Base measurement in DDN

[Campbell]

I prefer meters, but that's largely because my time in the Army irreversibly damaged my brain to think in terms of meters/clicks(km). When it comes to physical representation I prefer going gridless and using a tape measure or ruler. It's much easier for me and doesn't require any kind of a battle mat.

 

[MacMathan]

Would not minis need to be 45+mm scale if 1 meter =1 inch?

 

[Mercutio01]

Oh, please god no. 1-1-1 is definitely my preferred method. The gain in "accuracy" for 1-2-1 is not worth bogging down play. Sure, it's fine if someone moves in a direct, straight line.

The problem I see is that moving in diagonals is a large speed boost. With measurement only in squares, it's not as obvious a problem, but when we go back to measurement in feet, the discrepancy becomes very large.

Quick, plot out a 30 foot radius circle area of effect on a grid using 1-2-1. No thanks. Or, worse, a 30 foot cone, cast on a 30 degree angle.

Yes, but that is easily rectified by having templates. Plus, 30 was just ignored for simplification reasons.

Definitely agree. Its one of those aspects of 4e you really have to try, but once you do, that aspect is just a better system imo.

I didn't find it to be so. Maybe quicker in play, but it didn't work for me.

 

[Hussar]

This is another reason why I prefer to just not have a grid at all and just measure movement. There are no issues with diagonals because measuring movement works exactly the same no matter which direction someone moves.

I also avoid needing to make my entire world fit into squares or trying to fit hexes into buildings.

Well, yeah, that can work too. But, grids are bloody convenient.

The problem I see is that moving in diagonals is a large speed boost. With measurement only in squares, it's not as obvious a problem, but when we go back to measurement in feet, the discrepancy becomes very large.

Meh, it comes up so rarely that the difference is minimal. The only time it will come up is if you move more than one square on a diagonal, so, right there, you've cut out a significant amount of issues. The speed "gain" also doesn't matter because everyone gets it. No one is actually faster than anyone else.

Yes, but that is easily rectified by having templates. Plus, 30 was just ignored for simplification reasons.

The fact that your system is complicated enough that I need templates pretty much says it all right there. Talk about a time waster - knocking over minis, finding the damn templates, actually HAVING the right size and the fact that you actually have to limit mechanics to fit the grid bugs me as well. Exactly why can nothing move 25 feet as a base?

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

Warum no, reen?

Lin kompreno, the beast at Tanagra

Paces makes sense, yet there is something about an orc and a pie in a 10 foot square room. However, I think we can all agree that currency should be measured in quatloos.

 

[Harlock]

I really don't care as long as they tell me what I am supposed to measure and how. I will say 1 square = 1 meter seems very player friendly for all practical applications. Of course, in a game like D&D where anachronisms can sometimes add to the atmosphere, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if feet remained the cardinal measurement.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Many, including myself, would prefer the measurement unit be yards (meters for the metric folk), and that 1 square on the battle map be 1 yard.

What say you?

If you used a 1" grid like those we have today, then a 1"/square:1yd/meter would require the use of about 50-60mm minis. I guess with plastic that wouldn't be a big deal. With lead (OK, pewter), that's ~8x the weight. On the plus side, you'd have lots of readily-available halfling and gnome figures.

That would also give you the GUPRS 'people tube' issue. A standard human's space would be two squares stacked on top of eachother (until he went prone, then it'd be two squares side-by-side). In two dimensions it's not awful, in 3 it gets annoying.

A 5' square is OK. A 2-yd/m hex (like Hero System uses) or square wouldn't be at all bad. Minis of the same scale remain usable, old maps and battlemats remain usable.

A 10' square, again, assuming 1" squares has the opposite effect, you'd need to use 15mm minis - which are at least lighter, and there's lots of them made for wargaming, but your collection of Ral Partha 25mm figures or modern (closer to 30mm) ones would suddenly be useful only for giants.

 

[Klaus]

Would not minis need to be 45+mm scale if 1 meter =1 inch?

Not really. If you look at the DDM minis, they kept getting larger as the line progressed (compare a human from Harbinger with, say, the Vampire Hunter from Unhallowed), to the point where most Medium minis are already tall enough that they'd pass as a 1 inch = 1 meter scale.

 

[Stalker0]

Why would the minis need to change at all? The grid isn't getting any larger, just what it represents.

Are most minis actually of proper scale that this would matter?

 

[fenriswolf456]

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.

Certainly you could 'fit' in a square yard, but it gives no maneuvering room for a medium-sized person (I'd debate it containing most sturdy 6' tall fighting types with 16+ Str and Con). And while that's fine for some fighting styles (phalanxes and the like), it doesn't work for most others in my mind. It makes combat seem too static. I like to envision dodging and narrow misses more than banging on armour. With 3' squares, really, how could you miss hitting someone standing in their own 3' square?

And it seems that it would add a tactical component to things, in that reach would be something to be considered. Wielding an ~4' longsword, most people could be hitting things 2 squares away (needing only to 'stretch' over the intervening 3', which a good thrust could easily do). Nevermind working out Spears, Longspears, and the plethora of pole-arms. Consider your crazy power example. While holding true for the dagger, sweeping with a longsword, say, I could easily be reaching out to 5' to the tip, so well into the 2nd rank squares, of which there's no maneuvering room. And if I don't kill the guys in my sweep, how does my weapon actually pass on from one square to the next without getting stuck by the heavy body filling up the square?

Just seems too tight for me, for actal fighting. I went with keeping things at 5'. I'd be fine with a generic term such as Pace being used to define the basic measure of distance, and the dial set for preference.