Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Yaarel" data-source="post: 8804493" data-attributes="member: 58172">Balancing spells involves spell description format. Because of different jargons, different names sometimes refer to the same distance. For example, Touch, Adjacent, and Reach are all part of Melee Range. It helps when all spells reduce to the following distances.WITHIN: RANGE TYPE10 feet: Melee Range (or &quot;Engaged&quot;) (includes Touch, Adjacent, Reach)30 feet: Close Range (or &quot;Near&quot;) (sometimes called Close Quarters Combat, Very Short Range, Move, or Throw)100 feet: Short Range (or &quot;Far&quot;) (sometimes called Distant Range)300 feet: Mid Range (or &quot;Bowshot&quot;)1000 feet: Long Range1000+ feet: Remote (includes &quot;Line of Sight&quot; for very far sights and &quot;anywhere in the same plane&quot;)For theater of mind style, only Melee and Close (meaning within a Move) matter. Anything else is &quot;Far&quot;. Spells that refers to any other distance tend to be unhelpful. Generally, the Short Range (100 feet) represents &quot;Far&quot; targets.Note there are midway points, but spell descriptions should avoid them. For example, a Dash allows a &quot;double move&quot; of 60 feet. Generally, a double-range can sometimes be meaningful: 20 feet, 60 feet, 200 feet, 600 feet, 2000 feet. But there is no helpful reason for spell descriptions to refer to these extended distances. The double-ranges become micromeasurements that are unsuitable for mind style.The reason mind style requires simplistic distances is because the DM and each player is visualizing the scene in ones own imagination. Each mind visualizes the scene somewhat differently. But any combat details must be understandable in ways that are compatible with each others visualization.Moreover, using simpler English terms like &quot;Close&quot; or &quot;Near&quot;, rather than math calculations, helps focus on the narrative of the scene and, especially along with active visualization, encourages a distinctive experience referred to as &quot;immersion&quot;, where in an apperceptive way one experiences being there, sensorily. It is like reading a novel, and one is seeing the scene rather than the words on the page.Grid style is for a different purpose, and for it, moving minis to count out spaces and using string to pull circles can make micromeasurements useful. But grids can implement the distances of 10, 30, and 100 feet, just as easily.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Yaarel, post: 8804493, member: 58172"] Balancing spells involves spell description format. Because of different jargons, different names sometimes refer to the same distance. For example, Touch, Adjacent, and Reach are all part of Melee Range. It helps when all spells reduce to the following distances. WITHIN: RANGE TYPE 10 feet: [B]Melee Range [/B](or "Engaged") (includes Touch, Adjacent, Reach) 30 feet: [B]Close Range[/B] (or "Near") (sometimes called Close Quarters Combat, Very Short Range, Move, or Throw) 100 feet: [B]Short Range[/B] (or "Far") (sometimes called Distant Range) 300 feet: [B]Mid Range [/B](or "Bowshot") 1000 feet: [B]Long Range[/B] 1000+ feet: [B]Remote [/B](includes "Line of Sight" for very far sights and "anywhere in the same plane") For theater of mind style, only Melee and Close (meaning within a Move) matter. Anything else is "Far". Spells that refers to any other distance tend to be unhelpful. Generally, the Short Range (100 feet) represents "Far" targets. Note there are midway points, but spell descriptions should avoid them. For example, a Dash allows a "double move" of 60 feet. Generally, a double-range can sometimes be meaningful: 20 feet, 60 feet, 200 feet, 600 feet, 2000 feet. But there is no helpful reason for spell descriptions to refer to these extended distances. The double-ranges become micromeasurements that are unsuitable for mind style. The reason mind style requires simplistic distances is because the DM and each player is visualizing the scene in ones own imagination. Each mind visualizes the scene somewhat differently. But any combat details must be understandable in ways that are compatible with each others visualization. Moreover, using simpler English terms like "Close" or "Near", rather than math calculations, helps focus on the narrative of the scene and, especially along with active visualization, encourages a distinctive experience referred to as "immersion", where in an apperceptive way one experiences being there, sensorily. It is like reading a novel, and one is seeing the scene rather than the words on the page. Grid style is for a different purpose, and for it, moving minis to count out spaces and using string to pull circles can make micromeasurements useful. But grids can implement the distances of 10, 30, and 100 feet, just as easily. [/QUOTE]

Verification