Here is an odd one. To those who use miniatures/tokens battle maps, I have a question regarding how some of you handle movement with diagonal near a corner scenario either in a hallway or entering a room.
Below is a hallway that opens up into a small room.
Most people do not punish PCs for diagonal movement. D&D 5e on a grid is generally assumed to be non-Euclidean. This video explains it well, he is talking about vertical distance, but it’s all the same in D&D.
Almost every table I've ever been at uses the 5-10 rule for diagonals. 5 feet for the 1st diagonal movement, 10 feet for the 2nd diagonal movement, 5 feet for the 3rd diagonal movement, and so on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Going around a corner, I would probably charge for the 2 squares of movement, because otherwise you'd bang into the wall or door frame. You need to at least pay attention to avoid this, so it will slow you down. You can see this yourself if you ever try to run directly around a corner... you have to either slow down or curve out wide. Either way is more than just moving on the diagonal.
On the open field, I do not charge for diagonals but count them as 1 square of movement regardless, mostly because I just can't be bothered to worry about it. In almost no case has it ever made the slightest bit of tactical difference on a battlefield. Whereas corners do, because you can't shoot around them and so forth.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Corners matter, and things you are avoiding in your path, but otherwise we do 5' is 5' in Roll20 all day long. It's just a faster way of doing it and we are more about expediency than confusing players with odd rules like that. If there were a way to use the measuring tool and have it leave a dot on where you are going, we wouldn't even do the 5x5 most of the time, just straight to the square as long as there are no obstacles. If every now and then a player gets an extra 35' instead of 30'... it doesn't break anything and is worth dropping the every other diagonal space just to save time and arguments.
Corners matter, and things you are avoiding in your path, but otherwise we do 5' is 5' in Roll20 all day long. It's just a faster way of doing it and we are more about expediency than confusing players with odd rules like that. If there were a way to use the measuring tool and have it leave a dot on where you are going, we wouldn't even do the 5x5 most of the time, just straight to the square as long as there are no obstacles. If every now and then a player gets an extra 35' instead of 30'... it doesn't break anything and is worth dropping the every other diagonal space just to save time and arguments.
Roll20 automatically calculates the 5-10-5-10 diagonal rule if you set the map to “Pathfinder” distance types.
I’ve found that PCs with smart tactical strategy love this method more because you can actually impede movement in open maps.
Corners matter, and things you are avoiding in your path, but otherwise we do 5' is 5' in Roll20 all day long. It's just a faster way of doing it and we are more about expediency than confusing players with odd rules like that. If there were a way to use the measuring tool and have it leave a dot on where you are going, we wouldn't even do the 5x5 most of the time, just straight to the square as long as there are no obstacles. If every now and then a player gets an extra 35' instead of 30'... it doesn't break anything and is worth dropping the every other diagonal space just to save time and arguments.
Roll20 automatically calculates the 5-10-5-10 diagonal rule if you set the map to “Pathfinder” distance types.
I’ve found that PCs with smart tactical strategy love this method more because you can actually impede movement in open maps.
Roll20 also lets you use waypoint movement to track total distance along what ever meandering path you decide to take.
For all-ya'll discussing unobstructed diagonal movement (unrelated to the OP's question): the default rule is diagonals costs no extra movement (like in D&D4e), but the DMG provides an option for diagonals costing 50% more (rounding down, like in D&D3.5e).
PHB p.192 and the basic rules: " To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left, even if the square is diagonally adjacent to the square you’re in. (The rule for diagonal movement sacrifices realism for the sake of smooth play. The Dungeon Master’s Guide provides guidance on using a more realistic approach.)"
DMG p.252: "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..." (then goes on to describe the 5-10-5-10 rule).
Matt has it right, the default rule is everything is 5 ft. The optional rule is 5-10, 5-10.
I just recently had a meeting with my other two fellow DMs on this very topic (along with flanking, facing, and targeting through targets) and it was pretty hotly debated. We ended up agreeing to go with the default rule for simplicity sake realizing that it's not technically accurate but was much easier to keep track of and use with players.
So the answer to my OP would be choices 1 for both scenarios or saying choice 2?
Because both scenarios involve rounding a corner, it's two squares of movement in both cases. Important to note is that the reason for this has nothing to do with how diagonal movement is calculated and everything to do with how the rules say you cannot move diagonally around a corner. In your scenarios, the characters must first move one square horizontally and then one square vertically; they can't cut across the diagonal, because of the walls.
the default rule is diagonals costs no extra movement (like in D&D4e), but the DMG provides an option for diagonals costing 50% more (rounding down, like in D&D3.5e)
Continuing the discussion, imma try to blow your mind a bit: these diagonal calculation methods be used even if you don't use a grid.
