Over on imgur, a user called DoofusDad created a real-life five-foot square to illustrate what it actually looks like.
The whole scale just makes more sense to me if 0 and 100 are tied to objective values. In Fahrenheit, they’re just seemingly arbitrary “really cold” and “really hot.” Makes it harder for me to grokk what the numbers between those points actually mean.
The whole scale just makes more sense to me if 0 and 100 are tied to objective values. In Fahrenheit, they’re just seemingly arbitrary “really cold” and “really hot.” Makes it harder for me to grokk what the numbers between those points actually mean.
...What? Meters aren’t a scale.Just curious. What objective physical phenomenon do you tie 100 meters to?
...What? Meters aren’t a scale.
No, meters are units of measurement. I suppose you could say 100 meters is 1/400,000 the circumference of the earth?Yes they are
No, meters are units of measurement. I suppose you could say 100 meters is 1/400,000 the circumference of the earth?
No, Celsius abs Fahrenheit are scales. Degrees are units of measurement.Celcius and Farenheit are units of measurement too.
No, Celsius abs Fahrenheit are scales. Degrees are units of measurement.
One hundred metres is:Just curious. What objective physical phenomenon do you tie 100 meters to?
One hundred metres is:
One one-hundred thousandth of the distance from the equator to the north pole.
The length of 165076373 wavelengths in vacuum of the radiation of krypton-86.
The distance light travels in a vacuum in the time of 3.33564095e-7 seconds.
Yes, but I unlike with temperature, distances are easy to understand without reference to a specific point on a scale.Sounds about as tied to a physical phenomenon as tying 100 degrees Fahrenheit to 112 degrees below the boiling point of pure water (212 degrees Fahrenheit)
Mostly replying to re-rail this thread from talking about temperature and museums...In order to risk hitting someone in a 5ft square next to you, you would have to bring your weapon offline from your opponent at a significant horizontal angle. Unless you're using a shield, you really don't tend to do that when engaged with an opponent because its a recipe for getting yocked. In a line fight you tend to stick with vertical swings specifically because you don't want to tangle weapons with your allies or with an opponent other than the one you're trying to hit. Even with a shield, a horizontal backswing that endangers your allies would be considered pretty wild specifically because it does endanger your ally.
Likewise any kind of followthrough that leaves you with your weapon significantly horizontally offline or risks hitting your allies is excessive.
Me said:With DoofusDad's depiction, it's pretty obvious that a 5 foot square is purely for mathematical convenience, because a 10 foot square is too big for simulating a defensive line and a 5 foot square is too small to represent the full combat space needed by a tiefling flail-wielder. Or a dragonborn bo-staffer. Or a human with a bastard sword. And a shield.
Now, someone needs to build a 10' x 10' square and park a horse in the middle of it. Because we need to know.
Pretty sure rapiers in 5e are primarily meant to refer to historical one handed, thin bladed, dueling rapiers. Their length thus varies a good deal, as does whether they are built exclusively for stabbing or rather for stabbing and cutting. These weapons occupy a period of time a bit later than many like for their dnd, but it is what it is.Not to get into a historical debate about sword categories, but in many cases long sword just referred to anything longer than average. Short sword? Shorter than average ... whatever the average was for that region and time period.
I personally think of rapiers as being some variation of arming sword, saber, etc. Epees are only used for sport and are not real weapons.
Pretty sure rapiers in 5e are primarily meant to refer to historical one handed, thin bladed, dueling rapiers. Their length thus varies a good deal, as does whether they are built exclusively for stabbing or rather for stabbing and cutting. These weapons occupy a period of time a bit later than many like for their dnd, but it is what it is.
If you don’t want proper rapiers in your dnd, they also mechanically represent an arming sword quite well.
No, I'm just making the distinction mostly between two-handed weapons and one-handed weapons used with a shield. In a line fight, two-handed weapons are generally kept with the business end aligned horizontally with the opponent and blows are mostly vertical or diagonal - precisely because swings out to the side are less practical and endanger your allies in adjacent squares.Mostly replying to re-rail this thread from talking about temperature and museums...
...but I notice you're talking about swordfighting here. Odd that you refer to shield-use as a secondary thought, but I have made no effort to limit my observations on the 5 foot square to sword use. Notably, DoofusDad opted to illustrate the 5 foot square with a monk's typical loadout, sandals included.
Even the chonkiest of Dragonborn aren't going to be filling up a 5ft square themselves. And bluntly, I wouldn't expect many party members to use techniques that would risk hitting their allies next to them.So in future references to my earlier snippets of wisdom, please consider that there are other weapons in D&D besides swords, other shapes of standard-5-foot-characters than human, and annoying bards that keep trying to reach into your square to pour a healing potion on you while you're busy fighting an orc chieftain.
Looks about right for the space a human-sized creature can control in close combat.
Really wish D&D would make the switch to metric. Especially cause you could make squares meters and then it would be 1-1. Maps would be a bit smaller, but I think that’s a worthwhile change.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any weapons that require being practically wielded in such a manner that they might endanger someone fighting next to you.