Measurements for ranges and grids

[enigma5915]

I would be interesterd in seeing all measurements to be counted by yards/meters. By this I mean all weapon ranges, spell ranges, and such. I belive that using the yard/meter would be friendly for both us backwards americans and the rest of the metric world. I recognize there is a difference between the two, but i believe its negligible. In addition, the combat grid (for those that wish to use it) should be 1 square per yard/meter. I think it would look better for scale compared to minis as well. This is what I have done for my home games and my system im working on. I just think it works better IMHO.

 

[the Jester]

I think all overland maps should be scaled in furlongs.

 

[Raith5]

I think feet will be the default, but I agree with yards for the practical reasons you mention. I also think yards is better than squares because squares, while handy, do have the effect of being anti immersive. In 4th there is always this strange translation of talking to other PCs or NPCs about squares then feet. Another of those small disconnects in 4th ed that ended up causing so many problems.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

While I personally would like to see D&D adopt the metric system, this is a good compromise. My only suggestion would be to make squares equal to 2 yards/meters. It's closer to the five foot square, meaning that all our old maps are still reasonably in scale.

 

[Sunseeker]

It could be measured in sandwhiches.

Honestly I think they should move away from an actual measurement system and have everything measured in numbers of squares. There could be a formula somewhere to coverting squares into whatever measurement system you wanted, but the default should be:
Spell has range of X squares.
Movement is distance of X squares.
ect...

That way it's system neutral, nobody has to worry about knowing how far 60 feet or 30 yards or 18.5 meters is. If people want to measure everything in feet, yards, meters or what have you, then it's a simple matter of multiplying X squares by the measurement system of your choice.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Interesting. I have no prference either way, but I certainly would not want to make that 5x5ft fighting space larger!?

It is already hard enough to get players to picture in their heads how big that area already is when talking about moving through occupied squares, etc.

I mean it is often close to the size of the table you are playing on.

 

[MooMan68]

I think this is a brilliant idea, and I also like the idea of using 2 yards/meters to the square in old maps.

Personally I would rather there be no mention of squares in the rules at all. I *hate* the use of square grids in combat, it turns what should be a dynamic, messy, fluid experience into a weird game of chess.

When I run combats now, if I have to resort to minis at all, I draw the map out without grids and give everybody measuring sticks with inches marked on them to measure movement. They have to judge ranges *without* measuring.

 

[Matt James]

I plan to use no grid or hexes. Squares/5 feet = 1 inch. Open terrain.

I've already done this before and it works well.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=6688406]MooMan68[/MENTION]

I too have Xped probs with players counting squares and fussing over exact areas etc. Just rips you out of the immersion.

You seem to have a Savage Worlds-like approach. I too like that. Having spell and area attack templates is excellent, as you can simply ask, "Where are you centering the attack?"

I can understanding wanting 2 yards per square on maps, but if that is then used for tactical combat, we are getting way too big for 'fighting space'.

(But, as you said, if there are no squares, it isn;t a big deal ).

 

[howandwhy99]

I think all overland maps should be scaled in furlongs.

To the point and on the line, I can't fathom a span not in league with, linked, shackled, or chained to the cubit without wanting to bolt. <link>