Example: if you're attacking a flying creature that is 30' over and 80' up, the distance to it is:
80' if using the default rule (i.e. you just take the longest leg).
95' if using the optional method (i.e. longest leg + 1/2 shorter leg)
Underwater combat too can make use of this... or even say, calculating distances in a weird 4-dimensional battlefield that someone once posited on these forums.
Here is an odd one. To those who use miniatures/tokens battle maps, I have a question regarding how some of you handle movement with diagonal near a corner scenario either in a hallway or entering a room.
Below is a hallway that opens up into a small room.
[_][_][A] |_________________
[_][_][B] P1_P2_P3_P4____
[_][_][C] |
1) If P1just at the entrance of the room and wants their movement to end at C.
Should the movement be:
1) two squares B->C
2) one square diagonal to C
Below is a hallway that turns to the south.
___________________ |
P1_P2_P3_P4_ [A] |
| [B] |
2) If P4 is moving down the hall if wants to end his movement a B
Should the movement be:
1) two squares A->B
2) one square diagonal to B
Most people do not punish PCs for diagonal movement. D&D 5e on a grid is generally assumed to be non-Euclidean. This video explains it well, he is talking about vertical distance, but it’s all the same in D&D.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Thank you. That was very helpful.
Almost every table I've ever been at uses the 5-10 rule for diagonals. 5 feet for the 1st diagonal movement, 10 feet for the 2nd diagonal movement, 5 feet for the 3rd diagonal movement, and so on.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Going around a corner, I would probably charge for the 2 squares of movement, because otherwise you'd bang into the wall or door frame. You need to at least pay attention to avoid this, so it will slow you down. You can see this yourself if you ever try to run directly around a corner... you have to either slow down or curve out wide. Either way is more than just moving on the diagonal.
On the open field, I do not charge for diagonals but count them as 1 square of movement regardless, mostly because I just can't be bothered to worry about it. In almost no case has it ever made the slightest bit of tactical difference on a battlefield. Whereas corners do, because you can't shoot around them and so forth.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
5-10-5-10...
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
So your movement should be two squares.
Corners matter, and things you are avoiding in your path, but otherwise we do 5' is 5' in Roll20 all day long. It's just a faster way of doing it and we are more about expediency than confusing players with odd rules like that. If there were a way to use the measuring tool and have it leave a dot on where you are going, we wouldn't even do the 5x5 most of the time, just straight to the square as long as there are no obstacles. If every now and then a player gets an extra 35' instead of 30'... it doesn't break anything and is worth dropping the every other diagonal space just to save time and arguments.
Roll20 automatically calculates the 5-10-5-10 diagonal rule if you set the map to “Pathfinder” distance types.
I’ve found that PCs with smart tactical strategy love this method more because you can actually impede movement in open maps.
This guy is right.
I go 5/5 with out obstacles, 10 if you go around obstacles like corners or doors, and i give 1/2 or 3/4 cover when fighting around a door.
Roll20 also lets you use waypoint movement to track total distance along what ever meandering path you decide to take.
For all-ya'll discussing unobstructed diagonal movement (unrelated to the OP's question): the default rule is diagonals costs no extra movement (like in D&D4e), but the DMG provides an option for diagonals costing 50% more (rounding down, like in D&D3.5e).
Matt has it right, the default rule is everything is 5 ft. The optional rule is 5-10, 5-10.
I just recently had a meeting with my other two fellow DMs on this very topic (along with flanking, facing, and targeting through targets) and it was pretty hotly debated. We ended up agreeing to go with the default rule for simplicity sake realizing that it's not technically accurate but was much easier to keep track of and use with players.
So the answer to my OP would be choices 1 for both scenarios or saying choice 2?
Because both scenarios involve rounding a corner, it's two squares of movement in both cases. Important to note is that the reason for this has nothing to do with how diagonal movement is calculated and everything to do with how the rules say you cannot move diagonally around a corner. In your scenarios, the characters must first move one square horizontally and then one square vertically; they can't cut across the diagonal, because of the walls.
Choice 1 for both scenarios.
Continuing the discussion, imma try to blow your mind a bit: these diagonal calculation methods be used even if you don't use a grid.
Example: if you're attacking a flying creature that is 30' over and 80' up, the distance to it is:
Underwater combat too can make use of this... or even say, calculating distances in a weird 4-dimensional battlefield that someone once posited on these forums.
There is also using the Pythagorean theorem which gets us to 85.44004.
That is why I now switched to hexes and I will not look back. :)