D&D 5E D&D Lingua Franca, or 5e really, REALLY needs to create it's own new "space"

[Zustiur]

Er... How so? How is one measurement any better than another when it comes to learning the game? I mean... I could easily argue that cubic feet is a terrible measurement. It doesn't have a clear meaning because of the infinite vagueness of dimensions and space in a tabletop RPG. How is even the DM supposed to know exactly how many cubic feet are in any given area? How is a DM supposed to know how these 20 cubic feet will be distributed? More important, how is the player using these rules supposed to know all of this and factor it into the game?

On the other hand, "Burst 3" is a pretty clear description. It doesn't have ambiguity or guesswork. It makes use of squares, which are a very natural way to count distance in a game based on a grid (as anyone who has ever played chess or checkers could tell you). It is not like the typical new D&D player hasn't ever played a boardgame or videogame before. Game terms are probably easier for new players to use than plain language when it comes to understanding game rules.

Well, for one reason, feet is clearer because not every game is based on a grid.
When it comes to lengths and distances, I prefer to use real-world units. Furthermore, if it's something I have to estimate or guess, I prefer imperial measurement.

However, my point was more about the word 'burst'. What is a burst? It has to be defined by the rules. It also gets confused with blast on a regular basis, but that's a different topic. Whereas, 'cube', 'circle', 'cone', 'sphere' these are all things that the players know and understand without having to learn rules.

Squares are great if you're looking at a battle grid. However, if you don't play with a grid, and the battles occur in your imagination, feet and yards are infinitely better than squares. Squares don't exist. To convert back to mind-space, you have to multiply by 5 and so on. I know that's not much in reality, but it's the same as the reverse argument. "How does a player relate feet back into squares? By dividing by 5". Is that hard? No. Is it annoying? Yes, for some players.
Perhaps the entries should say "30 feet (6 squares)"

Burst 3 - 3 square radius, centered on the player

Except that:
a) it's only centered on the player if it's close
b) when compared with blast, the numbers confuse people, because the two areas behave differently *
c) Burst has to be defined by the rules, while circle does not, because players know what a circle is
d) Square 'circles'

* blast 3 = a 3x3 square. burst 3 = a 7x7 square. Tell me that's not confusing when you are trying to quickly glance at your powers and know the size of the effect.

 

[innerdude]

It's interesting, this thread has evolved like it has from my OP. I was more expressing an opinion that I hope 5e can find ways to use language from both 4e and previous editions in ways that are inclusive to players.

Now, however, I do think there's some value in the designers actually sitting down and really thinking about, "What do we need to define, and what can we let players assume they already know from the past?"

I also think there would be some value, at certain points in the 5e core books, to actually explain to players, especially if we're talking about new-ish players, how and why certain terms are used. I think a basic understanding of some key terminologies can make a difference. Thinking back on my experience with the '83 Red Box, I think they did that admirably--as a 10-year-old, I didn't feel at all confused about the way they were using terms. It makes we wish I still had mine to go through it again and see if I could figure out why that was.

I think a conscious focus on inclusive language would go a long way with 5e.

 

[Kavon]

Well, for one reason, feet is clearer because not every game is based on a grid.
When it comes to lengths and distances, I prefer to use real-world units. Furthermore, if it's something I have to estimate or guess, I prefer imperial measurement.

Squares are more practical in the sense that people who don't use the imperial system, don't have to fuss about with things they are unfamiliar with.

It's nice that the imperial system 'feels' old, or whatever, but that doesn't mean the majority of the world should have to fumble around with it.

Perhaps the entries should say "30 feet (6 squares)"

Perhaps it should instead be "6 squares (30 feet, 9 meters)"?
Or whatever other unit you'd want to use that is neither imperial or SI...

 

[Estlor]

It's bad, in my opinion, because it was change for the sake of change.

Respectfully disagree, and here's why.

4th Edition flipped the application of spells from a passive, "DM rolls to see if the monster resists," to an active, "Player rolls to see if the spell hits." Logistically, nothing changes. You cast fireball. Someone rolls a die. If a bad result comes up, the target only takes half damage. But 4e decides rather than have the fighter, rogue, and cleric rolling d20s every round and the wizard not, let the wizard roll and get in on the fun.

Now that it's an attack roll against a defense, it behaves identically to weapon attacks. And because it behaves like weapon attacks, it needs to be modified by magic items to keep the accuracy. Boom, implements are born. Not "for the sake of change," but to justify a design choice that the DDN group acknowledge and attempt to meet (albeit in a different manner) - It's more fun to roll dice than to not roll dice.

What we know about DDN (or at least the early beta of it) is the old "auto-hit, monster saves" spell setup is back, but now the DC is set by an opposed roll against the spellcaster. So implements could have a perfectly plausible, viable function in DDN. Bonus to the spellcaster's roll to set the save DC.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Respectfully disagree, and here's why.

4th Edition flipped the application of spells from a passive, "DM rolls to see if the monster resists," to an active, "Player rolls to see if the spell hits." Logistically, nothing changes. You cast fireball. Someone rolls a die. If a bad result comes up, the target only takes half damage. But 4e decides rather than have the fighter, rogue, and cleric rolling d20s every round and the wizard not, let the wizard roll and get in on the fun.

Now that it's an attack roll against a defense, it behaves identically to weapon attacks. And because it behaves like weapon attacks, it needs to be modified by magic items to keep the accuracy. Boom, implements are born. Not "for the sake of change," but to justify a design choice that the DDN group acknowledge and attempt to meet (albeit in a different manner) - It's more fun to roll dice than to not roll dice.

What we know about DDN (or at least the early beta of it) is the old "auto-hit, monster saves" spell setup is back, but now the DC is set by an opposed roll against the spellcaster. So implements could have a perfectly plausible, viable function in DDN. Bonus to the spellcaster's roll to set the save DC.

Except they are also flattening the math and trying to remove so many bonuses. Therefor my hope is they remove them from the game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Except they are also flattening the math and trying to remove so many bonuses. Therefor my hope is they remove them from the game.

I hope they remove the measure of a magic weapon being its plus. That a +1 sword is a rare and valuable item because most swords are flaming or dancing but almost all are +0

 

[Janaxstrus]

I hope they remove the measure of a magic weapon being its plus. That a +1 sword is a rare and valuable item because most swords are flaming or dancing but almost all are +0

And on that, we will disagree. +1 weapons are iconic, not new creations.

I would rather see it go back to the older Max +3 than removed