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

[RangerWickett]

Some people complain that using the term 'squares' is over mini-ifying the game. Then I talked to a gamer from a metric country, and he was very happy that WotC was moving away from the imperial measurement standard.

Saying an effect is 5-squares is much easier than saying "25 ft. or 7.5 meters." And for people used to metric, it's just easier to use 'squares' than it is to convert on the fly by dividing by 3.3.

Then again, another friend of mine thinks they should've adopted a more fantasy-ish term that is archaic: fathom. A fathom is 6 ft., or 1.8288 meters. He plans to run his game with 1 square = 1 fathom.

Oh, and another reason squares are better? If the PCs are shrunk to an inch tall to fight insects, 1 square is still 1 square, only now a square is 1 inch (better, I think, than allowing a 1-inch tall wizard to fireball a 20-ft. radius, which would be a 240-square radius).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Some people complain that using the term 'squares' is over mini-ifying the game. Then I talked to a gamer from a metric country, and he was very happy that WotC was moving away from the imperial measurement standard.

Saying an effect is 5-squares is much easier than saying "25 ft. or 7.5 meters." And for people used to metric, it's just easier to use 'squares' than it is to convert on the fly by dividing by 3.3.

Then again, another friend of mine thinks they should've adopted a more fantasy-ish term that is archaic: fathom. A fathom is 6 ft., or 1.8288 meters. He plans to run his game with 1 square = 1 fathom.

Oh, and another reason squares are better? If the PCs are shrunk to an inch tall to fight insects, 1 square is still 1 square, only now a square is 1 inch (better, I think, than allowing a 1-inch tall wizard to fireball a 20-ft. radius, which would be a 240-square radius).

Yes, I agree with your "metric" friend.
I am not good at judging distances, but trying to it with measurement units I never use in real life? Far too difficult. I always have to recalculate in my head.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Well, just to speak as a guy from a thoroughly metric country...I have no problems with either thinking in feet, or with calculating distances in meters fast enough to not make much of a difference, if it is really called for. Feet and inches (as in body height) is another matter, since 1 inch = 2.54 cm and 12 inches = 1 foot, which makes it a bit more complicated. But I can't see D&D measuring body height in squares yet.

So basically, I don't see much advantage in the shift to squares, and feel like it focuses a bit more on the boardgame part of D&D, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Fenes]

I always used yard=meter, foot=30 cm or 1/3 of a meter, with a bit rounding. Works well.

I think the shrunk wizard should have such a spell area though - unless it's a real special shrink spell, spells do not change with the caster, a pixie casting fireball has the same area of effect as a giant casting it.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Just for the record, the 4E rules primer explicitly states that a square is five feet. That doesn't mean you can't redefine it, of course, but you always could redefine it.

The only change 4E made, diagonals aside, is in what it's called at the table. It's still "20 feet," but instead of saying "Bokren moves 20 feet toward the frost giant," now it's "Bokren moves four squares toward the frost giant." And yeah, I gotta admit the latter feels more board-gamey to me.

 

[Darkwolf71]

Oh, and another reason squares are better? If the PCs are shrunk to an inch tall to fight insects, 1 square is still 1 square, only now a square is 1 inch (better, I think, than allowing a 1-inch tall wizard to fireball a 20-ft. radius, which would be a 240-square radius).

This makes sense on a purely mechanical level, but if you apply such dynamics logically, a giants fireball should be much larger than a normal sized PC.

The one 'fluff' house rule I am almost certain to use is that '1 square' will still be called '5 ft.'
Of course, once the rules are in hand there may be a good reason not to do so, but untill then this is my intent.

 

[Zinegata]

Actually, the real reason why squares are better than "5 feet" is because it takes fewer mental gymnastics before you can arrive at the information you need.

In the old edition, if someone says "You move 25 feet", you need to first divide 25 feet by 5 feet to realize you're moving 5 squares.

With 4E, it's just straight to five squares.

A very minor reduction in the amount of processing the brain has to do, but an admirable attempt nonetheless.

 

[Fenes]

If you are using such movement at all. We rarely use that, combat usually is simply done by describing, and asking if something is within reach, if needed.

 

[Nymrohd]

Does the foot measuring unit even exist in your fantasy worlds? Using feet or meters is as much an abstraction as using squares; none of the above exist for the characters.

 

[HeinorNY]

Actually, the real reason why squares are better than "5 feet" is because it takes fewer mental gymnastics before you can arrive at the information you need.

In the old edition, if someone says "You move 25 feet", you need to first divide 25 feet by 5 feet to realize you're moving 5 squares.

With 4E, it's just straight to five squares.

A very minor reduction in the amount of processing the brain has to do, but an admirable attempt nonetheless.

The only minor drawback is that in 4E you have to multiply squares by 5 ft to know distances outside combat.