diagonally? You'd better move position, son, because that's not how a hypotenuse works.
I disregard this when I DM. I don't care if it breaks geometry, it slows down combat when people have to count funny and re-evaluate their turns because they don't have the movement or range to do what they want. Also, I never liked geometry in school and this is my fantasy world, so I'm happy to stick it to Pythagoras.
I know it affects spell ranges, but for example you said guiding bolt is 120 feet, fireball (one of the most used spells in d&d's history) has a range of 150 feet, the diagonal rule really only changes these spells if the map of combat is huge, which unless you're running a lair or any WoTC module, almost never happens. meanwhile, my ranger who has to actually move in weird ways just to be able to target certain enemies, which is why I agree that it slows down combat.
Personally, I always use the base rule of each square is 5 movement, to heck with geometry. In all my years of playing, including with folks getting their doctorate in technical, geometric-heavy fields, I have never once had a player legitimately complain about this rule and how it is "not realistic". There are a few areas of D&D where a DM might be inclined to make a more "realistic" game, but where they really are just adding busywork which most players find incredibly unnecessary--this I feel is one of them.
Now, if a DM is so concerned about realism in movement that they feel the need to impose it, they should be using hex tiles. Each hex tile easily represents 5 feet of movement in every adjacent direction, making them perfect for folks who are a stickler about Pythagoras.
and this is the main reason I created this forum, I'm in a d&d discord server where a lot of new players are complaining about the diagonal rule because it's slowing down combat and hurting specific builds like rangers who use bows, and the admins won't budge because "ReAliSm!!!"
I don't find it realistic because it's more movement and range diagonally, when in a real world we are able to walk in at least 38 directions at the same speed (because angles exist). Also isn't Pythagorean Theorem for triangles and not squares?
In the real world, we don't stand in 5' by 5' squares when we fight. And the Pythagorean Theorem applies because you're moving from corner to corner, thus making a triangle.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Another way the 5’ rule is better is flying creatures. Having to count theoretical squares in the air up and over is just a mess. If all the diagonals are just 5’, you can simply count squares on the ground and not worry too much about the height. You still have to worry about the height, yes, but not as much. And so much of the game rules break down when you add that third dimension, anything you can do to keep it simple is a benefit in my book.
I used to use the optional rule for added realism but honestly it does slow the game down a bit, especially when the rule has to be explained again and again for players who just realized that they could not do what they had already worked out in their head they would do. I switched over to the simple rule and yeah, it benefits the players a lot, but I have come to the conclusion that I don't really care. There are plenty other things I have to worry about in the two games I am DMing for that I can't be bothered to care that my players move across the map at a weird angle.
Your players come at all their problems from a weird angle, why not in movement too?
The Optional Rule: Diagonal gouvern both for movement and range measurement;
Optional Rule: Diagonals
The Player’s Handbook presents a simple method for counting movement and measuring range on a grid: count every square as 5 feet, even if you’re moving diagonally. Though this is fast in play, it breaks the laws of geometry and is inaccurate over long distances. This optional rule provides more realism, but it requires more effort during combat.
When measuring range or moving diagonally on a grid, the first diagonal square counts as 5 feet, but the second diagonal square counts as 10 feet. This pattern of 5 feet and then 10 feet continues whenever you’re counting diagonally, even if you move horizontally or vertically between different bits of diagonal movement. For example, a character might move one square diagonally (5 feet), then three squares straight (15 feet), and then another square diagonally (10 feet) for a total movement of 30 feet.
the only time we do not use one square is 5 feet is when a third dimension of height is added like long range aerial combat, then everything on the same horizontal plane is 5 and we calculate the hypotenuse for a diagonal attack going up or down. If it’s close enough to being in range then it’s in range, it’s a game we’re fine with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What is your opinion on the diagonal rule from the DMG?
I personally believe that it really only hurts martial classes cause of spell ranges being very big, and it can cause movement on certain maps to be absolutely painful.
But I would like to hear other opinions on the rule.
Please state what the actual rule is. The rule that came to my mind makes little sense with what you're saying, so I think we're thinking of two different things.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The only diagonal rule that immediately comes to mind is with movement: first square is 5 ft., the second is 10 ft. So moving 2 squares diagonally costs 15 ft of movement. It’s under Exploration in Running the Game.
It's better than solving the Pythagorean Theorem for every diagonal movement.
https://sayeth.itch.io/
Optional Rule: Diagonals
The Player’s Handbook presents a simple method for counting movement and measuring range on a grid: count every square as 5 feet, even if you’re moving diagonally. Though this is fast in play, it breaks the laws of geometry and is inaccurate over long distances. This optional rule provides more realism, but it requires more effort during combat.
