6 players, 5 hours, 4th edition

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Nitpick: aren't almost all units of measurement human-constructed and arbitrary? Perhaps "squares" is the D&D unit of measurement over stuff like feet or meters. It's certainly more convenient...

Heh. But if the standard unit of measurement is the square, you're going to have some pretty boring environments. No merry-go-rounds, knights of the Round Table, Bermuda Triangle, or Pentagon. The 90 degree turns would make Nascar a challenge, too

Seriously, though, there are no fractions of a square, so you can't describe small objects using it, so you'll have to revert to Imperial or metric for a lot of things. Am I carrying 50' of rope, or 10 squares of rope? My 10' pole is now a two-square pole.

People think in native units of measurement, and outside of tactical combat, I don't think anyone is going to use squares to describe distances. So if you're going to have both, I'd just as soon have tactical movement in real-world measurements, thanks. A personal preference. I've never once had it cause any confusion or difficulty in a game, and of all the changes, this one perplexes me the most. Are there lots of people out there that can't count by fives?

 

[occam]

Well, that's kind of the point. Apparently everything IS described in terms of squares, not feet and inches/meters.

I think the point is that it shouldn't be. You wouldn't say, "You make your way deeper and deeper, following the rough-hewn, twisting passage for 20 rounds." You'd say something like "...for about two minutes." In the same way, describing the end of that passage as "entering a large chamber 15 squares wide and 10 squares long" would sound dumb. Rounds and squares are measurements used for tactical play; no one in the game world uses them.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Yes but by keeping it a abstract measurement it gives more freedom in description. You want a square to be 5' feet sure, you want it to be 1 meter sure, hell you want it be 5 meters sure.

 

[occam]

People think in native units of measurement, and outside of tactical combat, I don't think anyone is going to use squares to describe distances. So if you're going to have both, I'd just as soon have tactical movement in real-world measurements, thanks. A personal preference. I've never once had it cause any confusion or difficulty in a game, and of all the changes, this one perplexes me the most. Are there lots of people out there that can't count by fives?

Would you also prefer if combat time were measured in six-second increments instead of rounds? That's also not difficult, and directly analogous. But we're used to rounds, to the point that things like "What are you doing for the next six seconds?" or "The spell will last for 18 seconds" sound weird. Heck, even when a round was a minute long it felt more natural to speak of rounds than minutes. I'm hoping that before long, a square will seem just as familiar a unit as a round does now.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Would you also prefer if combat time were measured in six-second increments instead of rounds? That's also not difficult, and directly analogous. But we're used to rounds, to the point that things like "What are you doing for the next six seconds?" or "The spell will last for 18 seconds" sound weird. Heck, even when a round was a minute long it felt more natural to speak of rounds than minutes. I'm hoping that before long, a square will seem just as familiar a unit as a round does now.

But a 'round' is six seconds. A square is just a square. And rounds I think are different in that it's a reflection of the turn-based nature of tha game, and a necessary abstraction that makes bookkeeping easier. I don't buy that same argument for squares.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

*Points to my above post* I think they put squares in too allow more real-world freedom with measurements. So you can decide if a square if 5' feet, a meter, 2 meters, etc.

For my game I know I am declaring a square: 1 meter.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

*Points to my above post* I think they put squares in too allow more real-world freedom with measurements. So you can decide if a square if 5' feet, a meter, 2 meters, etc.

For my game I know I am declaring a square: 1 meter.

I think that's exactly the opposite of their intent. But only they know for sure.

But be prepared for real-world oddities if you change the scale. With 5' squares, my ranger runs at 9 mph. A decent marathon pace, but hardly a sprint. At 3' squares, that's only 5.5 mph, a brisk walk. He was accurate to 100', and could hit up to 200' with his longbow -- short, by historical standards. With 3' squares, he'd be accurate to 60', and top out at 120'.

And FWIW, before 3e, we *always* used 3' hexes or squares. I think that's a much more flexible unit.

 

[Festivus]

I am curious about two things:

1. The perception things... I assume that is some sort of thing where the GM rolls in secret and then asks who has what perception, or were they more of a static thing... e.g. The traps had a perception value of 20, so nobody except a rogue would have spotted it.

2. Was there no roleplay as all, this was straight combat, and even then it was just one combat after another? I would like to know if they are demoing the roleplay / diplomacy type scenarios at all.

I for one appreciate your writing this review. As a fence sitter, I thought it was a good glimpse into what I couldn't go and do myself. I just hope someone snags the whold DM book and posts it Thanks for doing this review.

 

[Nytmare]

People think in native units of measurement, and outside of tactical combat, I don't think anyone is going to use squares to describe distances. So if you're going to have both, I'd just as soon have tactical movement in real-world measurements, thanks. A personal preference. I've never once had it cause any confusion or difficulty in a game, and of all the changes, this one perplexes me the most. Are there lots of people out there that can't count by fives?

I don't think that anyone involved is insisting that the actual measurements and geometry of the game world only exist in right angles and 5 foot chunks. Round things are still round it's just that inside of combat, the movement over, across, and around it (and the time that it takes) is abstract. You can buy fifty feet of rope and carry it around, but once a fight breaks out, it stops being measured and just gets used.

You don't measure or weigh things inside of combat, you get to estimate. Once the fighting stops, tapemeasures can be pulled out and the actual distances can be explored and identified, but in the thick of a battle, the real numbers don't matter.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I don't think that anyone involved is insisting that the actual measurements and geometry of the game world only exist in right angles and 5 foot chunks.

It didn't occur to me that anyone would think I was serious about that. It was a joke.

There's no NASCAR in D&D; it's pure Formula 1.