Circles have 4 corners in D&D

[@lightningpsycho1527]

Pythagoras had a stroke and died watching this .

[@mahe4]

even i nearly had a stroke...

[@relicapex]

That gave me a giggle. Bravo

[@holgerleydecker111]

I was a little worried if Chris was alright during this first diagonal part.

[@epicazeroth]

@@holgerleydecker111 I was confused af. Obviously diagonal through 4 5-foot squares is not 20 feet.

[@timothy13ize]

I'm an engineer, and my entire job is drawing things in CAD software. I'm pretty much as close to a geometry expert as you can get...... I nearly had a conniption watching this.

[@LoLCoronD]

As a math nerd yall are too set on Euclidean distance as your distance metric, everything in this video makes perfect sense topologically except the 5/10/5 method which is heresy because dist(a,b)+dist(b,c) should be at least a large as dist(a,c) which is simply not true under that system.

[@DaDunge]

I know this made me physically ill.

[@SelvesteDovregubben]

@@LoLCoronD If your draw it out, I think you'll find that that's not the case.

[@LoLCoronD]

@@SelvesteDovregubben say I take 3 squares on a diagonal, each of the adjacent squares is 5 feet from the adjacent square but the two edge squares are 15 feet apart 5+5 is not at least 15

[@jacobfreeman5444]

How the hell is that program counting the diagonal line as being the same length as the other dimensions? Pretty sure this violates geometry in some way.

[@mattsullivan2458]

"Just remember the universe D&D takes place in is non-euclidean." -Matt Colville

[@natanoj16]

... our planet is already Nom-euclidian

[@heilmodrhinnheimski]

Just like ours?

[@japphan]

Flat earthers were right, but not in the way the thought. The earth has _six_ flat sides, and is used by gods to roll damage for a shortbow, and that is why it is spinning. Everything makes sense now.

[@toshibaDVDplayer]

Oh no.... not the cubed earth guy... the time cube... and the 6 pointed earth model.

[@jacoblynch8844]

Pretty sure they are rolling damage for a shortsword, not a shortbow

[@andrewreimann5203]

DM: “That’s it, we’re using hexagon grids” Player: “I cast faerie fire in a 20 foot square” DM: ... “damnit”

[@AlkyHakami]

I mean, then it's just 4 hexes by 4 hexes yeah? A jigsaw square, but a square nonetheless

[@DaDunge]

The hexagon is the bestagon.

[@cmckee42]

@@DaDunge unless you are trying to depict 5 foot wide hallways at right angles.

[@DaDunge]

@@cmckee42 Not that bad.

[@cmckee42]

@@DaDunge well, for one direction it is fine, but for the other direction, you technically have to squeeze every other step.

[@dragondrummer3257]

Now, one problem with the "fireball looks like a square" is that a house that is a square or rectangle on the grid would actually be a circle or ellipse.

[@ranekeisenkralle8265]

Good point.

[@commonsensei8423]

Actually, it should have more of a "4 pointed star" shape. This map projection increases the length of diagonals, so imagine a 10-foot square, and then move its four corners out by a factor of √2 to about 14.14 feet. But the midpoints of the sides of the "square" would remain at 10 feet. Other points along the sides would also be pushed out, but not to the same degree as the corners.

[@cp1cupcake]

I think you may be confusing distance with movement. When you move on a diagonal, then it does not follow Pythagoras, but measuring distance does follow. "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." Keyword: movement

[@Wlerin7]

And distance. Think about it, if you use circles on a square (5-5-5) grid, a e.g. Cloudkill spell takes less movement to traverse or escape diagonally than orthogonally. Movement and distance are inseparable.

[@cp1cupcake]

@@Wlerin7 in theory i agree. but 5e reads like it wasnt proofread at times. my understanding of measuring ranges in it is "no diagonel counting" because it only specifies you can for character (and monster) movement

[@youtubeuniversity3638]

"When measuring range or"

[@envytee9659]

@@cp1cupcake Nope, 5e has two different optional rules regarding diagonal movement on a grid: - Disregard diagonals and count like normal. This enables ease of play and faster play. - Count diagonals by alternating distances of 5ft and 10ft. That is, if you move one diagonal square, it costs 5ft. If you want to move one more diagonal, it costs 10ft instead of 5. If you want to move to a third diagonal, it's 5 ft again. This is more accurate but slows play.

[@rogerwilco2]

Yes. That is how I see it as well.

[@darkboyx7]

i love the 5-10-5 optional rule. it just cleans up stuff and is not at all hard to count out.

