Reason 'squares' is better than 'feet': the metric system


log in or register to remove this ad


Hypersmurf said:
No, no.

4E DM: "The castle wall is seven squares high."

4e Player: "7 square what's high? Feet? Meters? Fathoms? Rods? Why are you using an area description to describe linear distance?"

4e GM: "Fine. From where you are standing you have to tilt your head to an angle of 1/4pi radians to see the top of the wall, smart ass."

4e Player: "Did you remember my character is a halfling?"

4e GM: Censored for the good of humanity.
 



Andor said:
4e Player: "Why are you using an area description to describe linear distance?"

He obviously hasn't played enough 4e to understand that a square is a measure of both area and of linear distance. And depending on the direction you're measuring, that linear distance might not be the same.

-Hyp.
 


Surprised there isn't more love for paces. I think paces are excellent. It's about 5' anyway historically. It's has the archaic feel (because it is), and if you are thinking in battlemat terms it makes sense that you'd traverse a pace in order to shift or otherwise move one "square's" worth. Remember the 5' "step" from 3e? Now you can shift X paces. It's a unit of heel-to-heel land-based movement, so if your stats say speed 6, you move 6 paces in a round. That sounds fairly natural to me, definitely less crunchy and boardy than squares. I'm fine with squares as a term specific for area.
 


Hypersmurf said:
Historically didn't have to cater for halflings and ogres...

-Hyp.
Yeah, but if you have an issue with a pace, then logically halflings and ogres would also cause a similar problem with what constitutes a foot.
 

Remove ads

Top