Measurements for ranges and grids

[Li Shenron]

Combat/Exploration: feet. Even tho I live in a country where the standard is the metric system, the imperial measurements have a much more flavorful appeal to me. This also applies to pounds, oz and so on.

Overland travel: hours, days. Forget about strict distance measurements, all that matter is how long does it take for people and goods to move around, so pick a reference mean of transportation (e.g. horse at cruise speed) and use that, comprehensive of terrain features. Eventually provide a tiny reference table of multipliers for different means vs horse (walk, forced march, caravan, galloping horse...).

 

[kitsune9]

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

Are your weights in shekels?

 

[Hassassin]

I don't really care if it's feet, yards or meters, but please keep "squares" out of the general rules and make sure the units translate easily from X/round to Y/minute or Z/hour.

 

[Infiniti2000]

We used to play without maps; then we played with maps and without grids; and then we played in 5ft squares where diagonals were 1.5 times, and we tried hexes (both local and macro), and of course now we're in 5ft squares where the diagonal = the axis. In a group of all computer scientists, half of us with master's degrees and minors in math, we far prefer the easiest, i.e., latest, option. Not measuring things and leaving it up to the DM's whim, or a "gentleman's agreement", is simply not workable. Because of the frequency of use of the gaming maps, anything that elongates calculations even a little bit is not as good an option. I can recall arguments and calculations of distances and how this or that spell should hit this guy and not that guy, and that the location of the spell is right here and not 6.5 inches to the northwest, and oh, why can't we just assume that the frickin' magic user can place his spell such that no party members will get hit? I was sick and tired of retcons due to miscalculations and recalculations.

Thus, I advocate the simplest possible approach and I think the current 4E mapping system is fine. Actually, though, a unit-less approach in just calling things "squares" would similarly be fine. However, what must be presented in more detail is the third dimension. Right now, there's an assumption of voxels, and I'd like to see 3D movement/combat explained better. This includes water and walls and not just flying through the air.

 

[boredgremlin]

I plan to use no grid or hexes. Squares/5 feet = 1 inch. Open terrain.

I've already done this before and it works well.

I do the same thing. If they must use something grid like in the rules though I want them to move to hexagons. Squares always seemed dumb to me.

 

[Viking Bastard]

And weights should be in stones.

This reminds me of my fiancée talking about how the weights in Bridget Jones's Diary being in stones made her able to enjoy the book and relate to the character. Later she found out how much a stone weighed.

"50kg and she's battling her weight? Somebody force feed her cake before she dies!"

 

[Someone]

Combat/Exploration: feet. Even tho I live in a country where the standard is the metric system, the imperial measurements have a much more flavorful appeal to me. This also applies to pounds, oz and so on.

Same for me. Feet and inches feel much appropiate for a land where, not too much offense intended, people burn young women because they weight the same as a duck.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Just an anecdote. I just got back from DunDraCon. On Sunday, I ran the ancient 'Temple of the Frog' out of the Blackmoor suplement (1975) using 4e rules (and exclusively using Essentials classes.

I ran it on a bare table top. No grid, no battlemat, no maps, just minis and a handy keychain tapemeasure. I used dice a few times to mark corners of rooms or hard-to-desribe features, but for the most part just description and the odd gesture, just like in the olden days (1980, for me - I vividly remember pencils laid out to mark corridors and walls).

I made one rule adjustment: I measured Blasts as 90-degree cones (which isn't really a change, just a de-simplification). Of course, bursts became circles, but that didn't require any rule adjustment.

Aside from the nominal shape of bursts and blasts, it made a difference one other time: I had the party fighting some enemies in a 20x20 room. I placed one enemy in each of the two far corners and one directly in between them. In a grid, he'd've been adjacent to one and not the other. Not a huge thing, but I found it oddly pleasant.

So, measuring range, distance, and area? No problems.

Positioning? Minis worked fine without any grid, we did have a little added freedom in exact positioning.

The conversion? 1sq = 1"

Problems? Well, mapping. I had a player who brought graph paper and tried to map from my verbal description (the staricase open out into a 10' corridor that proceedes 20' to the east before branching the northwest and southeast, and 10' to the south before branching to the south east...). It was tough on him, but I blame Dave Arneson for his crazy maps. Actually, I rather think that was the point.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't mind 10' (or 3m) squares for mapping purposes, but the whole idea of 5' squares that can only be occupied by one person at a time has to go. It used to be that 3 Human-size creatures could fight side-by-side in a 10' wide hall, with others able to join in if they had polearms or other long weapons that could poke through from the second line. This level of abstraction is all you really need, even if using minis - I know, as that's how we've been playing for about 30 years.

Squares as a unit of measurement also has to go.

And please, no hexes. The compass has four points, easily represented by the four sides of a square and horribly represented by the six sides of a hex.

One other note here: while I at times quite like the battlemats included in some 4e modules they really can't be used when they show things the characters can't see yet. Two examples from Keep on the Shadowfell:

GOOD: the battlemat for the final encounter with Kalarel. It's one big open area and has enough light that the battlemat shows what the characters can see.
BAD: the battlemat for the encounter immediately preceding the above, where it shows the layout for a whole bunch of rooms and dark spaces the characters can't possibly see as they enter the area.

Lanefan