[@jjjbjbbnjbjbjbjbjb9415]

It does clean a lot up, but it gets really annoying when flying speeds and 3 dimensional movement gets involved. I think it really is a pick your poison situation.

[@imbetterthanyoubyfar]

@@jjjbjbbnjbjbjbjbjb9415 I once played a hellish game where 5-10 *only* counted for verticals because too many things flew too quickly.

[@CitizenCain1]

@@jjjbjbbnjbjbjbjbjb9415 Or you could do best of both worlds and only apply the rule for spell effects and not for movement.

[@cmckee42]

@@jjjbjbbnjbjbjbjbjb9415 given that the 5-10-5 rule is mean to imitate 1.41, you could make 3 dimensional diagonals imitate a 1.73 with a 5-10-10-5-10-10 pattern.

[@latyper7450]

@@jjjbjbbnjbjbjbjbjb9415 We use the 5-10-5 rule for horizontal movement. For vertical we use 4e's rule and just say that you use the longer of the two distances instead of trying to use some off brand version of Pythagoras. For example, an enemy on a wall 30 feet away and 30 feet up is 30 feet away while an enemy 30 feet away and 30 feet to the right is 35 feet away per the 5-10-5 rule. While I don't pretend that makes any sense, it is just too time consuming to work these things out in the middle of a combat. When we are only worrying about two dimensions, counting out movement on the grid is easy enough that we use it.

[@dino-joe]

I had a crisis of faith when you measured 20 feet diagonally

[@jacobslinalx89]

yea.... that's not how diagonal movement works in dnd. it's not 4 squares if you're moving diagonally

[@MisterMorn]

@@jacobslinalx89 Except that it is. "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." From Variant: Playing on a Grid, Player's Handbook page 192. This is also one of the situations where the mechanics of the game assumes you're using the variant as the standard rule.

[@envytee9659]

@@MisterMorn If we're using optional rules, the optional rules for diagonal movement on a grid (DMG pg 252) basically says you alternate between 5ft and 10ft for each square moved diagonally. In the drawing he showed in the video, that means the diagonal goes one square less than he drew it. The book even explicitly calls out that this optional rule allows for more accurate geometry, unlike the optional rule in the PHB which sacrifices accuracy for speed in play.

[@MisterMorn]

@@envytee9659 Sure! That's totally an option. But my response was to someone who said that it is not how diagonal movement works in D&D. I was citing rules that back up that it is. I personally prefer the DMG rule you cite and encourage people to use it, but the version in the PHB backs up the video.

[@EdRadley]

Yup, if sides A and B of a triangle are 20' and we can draw those two sides in a way so as to result in the hypotenuse being the diagonal corners of the original square this guy was showing us, then the measuring tool he uses should be showing us that the distance to the farthest point on that line should be 28.28' instead of 20'. I don't know what kind of black magic he was using to get it to show otherwise.

[@commonsensei8423]

DM: "You enter a large circular room, 80-feet across. Now let me draw that on the battlemat." Players: "Wut?"

[@johannesjr123]

Would love to see this analyzes on a hexagon, even though hexagons don't seem to be as common in usage they are the bestagons

[@shanebernier2483]

I mean, the big draw of Hexagons for grid combat is that here are no diagonals, and circles already line up very well with bigger hexagon patterns. Of course, the downside is trying to have movement inside of square structures, where every other space on one axis ends up bisected but not on another axis. With some careful planning it could probably be covered up by the design of the rooms (desks and bookshelves and such taking up the rest of the half space so make them being blocked off more intuitive), but even that would start looking weird after a while.

[@predwin1998]

I do love witnessing the spread of the cult of the hexagon ever since that video.

[@johannesjr123]

@@predwin1998 it is a great video. My first dm used hexagons rather than squares. Made adapting back to squares with other dms that much harder

[@N0-1_H3r3]

The problem with a hex grid is that square buildings don't fit particularly well on it. Hexagons work great for natural environments and large-scale maps, but squares align more easily with interior spaces and other artificial environments.

[@cmckee42]

@@rafaelbordoni516 if you are drawing 90° cones, you are off. Technically even 60° is not quite right. According to the description of the area in the PHB, that says the width if the cone at any point is equal to the distance from the origin, then, the actual angle is closer to 50°.

[@monkeyinadrawer]

I didn't even know that the 5-10-5 rule was "optional"

[@N0-1_H3r3]

It stopped being the standard way of doing things after 3e, because it was a pain in the arse in play.

