Base measurement in DDN

[aco175]

I like squares, since we use a grid in combat. Out of combat we tend to use feet and miles. I guess I would need to convert if they went metric. I would not like squares to be one meter or yard, mostly since all the grids I have assume 5 foot and they would be obsolete and my game table would need to be bigger to hold the 40x40 metre room, making it 40 squares instead of just 8.

Squares seem easier to convert outside of combat. If you need to travel your 6 squares I can math easy with 6x5feet, or 6x1.5 metres. Overland travel can be done in whichever since it is largely up to the dm. Most times it is, you travel for 4 hours, or 2 days.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

They have to use some sort of standard to get information across. Modular doesn't mean that they can randomly use Spanish and German and Klingon in the same paragraph.

Warum no, reen?

 

[CypherWulf]

Though I'm firmly supportive of the metric system for modern applications, I can't argue in favor of a 1 meter square.

Here's the problems I see:

1: Scale, does a medium creature occupy a 2 square area and threaten 2 squares? Does a small creature then occupy 1 and threaten one? Not that I'd necessarily mind that, I'm pretty sure with a long sword I could hit something a meter and change away, but it's significantly different than the current RAW.

2: Usability of old maps/suppliments. 5/10' squares have been the standard for 30 years, and to switch to a 1 meter square changes everything to the point where they're much more difficult to use without redrawing all the maps with either 1 10' square or 2 5' squares becoming 3 meter squares. (close enough) A signifigant endevor

3: Miniatures, if there is a change in grid size, 1cm=1m? that would make every miniature currently on the market unusable. If you keep a 1" grid, that makes the changeover even harder. If a switch to metric is being made, why do it half-ass?

I like the idea upthread of referring to it as a 5-foot "Pace"

 

[StAlda]

I think some of you guys are really going off the rails. If a map has 5 foot squares just make the squares represent 3 feet. A ten foot hallway is now six foot, which probably more realistic anyway. If the squares are 10 feet, make then 2 squares as we do now anyway, but the squares are 3 feet. There is no need to change minis sizes or maps to 1cm squares. That's going way over the top for very little or no return. A nedium creature occupies 1 square (1 yard) and can reach into the next yard. We humans do not take up 5 square feet, and our weapon should be outside of our square because that's where we are attacking.

 

[Fifth Element]

Somewhat joking, there was a push in the late 1970s to try to get Americans to convert, but it was widely rejected in most spheres of average American life. The push went away as suddenly as it appeared, so it seemed like disco, a fad.

Oh yes, I was poking fun at the fact that the rest of the industrialized world adopted the metric system quite some time ago.

I like feet for the old-timey feel. Meters are too modern. Cubits and furlongs would be even better!

This reminds of one game session where my group got off on an enormous tangent looking up various archaic units of measurement instead of playing the game, because one had come up in an in-game conversation. "How many gallons to the hogshead again?" is still something of a running gag.

 

[KidSnide]

The whole question of "base measurement amount" misses the point. If you're drawing a map, a square should be whatever size you need it to be to fit the encounter area onto the paper / wet-erase / whiteboard you're drawing on. If the room is small, a 5-foot square is fine. If the space doesn't fit on the map, you use a 10-foot square, a 20-foot square or (even) a 100-foot square -- whatever makes the best representation.

The game shouldn't (and wont!) depend on being able to determine the exact position of every combatant, so you should be able to play encounters in spaces that are too large for 5-foot squares on the average table.

-KS

 

[CypherWulf]

I think some of you guys are really going off the rails. If a map has 5 foot squares just make the squares represent 3 feet. A ten foot hallway is now six foot, which probably more realistic anyway. If the squares are 10 feet, make then 2 squares as we do now anyway, but the squares are 3 feet. There is no need to change minis sizes or maps to 1cm squares. That's going way over the top for very little or no return. A nedium creature occupies 1 square (1 yard) and can reach into the next yard. We humans do not take up 5 square feet, and our weapon should be outside of our square because that's where we are attacking.

Standing still, no we don't take a five foot square, but a fighter with a shield and weapon ready actively moving and fighting, easily takes up 5'. add to that that the squares are supposed to work in both axes, ie they are really cubes, and a man-sized creature should definetely occupy 5 cubic feet. For my games, the location of the mini/token isn't showing a to-scale representation of the location of the character, its showing a representation of their battlespace. And for that 5 cubic feet is pretty accurate for a med creature. I think there should be a difference between the size and reach of a medium and a small creature, which the granularity of a 1cm unit of measure would provide, but its not worth invalidating 30 years of product to do so.

 

[StAlda]

Standing still, no we don't take a five foot square, but a fighter with a shield and weapon ready actively moving and fighting, easily takes up 5'.

I completely disagree, put on a heavy coat (armor), grab a garbage can lid (shield), and hold a yard/meter stick. I'll bet you fit inside a square yard (even with a backpack, barely fitting is still fitting), your shield is probably on the line (as it should be), and your yard stick is out into the next square (where it will be attacking, otherwise you will be attacking within you own square). Especially if you're using a crazy power that let's you attack all that is surrounding you, it your using a dagger, you'll be running in a circle to get to you enemies (especially if they are in the middle of their 5 foot square).

5 feet is way too big. The square should represent your placement, not your social comfort zone.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Normally I would prefer meters, followed by yards. But since all of my printed maps for the past decade plus are modeled with a 1 inch = 5 feet scale, I'd prefer to keep using that.

But, it's no big deal. Savage Worlds uses yards, and I'm cool with it there.

 

[Mercutio01]

I completely disagree, put on a heavy coat (armor), grab a garbage can lid (shield), and hold a yard/meter stick. I'll bet you fit inside a square yard (even with a backpack, barely fitting is still fitting), your shield is probably on the line (as it should be)

Using my golf umbrella, I just did just that. I could hit a target about 6 feet away, so from the back of one 1yd square to the back of another 1yd square. Or, if using current D&D rules, from the front of one 5ft square to the back of another 5ft square.

Honestly, it probably wouldn't bother me any way, as I said earlier, but I prefer 5ft squares because that's what I'm used to. That's really all there is to it for me.