When measuring range or moving diagonally on a grid, the first diagonal square counts as 5 feet, but the second diagonal square counts as 10 feet. This pattern of 5 feet and then 10 feet continues whenever you’re counting diagonally, even if you move horizontally or vertically between different bits of diagonal movement. For example, a character might move one square diagonally (5 feet), then three squares straight (15 feet), and then another square diagonally (10 feet) for a total movement of 30 feet.
(it's really not that hard to count 5 feet for moving a space in any direction, I don't know how that becomes Pythagorean Theorem in anyone's head, and even the simple math of your movement speed divided by 5 is that hard to calculate either)
Very true.
It's the default rule in 3.5e, and because I've played a lot of that, I'm quite accustomed to using it. Still requires more brain power than I'd like. It doesn't really add anything in my opinion. The grid is still jank regardless.
I think Diagonal Movement adds a little more complexity and realism to movement but the core rules are just simpler to use with a single measurement.
My group switched to the new way — every square is 5’ — as opposed to the old 5,10,5,10 back when 5e came out. I like it. The simplicity and speed it adds is worth more than the “realism” it takes away.
I don't find it realistic because it's more movement and range diagonally, when in a real world we are able to walk in at least 38 directions at the same speed (because angles exist). Also isn't Pythagorean Theorem for triangles and not squares?
My DM uses this rule. Martials deal with it for movement and attacks, but it affects spell range too. Wanna Guiding Bolt a baddie 120ft away diagonally? You'd better move position, son, because that's not how a hypotenuse works.
I disregard this when I DM. I don't care if it breaks geometry, it slows down combat when people have to count funny and re-evaluate their turns because they don't have the movement or range to do what they want. Also, I never liked geometry in school and this is my fantasy world, so I'm happy to stick it to Pythagoras.
I know it affects spell ranges, but for example you said guiding bolt is 120 feet, fireball (one of the most used spells in d&d's history) has a range of 150 feet, the diagonal rule really only changes these spells if the map of combat is huge, which unless you're running a lair or any WoTC module, almost never happens. meanwhile, my ranger who has to actually move in weird ways just to be able to target certain enemies, which is why I agree that it slows down combat.
Personally, I always use the base rule of each square is 5 movement, to heck with geometry. In all my years of playing, including with folks getting their doctorate in technical, geometric-heavy fields, I have never once had a player legitimately complain about this rule and how it is "not realistic". There are a few areas of D&D where a DM might be inclined to make a more "realistic" game, but where they really are just adding busywork which most players find incredibly unnecessary--this I feel is one of them.
Now, if a DM is so concerned about realism in movement that they feel the need to impose it, they should be using hex tiles. Each hex tile easily represents 5 feet of movement in every adjacent direction, making them perfect for folks who are a stickler about Pythagoras.
and this is the main reason I created this forum, I'm in a d&d discord server where a lot of new players are complaining about the diagonal rule because it's slowing down combat and hurting specific builds like rangers who use bows, and the admins won't budge because "ReAliSm!!!"
So this is why this forum exists.
In the real world, we don't stand in 5' by 5' squares when we fight. And the Pythagorean Theorem applies because you're moving from corner to corner, thus making a triangle.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Another way the 5’ rule is better is flying creatures. Having to count theoretical squares in the air up and over is just a mess. If all the diagonals are just 5’, you can simply count squares on the ground and not worry too much about the height.
You still have to worry about the height, yes, but not as much. And so much of the game rules break down when you add that third dimension, anything you can do to keep it simple is a benefit in my book.
I used to use the optional rule for added realism but honestly it does slow the game down a bit, especially when the rule has to be explained again and again for players who just realized that they could not do what they had already worked out in their head they would do. I switched over to the simple rule and yeah, it benefits the players a lot, but I have come to the conclusion that I don't really care. There are plenty other things I have to worry about in the two games I am DMing for that I can't be bothered to care that my players move across the map at a weird angle.
Your players come at all their problems from a weird angle, why not in movement too?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Circles are squares using the 5' rule.
See the Pack Tactics YouTube Short:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jN4kthd7xE0
Not according to the 5e Optional Rule in the DMG that the OP is referring to, so you’re wrong.
The Optional Rule: Diagonal gouvern both for movement and range measurement;
We do not use the 5 & 10 rule, it’s too messy
the only time we do not use one square is 5 feet is when a third dimension of height is added like long range aerial combat, then everything on the same horizontal plane is 5 and we calculate the hypotenuse for a diagonal attack going up or down. If it’s close enough to being in range then it’s in range, it’s a game we’re fine with it.