[@hopefulmayhem5744]

@@N0-1_H3r3 my DM just banned diagonal movement. Mathematically it is the same has 5-10-5 rule.

[@cmckee42]

@@hopefulmayhem5744 no, banning diagonal movement is not the same as 5-10-5. Banning diagonal movement means every diagonal square costs 10 feet of movement, which results in diamond shaped circles.

[@davidpeters6743]

@@N0-1_H3r3 It wasn't I have literally NEVER seen a player have problems with it. And I ran 3.5 and PF for years.

[@hopefulmayhem5744]

@@cmckee42 if you move 5 fwrd then 5 to the left and repeat you will end in the same place has a 5-10-5 diagonal movement.

[@abraxolotl]

I admit... I was incredibly puzzled until you reminded me that the 2nd diagonal movement costs double was an optional rule.

[@tideoftime]

The issue is that the video is using the "DnD" setting for *movement* on the diagonal, but that doesn't apply for *area effects* that are radial -- the four square diagonal measures closer to 30ft vs 20ft in actual measurement, which is why both the DMG and Jeremy Crawford note that the circle JC notes is correct. Radial effects never produce grids barring optional targeting rules.)

[@Ontaro]

I have to be honest, I was infuriated for 2/3rds of the video 😂 Thanks for your amazing content, growing up playing with diagonals as 1.5 squares sure made me get used to it. It's nice to see it with a fresher look.

[@gavros9636]

It should be root 2 squares but that's probably a nightmare.

[@MagnificentMelkior]

5-10-5-10, which was RAW in 3.5, is what I use. I hate square explosions

[@outrageous-alex]

This fixes the problem as well. I have made it my own house rule.

[@abandonedarts4812]

@@outrageous-alex That's not a house rule. It's an optional rule from the 5e DMG.

[@karsten69]

the only time an explosion should be square is if it's bigger than the room it was cast into.

[@CBuM27]

Matt Colville did a video on this as well a while back. It's so weird when you first realize that D&D uses non-euclidean geometry. Basically, the hypotenuse of any triangle on the grid is equal to the length of its longest leg.

[@8Smoker8]

Yeah that's just because It sounds cool to some to say "non-euclidean". But it still makes no sense. The "optional" rule is the way.

[@mihailov2801]

All these squares make a circle, all these squares make a circle...

[@theoreticaltrap992]

Behold: Non-Euclidean Geometry

[@brunop.8745]

Nice reference

[@Tupadre97]

tfs popo be like

[@gavros9636]

So according to my Necronomicon, the stars are currently in the right positions for the summoning.

[@arsarma1808]

Has a square. "Now I'm not an expert in geometry, but [this is a circle]." I already knew everything about this, given the measurements in 5e, but I knew it would be worth a laugh. Thanks, TMlvl20!

[@ericmyrs]

I like how early shooters and DnD 5e have the same bug.

[@Erufailon42]

I'm always surprised when people scoff at the optional movement rules. I always use them in my games, and it's really not that complicated.

[@collinbeal]

This video pissed me off for half of it haha. The optional 5-10 rule made so much logical sense that I didn't realize that RAW was wacky as hell.

[@jonathanpickles2946]

I loved the alternating 1-2-1 count when it came out in 3.0 as it's such a clean approximation to diagonals. However it noticeably slows down the square counting as does using templates for spells that are not already square. Given D&D is pretty much devoid of realism anyway it's not worth the extra overhead to make the geometry work. Reach is also wonky as it can lose the corners which means you can sneak past it so it needs to stay square. Another distortion of grids you hint at is a "fencepost" issue. If two characters have a 5' gap between them you would think they are within 5'. Using grids "within 5'" omits that edge case, it only includes up to 5'. It's measuring from the centre of the character not the edge, though even when you measure from the edge eg with Spirit Guardian you miss models exactly 15 ' away. This is partly as characters fill the 5' square of course while I reckon you could fit 8-10 people into a 5' square if they are not doing much. This has limited practical impact but is a quirk of how the game changes when you switch from grid to not grid (eg Bloodbowl to Guildball, if you played sports miniatures games)

[@Sean-fo8kg]

First diagonal square = 5 feet Second diagonal square = 10 feet Averages 7.5 feet of movement per diagonal square Using the Pythagorean theorem, the actual diagonal of a 5 x 5 square = about 7.071 feet 7.5 is much closer, dare I say it is *close enough* to make game play both practical and realistic. I’m going to recommend this to my DM

[@TexasFriedCriminal]

If you play using roll20, you can just use rulers and play without squares and get your standard euclidean surface back.

