Measurements for ranges and grids

[BobTheNob]

I dont want combat maps at all! I considered them one of the contributing factors to 4e's snail pace combat (as my players exercised their entitlement and micro-analysed positioning).

I more want combat positioning handled by a more abstract system where combat is broken into simplistic zones.

I hope they have a "non-map" option.

 

[Kaodi]

I say include a thin rollable measuring tape as a standard accessory for D&D, and use real measurements. That, or as D&D (I am almost sure) helped my handwriting, allow it to help the next generation with their Pythagorean Theorem, .

 

[MooMan68]

Actually, my inspiration was a game called Necromunda.
It's essentially a small group tactics miniature combat game, played on elaborate 3D terrain.
A friend of mine convinced me to give it a try a few times.
It's got very simple rules, and is almost absurdly lethal.
But you can run a whole combat involving 16 characters in 30 minutes to an hour, with great tactical depth and a better sense of immersion.

It was after my third night playing that I realized how much I hated the combat in the 4e campaign were playing, and how little besides combat seemed to happen. Very soon thereafter, even the guy DMing the 4e campaign gave up in disgust and the group now has a bad attitude about anything coming from WOTC.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A 1" = 3' grid would not fit the scaling of 25 mm figures very well - though, admittedly, minis have been creeping up there in scale over the years, a lot of 'em are closer to 30 these days.

It'd make battlefields even smaller. 4e has already made the combat scale pretty constrained, with few things having a range over 100', 'big' battles just aren't an option.


Maybe the core game could work in generic 'squares' (or hexes), with no scale specified (just: about 'medium'/human-sized) and a wargame-like module could give options for various specific scales?

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

As mentioned above, Savage Worlds measures everything in yards, and for tactical play, equates 2 yards to 1 inch. Dividing by 2 is pretty easy, so other than describing the scale once, the game never has to mention inches (similar to what the opening post described).

The other advantage to this is that it's map neutral. You can use squares, hexes, or wargame terrain with measuring tape. All you need is a few guidelines written down for how to handle diagonal movement, etc.

Another advantage of yards over feet. Human pace would be ten yards or five inches. I like fives and tens.

 

[Tallifer]

I love my Fourth Edition, but I believe that the "square" should be replaced with metres/yards. Also restore real measurement or a better approximation for diagonal and sloped movement.

 

[Mokona]

Yes, 3 feet/1 yard/1 meter is better personal space metric than 5' squares. Reasonable size rooms would have better maneuverability with a few extra grid spaces.

Also, give us hexes instead of squares.

 

[Piratecat]

I think all overland maps should be scaled in furlongs.

I measure all my combat grids in 3 cubit increments, and spell ranges in rods.

 

[MoxieFu]

While were at it why don't we metric-ize the language we use in expressing the rules in the books.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRtyBBiyYhI]The Decabet -- Dan Aykroyd - YouTube[/ame]

 

[tuxgeo]

New* idea: Split the difference.

One meter is 39.37 inches, so three meters is 118.11 inches: close enough to 120.00 inches (= 10 feet) to not worry about or bother with.

Then one square is 5 feet, or half of 3 meters, or 1.5 meters. Simple.

Of course, they wouldn't do that, because calling "one square" equal to "a meter and a half" would be too finicky for most people.

("Sesquimetric," anyone?)


* new idea not really all that new