Math Matters
-
But D&D uses Chebyshev distance, not Euclidean. No need for Pythagoras. And Pathfinder alternates between Chebyshev and Manhattan to approximate Euclidean.
Playing combat on a grid is actually presented as an optional rule and not the default for 5E, despite its popularity
-
Playing combat on a grid is actually presented as an optional rule and not the default for 5E, despite its popularity
So are feats, and point buy.
-
i wish that it was more common to refer to the metrics in terms of what they are instead of who discovered them. i can’t ever remember off the top of my head if the chebyshev one is supposed to be the diamond metric (L^1^) or the square metric (L^∞^).
Personally I find Euclidean easy to remember because it matches the much more general Euclidean geometry. So you just remember “this is like, real maths”. Manhattan distance is easy to remember because it does basically “refer to the metrics in terms of what they are”, so long as you remember that Manhattan famously is a grid. Chebyshev is the hardest, but for me it’s a simple matter of “the one that’s left over”.
I have no idea, based on the name, what diamond and square metrics are supposed to be.
-
That is one reason I don’t like D&D, it is a glorified boardgame the hides it’s wargame roots under a very thin layer. I like tactical rpg on the computer but investing that level of math and detail in a pen & paper game is so boring, for me at least.
My group plays pretty loose goosy with the rules. We just look at it and make a quick estimate of whether something looks in range. They also have little range finder tools that are helpful for quickly determine cones, spheres, etc. We’re also the kind of party that doesn’t really keep track of gold. Apparently gold has a weight?
For this reason I actually don’t like playing one shots with people I don’t know, because they don’t play by all of our house rules, lol.
-
But D&D uses Chebyshev distance, not Euclidean. No need for Pythagoras. And Pathfinder alternates between Chebyshev and Manhattan to approximate Euclidean.
There’s no grid in the sky, though
-
Holy shit it does.
The halfling and dwarf are out of luck. Human stands a chance.
-
That is one reason I don’t like D&D, it is a glorified boardgame the hides it’s wargame roots under a very thin layer. I like tactical rpg on the computer but investing that level of math and detail in a pen & paper game is so boring, for me at least.
If you actually have to use that much math more than once in a blue moon, you’re doing it wrong.
-
There’s no grid in the sky, though
Fair point. I actually don’t know what, if anything, the D&D (or Pathfinder) rules say on this matter. I’ve always just treated it as a natural 3D extension of the 2D grid rules. If they’re three squares in one direction, same square in the other, and 10 feet up, I’d treat that as 15 feet away because of Chebyshev rules.
-
Depends on which part of them needs to be blessed?
The opposite of that happened to Achilles
-
Personally I find Euclidean easy to remember because it matches the much more general Euclidean geometry. So you just remember “this is like, real maths”. Manhattan distance is easy to remember because it does basically “refer to the metrics in terms of what they are”, so long as you remember that Manhattan famously is a grid. Chebyshev is the hardest, but for me it’s a simple matter of “the one that’s left over”.
I have no idea, based on the name, what diamond and square metrics are supposed to be.
i think that’s a good point and that is a nice way to remember them. i think a lot of it just comes down to personal preference.
i like calling them the diamond/square/circle metrics because those shapes describe the sets of points that have unit length. i’ve found this wikipedia picture to be very helpful, and the diamond/square/circle terminology is my way of paying my respects to the picture.
-
If you actually have to use that much math more than once in a blue moon, you’re doing it wrong.
If I think more about it i come to conclusion that is not really the math per se, but what I find boring is that 90% of the rules (measured by feeling) are about battle and battle takes such a huge and detailed part in the game.
-
If the cleric is 30ft in the air, and the allies are 20ft away but on the ground, then the allies are probably 10ft tall
-
My group plays pretty loose goosy with the rules. We just look at it and make a quick estimate of whether something looks in range. They also have little range finder tools that are helpful for quickly determine cones, spheres, etc. We’re also the kind of party that doesn’t really keep track of gold. Apparently gold has a weight?
For this reason I actually don’t like playing one shots with people I don’t know, because they don’t play by all of our house rules, lol.
In general I don’t really like Pen&Paper RPGs where you need miniatures (and for worse range finder tools) to play them. But that is a me thing, don’t read my words as that I want to say D&D should change. Far away from that, D&D is a great game and I love it on the PC (where it IMHO only works, not at the table)
-
Me at 20: I’m never going to need Chebyshev distance in real life. Why am I learning this?
Happy cake day!
-
And multiclassing.
-
Happy cake day!
Happy cake day to you!
-
But D&D uses Chebyshev distance, not Euclidean. No need for Pythagoras. And Pathfinder alternates between Chebyshev and Manhattan to approximate Euclidean.
Is that so? Why would some spells specify geometry then? For example fireball says it is a 20 ft radius while Hallucinatory Terrain specifies that it affects a 150 ft cube which, under Chebyshev distance, would be the same as a sphere right? My understanding was that D&D 5e uses euclidean distance with a minimum threshold of a square that has to be covered to be counted.
-
Is that so? Why would some spells specify geometry then? For example fireball says it is a 20 ft radius while Hallucinatory Terrain specifies that it affects a 150 ft cube which, under Chebyshev distance, would be the same as a sphere right? My understanding was that D&D 5e uses euclidean distance with a minimum threshold of a square that has to be covered to be counted.
Fireball says radius, but in a non-Euclidian geometry radius doesn’t translate to a Euclidian sphere. Embrace the cube of constant radius!
-
Fireball says radius, but in a non-Euclidian geometry radius doesn’t translate to a Euclidian sphere. Embrace the cube of constant radius!
Right, but again why would it draw a distinction between “20 ft radius sphere” and a “cube” in different spells? Would they not all be “spheres” is that is truly how the game is meant to be played?
-
Fair point. I actually don’t know what, if anything, the D&D (or Pathfinder) rules say on this matter. I’ve always just treated it as a natural 3D extension of the 2D grid rules. If they’re three squares in one direction, same square in the other, and 10 feet up, I’d treat that as 15 feet away because of Chebyshev rules.
In PF1e you’d still alternate between Manhattan and Chebyshev. I used to know the rules to that so well I’d run it without the book for reference.