[@paulsetzer466]

You never use the term, but the distance used in 4e is called the Chebyshev distance or Chebyshev metric. It's a perfectly valid way of measuring distance and results in squares as seen. It would be equally valid to disallow all diagonal movements and use the Manhattan distance, in which case all the circles would become diamonds.

[@Pit_Wizard]

I knew what you were doing for the entire video, and it was still infuriating! 😂 Personally I use Euclidean diagonals for area effects and non-Euclidean diagonals for movement and range. Is it inconsistent? Yeah, but it's never mattered. Non-Euclidean diagonals are much simpler, but specifically in the case of areas they cause visibly, obviously wrong outcomes, as you demonstrated.

[@thejammiestjam]

Years later, I'm still thinking about this video hahahahaha. Going to attempt gridless combat in Roll20 for this reason, and we'll see if it works or if it's a total flop.

[@XerkDaniels]

This is what I've been saying to a friend. Thanks for making it digestible.

[@dylandugan76]

Personally, I never had a problem with 5e's assumptions making the game non-Euclidian. Of course it doesn't make any literal sense that within the game's world there is no functional difference between a circle and a square, but these rules facilitate the fastest and easiest possible gameplay (besides not using a grid at all). If everyone at the table has a common understanding of the rules and can use them effortlessly, that is far more important than trying to make rules that accurately describe the game relative to real world physics. Counting each square, one-for-one, as five feet is a categorical improvement on 3.5e's five-ten-five rule. Same goes for how 5e becomes no more complicated when dealing with range and altitude in three dimensions. Edit: a word

[@ClockworkBard]

It's really hard to explain why I like squares. But in essence, it's to do with the notion that I don't want the grid to be a simulation. I want it to clearly resolve game mechanics and eliminate spatial ambiguity in the narrative, but I don't want the players to think of it as an exact snapshot of the action. A two-square wide hallway doesn't necessarily need to be 10 feet wide. I don't want them to think of their world in five-foot blocks, like they're playing Minecraft. I want them to think of it as "wide, with room to maneuver", as opposed to one square "cramped or cluttered" halls. A fireball's size resolves the rules question of "who can I hit", but it's not narratively important for it to be exactly 40 feet across. It's big, menacing and able to clear a room, and that's the important thing to capture. Explosions are messy things poorly represented by any basic shape. Whatever we choose is a crude abstraction of a far more chaotic and fluid thing that we still need to be able to resolve within the rules. Squares are just the path of least resistance to that end.

[@MaMastoast]

One thing that kinda bothers with having every second diagonal cost 10 is that it's pretty awkward to move straight diagonally if have 25 ft base movement speed You have 1 at 5 2 at 15 3 at 20. And now you have to move in another direction to use your movement

[@gohantanaka]

All these squares make a circle, all these squares make a circle, all these squares make a circle....

[@reespewa]

You beat me to it!

[@AaronRotenberg]

The mathematical term for this is the Chebyshev distance or L∞ norm. There's a wonderful illustration on the Wikipedia page "Norm (mathematics)" with the caption "Illustrations of unit circles in different norms." When I run 5e on a grid, I use Chebyshev distance for movement and attack/spell ranges, but Euclidean distance for areas of effect. There isn't a whole lot of logic behind this, but I think it's rules-as-intended per Jeremy Crawford.

[@jefftheless]

Matt Collville has talked about how the world of DnD is non-euclidian, specifically in reference to the relationship of someone shooting from the ground up at a flyer. Because of diagonal distance counting, the hypotenuse of a right Triangle is always the *same* length as the triangle's longest side, rather than being a^2 +b^2=c^2. I can see how if you're not working with some fancy templates on your battlemaps this greatly simplifies calculating area of effects, but if I had the templates I'd still use them.

[@thetaomegatheta]

Around 4:00 - in a space with the metric d((x_1, y_1), (x_2, y_2)) = max(|x_1-x_2|, |y_1-y_2|), the boundary is a circle (i.e. a 1-dimensional sphere), and its insides are a 2-dimensional ball.

[@cmckee42]

The 4e style fireball is technically a circle, but 4e style grid is non-euclidean, so it is not the type of circle we are used to.

[@smnb6652]

Bless Pathfinder 2e providing rules and pictures of how targetting spells work. So easy to do, soooooo much more clarity.

[@TheRyiden]

Isnt the image used for the Unearthed arcana section for next episode... Pathfinder characters...? Love how it says "Playtest material for the worlds best rpg" and shows pathfinder...

[@robertbromley5230]

It made me chuckle.

[@eipoeipo]

Happy to see the square circle video finally arrive!

[@t0prar]

One of the biggest critiques my players had from the start is that it makes no sense to _not_ move diagonally by the basic rules. This was quite immersion breaking as everytime you move your ingame and outofgame voice would choose a different path. Because of that I've been using the optional rule from the start for everything. ... We could have never played otherwise 😅

[@greatestoldone7658]

When everyone can move diagonally, then it doesn't become an advantage. I been playing RAW movement for years and it's never been a problem.

[@MrDeni23n]

I used to play Dofus/Wakfu, which is a tactical MMORPG. They dealt with it by counting x number of squares from origin. So, if 20ft radius, then count 4 squares from origin. Unfortunately, it does cut off some of the edges of the aforementioned round images, but it does make it muuuch easier to calculate. It even works when starting at an intersection.

[@KorhalKk]

its because the program you're using counts every circle as 5ft. So the diagonal has the same measurement as the horizontal and vertical cancelling the vector. If you find the hipoteneuse each diagonal is roughly 7ft, you may consider every 2 diagonals as 3 squares. You don't need to, considering the premisse of this video.

[@thecognitiverambler8911]

My friends and I used the grid as a measure to draw cut-out circles for common circular spells. Easy to place, perfectly immersive, works like a charm.

[@arsov9885]

I didn't even consider 5e standard calculation option.

[@krzysztofwarzecha6959]

You are exacly right in 3:53 - circle doesn't have to be round. From mathematical point of view circle is a set of points that have distance from its center equal to radius. So depending on how do you calculate distance circle can have shape of square, diamond or even lollypop (see railway metric)

[@Startoshadows]

I never realized how many people comment calling something stupid without actually watching the full video before now.

[@keksjanik2138]

Well lets be honest. It was hard to keep watching, when he was showing the radius in the beginning.

[@dgmisal1979]

I just house rule it back to 3.5e movement rules on diagonals. Every other square diagonal costs 10ft of movement. My players are used to it now though I did have some looks from people who never did 3.5e or Pathfinder. The best was the high level Diviner griping about the nerf... the Ranger/Rogue and Barbarian just laughed.

[@Asnort]

I can't wait for the respectful and productive discussion me and my players will have over this topic

[@UltimateDurzan]

There is a reason why in earlier editions of D&D moving one square diagonally was not the same distance as moving one square forward/backward or side to side. It's because of the 45/45/90 triangle rule. A square of 5 ft, if split perfectly in half diagonally, would form two triangles with a hypotenuse whose length is 5 * sqrt(2) inches long. So moving two squares diagonally would use up 15 feet of movement instead of 10 feet of movement in any other straight direction.

[@rarebeeph1783]

Using the 5-10 alternating distance metric for diagonals results in octagonal circles, noticeable at large enough radius.

[@supremeplatypus7192]

Interestingly enough with the 3rd option, different characters use more movement covering the same area of space if they start from different points, which is really fun to think about in character

[@robertbromley5230]

Great video for its main topic (I’ve never been comfortable with diagonal movement and measurements in both 4e or 5e) AND for the not insignificant shade you tossed in when previewing your next topic. Loved it!

[@WillfulVisions]

Or you could do the thing that makes the most sense: only use the rule where a square is 5 feet across diagonally for movement and have spell AoEs disregard the rule. Boom. Everything makes sense and is easy to understand.

[@kellyweaver8422]

This is exactly what we do. It's much simpler. Especially when you deal with the movement issue far more frequently than spell AoE

[@robertbromley5230]

What about the case of someone moving through a spell effect, say trying to escape it? Always move diagonally!

[@WillfulVisions]

@@robertbromley5230 I think that's fine as long as the enemies do it, too.

[@robertbromley5230]

@@WillfulVisions Agreed, of course. I prefer the 5-10-5-10 for my own sense of immersion but will happily play either way. At least on of my groups is running 5-5-5 movement with small-circular magical effects and we are having fun.

[@a99barnsey]

The DMG has rules for spell area of effects when using a template on a grid. So you don't even need to disregard the rules :)

[@Hendori3]

It's nice. The length of a line is max(|x|,|y|). This give some interesting geometry. It would be interesting to see what a square looks like in this geometry. I think this looks even cleaner than the optional rules, The geometry you would get on that would have to be even a more complicated program. I personally would go for the 'simple' rule than for the optional diagonal rule.

[@chopcooey]

with the un-squaring of circle, using the variant, 5-10 diagonal movement rule, the pattern at 10:30 is not exactly what the circle would map to. The inner corners of the shape, the concave ones are at 15ft, not 20ft from the center. Although they would have to be in the middle of a square rather than a corner so rounding the distance down to the closest corner makes sense

[@dylanstarr9061]

After watching this video I will be taking this information into effect however I think I will just give the squares if a character or creature occupies it that are not fully covered a slight bonus to DC saves etc

[@vectorzulu]

That's how measuring work in roll d20 but if you pay attention to geometry the long side of a triangle is a squared + b squared = c squared or on a 5 x 5 grid that moving at angles is roughly 7 ft or 1.5 square of movement round down.

[@RavenWolfStarcraft2]

I love this video. I was so excited when you said you would be making it a few videos ago. I ran into this issue with a character based on control with 'fields' of effects. A 20 foot circle of difficult terrain isn't nearly as bad if the diagonal is 15 feet-since many things have 30 as a base movement, you can escape one but not the other and it's just generally inconsistent. I think token or 5-10 is definitely the way to do things. I like 5-10 but it seems like it would make some spells less effective (if it was 5-10-5) and others normally effective (5-10-5-10). I never played 4th, but the everything is a square method just makes sense.

[@robusterbrown1291]

I’m currently playing a cleric who defaults to spirit guardians and this video is something I have been looking for for so long. My group doesn’t use 5-10-5 but we still use circles on a grid. I’ll bring this up to my dm

[@jacobmoll2878]

Please keep us up to date with how using the option plays out.

[@Xionologos]

In our table, every time you go diagonally on the grid you do 5more ft. So lets say I have a character with 3o ft of movement. The first ssquare in my turn is a diagonal one, the second diagonal step i take is considered difficult terrain so I use 10 ft of my movement. But the third time i do a diagonal step in my turn i use 5 ft and the fourth time 10 ft. This is considered when we use area of effect spells like fireball, so the shape we use to difine a circle on our grid is the first one you showed.

[@hopefulmayhem5744]

We use a template for this very reason.

[@ZeroGForce]

I hope every horse-drawn wagon for every party you play in from now until the end of time has square wheels.

[@SigurdBraathen]

One arcane(?) point: Your fireball's point of origin does not have to be on the floor, AFAIK. You can aim at a point in the air. This might help you affect flying units - or help avoid hitting your teammates. for the latter, I am a bit in the dark: How do I determine if a creature is affected by a fireball or not? :-| (if "aiming in the air, as to affect the badies there but avoid hitting my friends here")

[@DVDMaster2009]

You take an x-z grid view (instead of an x-y view) and apply the same rules. If your circles are squares in the x-y plane, then they are squares in the x-z planetoo. So a sphere is really a cube. But if you use 5-10-5-10 rules (or a template) in the x-y plane, then you use the same rules in the x-z plane.

[@nimnim4699]

FINALLY a clear explanation for dnd grids and AOE shapes! Thanks!! :D

[@guamae]

Love me some hexagons for this reason... We use Roll20, and tried out hexagons so I could avoid trying to match the grid size on the software with the grid size of the maps I pulled off the internet... and I NEVER want to go back... Sure, moving down a 5ft hallway looks funny in one direction, but you just gotta accept that you won't always be standing "in" a hex...

[@esbenskovrasmussen9066]

Our table came up with moving 5-10-5-10 naturally because that made the most sence to us. but our fireball looks a bit different the top part of yours is only 2 wide we makes it 4 wide. leaving only 3 blocks in the coroner not hit. the difference being that the first 0,35 feet from the center to the first scuare are taken as 5 straight move not the first diagnal move. this give a slightly more "round circle". also for simplicity on 3d moving to a corner pice of the 3d cube is 8,7feet and is stil taken with 5-10-5-10.

[@twomoths]

I treat diagonal movement as 7.5 ft. Players seem ok with that. It's close enough to realistic distance to not feel weird or unfair. If a player has 5ft of movement left and wants to move diagonally (doesn't happen all that often) I'll often ask for an Athletics check to steal that extra 2.5ft and if successful we describe the character as lunging forward to get into range for an attack or escape a hazardous effect or something.

[@mathboy6398]

Couldn't help commenting on this one. By definition a circle is a set of points that are a certain distance (called the radius) from a specific point (which we call the centre of the circle). Usually a circle is "round". However in this case a circle is a square, why? Because of the way distance is measured. When using roll20 and similar places with a grid, the distance between two points is measured by taking the maximum of the difference between x-coordinates and y-coordinates. Why use this way of measuring distance you might ask? Simple - if you have 5 ft reach you can hit anything in the squares neighbouring the one you occupy. 10 ft reach will make you able to hit anything that is 2 squares away from you, etc.

[@alexisn-g9794]

And then there's people like me that kinda just draw a circle on the virtual tabletop and say "ok, if you touch this, you're being affected by it"

[@polvotierno]

I use the diagonal measurement from Pathfinder for DnD 5e. It just makes so much more sense... Also, I have videos on youtube for "Extended Combat zones in DnD 5e". This homebrew of mine makes movements in combats better too.

[@thejoester]

Taking a square grid, each side measures 1 inch, but if you measure (with an actual ruler) diagonally it is 1.4 inches. So after 4 squares you are nearly getting a whole extra inch of measurement.

[@Platypusb1ll]

I mean, all this stems from the issue that calculating decimals in a tabletop RPG is a pain and the easier solution is to treat diagonal movements on a square grid as equal to movements along cardinal directions. This doesn't necessarily mean that spherical/circular AOEs need to follow the same logic, but your choice may have some balance implications. E.g. changing a 40ft diameter sphere to a 40ft cube increases its area. On the other hand, if your tried to run away from someone with Spirit Guardians, you would be at an advantage if you get to cheat Pythagoras but the Spirit Guardians AoE doesn't.

[@DVDMaster2009]

The video presumes that movement rules is the way to calculate all distances.

[@bigdream_dreambig]

@@DVDMaster2009 Which, IMO, is its fatal flaw.

[@thejammiestjam]

The interesting thing about Spirit Guardians is that it's not a "radius," if I recall. I think it just says "15 feet from you."

[@TreantmonksTemple]

Range: Self (15-foot radius)

[@DVDMaster2009]

So I've seen people implement this two ways: 1. Use any square that you can hit with 15 feet of reach. 2. Place the 15' radius centered in the players square and then use the partial cover rules.

[@Clanjade22]

Thank You!!! About time this was addressed... it also makes it so “oh if I move diagonally I can get out of area”. Square is the way to go... just use imagination!!! In mind can be circle but on grid it’s a square... Another way to look at it is... it’s a “octagonal map” where 4 of the edges are just the corner points... then it also gets square. But for the love of gawd don’t use that crazy of every other counts double rule... that makes algebra and math break... hey this A is 5 feet away from B and C is 5 feet from B, but A is 15 from A... but only on diagonal... it really screws with reach and stuff like that. Or spells that say “attack with range 10.” That is the worse of all options... just because people want to ball on a grid to “look” pretty. 5+5 is NOT 15

[@Oznerock]

The rule is... actually something we use in our daily lifes though. It's in place for the same reason as why every 4 years we have an extra day in our year. It's meant to imply that diagonal squares are 7~ish feet, but to make counting easier you go 1-2-1-2-1-2. Just like years you go 365-365-365-366-365-365-365-366. It's simply approximation, something that *is* used for a lot of things, including maths (Pi being approximated tecnically breaks mathematics too, but you still do that whenever you don't have a calculator in hand, don't you?).

[@thnkblu.2206]

The diagonal x axis 20' length is clearly longer than the t axis 20' length. This seems to be obviously a software issue. The grid should be relative to the character and perpendicular. Meaning always on the t axis relative to the character. So when they turn, the grid turns with them. I think dnd software will begin making the squares relative to the player who's actively taking thier turn as apposed to being a fixed grid over the entire map.

[@EzraeL91]

That's why I use the 3.5e system for the diagonals, not the 5e one. It's not perfect, obviosly, but it's closer to reality and quite fast to measure.

[@DrakithReiter]

The circle shape works out more so when you use the 5, 10, 5, 10 diagonal movement rules in the rule book

[@hatenull]

Though mathematics and reality argue against your video, this edition ignores diagonals for all other distance calculations so what you say makes perfect sense. Edit: commented before you covered the optional rules.

[@Byssbod]

You're allowed to just accept that diagonals are fucked, and keep running circle spells as circles you know.

[@hatenull]

@@Byssbod thank you for your permission to do anything at my gaming table. Your opinion matters, really it does. Just not to anyone but you.

[@ArtGuyCharlie]

I use the 5/10/5 rule for movement at my table and it's been working out so far. But for spell effects I implement a simple tool: a cloth tape measurer. You're spell effects everything within 15 feet of you? Okay, take the tape measurer and see which tokens are within 3 inches of yours.

[@PJulianC]

The problem is that you are counting the diagonal as 5Ft but their is something called Pythagorean theorem witch in simple words mean the diagonal is longer than the with or hight so: (“2” means squered) a2+b2=c2 5”2”+5”2”=7.07”2” So the diagonal of the square is 7.07Ft not 5Ft. The 5Ft then 10ft rule works because of this 7.07•2 is 14.14Ft rounded up is 15Ft so this fixes the issue; this is why I personally prefer not playing on a grid base system to avoid discussion with the players.

[@Shinsei01]

The issue is the optional rule for alternating 5 and 10 feet of movement is simple but only on a 2D surface. Do you want to have to stop the game and use geometry to calculate the distance of a character trying to effect a flying creature in the optional rules? What if the creature is not perfectly diagonal to the spell source find that distance easily? I suspect using the token method at the end of the day is far less of a headache and for those group that prefer number noodling they arelady use the old 3rd Ed version still.

[@inqy8339]

All these squares make a circle.

[@mikajuuti]

The square is a circle, but not in our typical (Euclidean) geometry. The way that distances are calculated in basic rules, means that distances are measured in Chebyshev distance :)

[@jelte3754]

I never knew Roll20 had these options but it does. Nice!

[@jacobmoll2878]

I really appreciate this before even watching.

[@HiopX]

all those squares make a circle all those squares make a circle all those squares make a circle all those squares make a circle

[@Ciberbuster]

I was adjudicating movement the standard 5e way, while using 3e areas of effects, now I see the incongruence.

[@jedi005ky]

That's It! I can't take it! Everyone get your measuring tools out. We are going gridless!!!😂

[@wearloga]

I'm amazed by the fact that there are people playing without the mandatory optional rule for diagonal movement. I very much prefer an option that allows for realistic diagonal movement, especially if it still allows for circles to be drawn.

[@brianpious3242]

When looking at movement and spells on a grid I like the hex grid over squares.

[@alanthomasgramont]

This shows the problem with D&D squares. If you move diagonally, suddenly you can move faster. In "classic" systems, when moving diagonally you had to alternate. The first square was 5 and the next square was 10, then 5, and so on. This allowed for the increased distance of a diagonal length. 5e simplified the rules by breaking logic. for our Pathfinder game, we didn't actually use a grid. We used a ruler or cloth tape measure. But that's difficult to sell to new comers.

[@moose6932]

my group uses the diagonal rule for spell areas, but not for movement as we find it to be the most fun

[@Somnolentone]

I was under the impression that when measuring diagonally on a grid in 5e, you are supposed to count every other diagonal square as 10ft to make sure something precisely like this doesn't happen.

[@Indomakio]

If you take a square area and spin it, it becomes a circle. In combat, movement, spells and effects are dynamic, so there you go. EDIT to ask for explanation on cone effects, which I find more difficult to understand (everytime I use them a player gets upset)

[@collegeoffoliage6776]

Apropos grids, I would love to hear how you deal with mounts. If I follow Crawford's advice I can sit on a huge mount with a Lance and be un-targetable by ordinary melee ranged attacks, and arguably use mounted combatant to make my mount un-targetable as well.

[@TreantmonksTemple]

Mounted combat is very weird. I haven't ridden a lot of horses, but those times I have, I haven't found 4 distinctly different places to sit.

[@collegeoffoliage6776]

@@TreantmonksTemple exactly. I lean towards treating the rider and mount as one "model", essentially the rider is in the same spaces as the mount, though of course this also brings with it it's fair share of complications and exploits...

[@youtubeuniversity3638]

I'd determine what squares are effected *without* any drawn shape and just draw a shape to match honestly. Let the "corners" of the circle be in the middle of a square. Also, do the rules actually define a point as referring to GRID points? I always assumed on a grid that a "point" was just a whole 5 foot square because That Gives The Same Shape As Targeting A Medium Or Smaller Creature.

[@mateoferretto2175]

If you don't like doing maths, there is a good way to determine distance within a circle. Go orthogonal and rotate. Just move 20ft in the direction you know to precisely measure, and then rotate that line using the initial point as a pivot. We humans do much better with polar coordinates when it comes to circles and grids.

[@Noskills]

The only issue I have with the 5,10 rule is if you approach an enemy from a diagonal you can't stop when you're 10ft away from them, only 5 or 15

[@taa347]

It’s a parrot what others are saying, this is one of the main reasons that playing on a square grid board doesn’t always make intuitive sense. A diagonal movement on the board is not one square, but 1.4 squares so you end up with stuff like this with a circle is a square. All these squares make a circle