Which of these is the optimal distance of measurement for your TTRPG enjoyment?

[Thomas Shey]

It depends on the usage; for general usage, feet, yards or meters are fine, but for combat distance meters or yards are good because they can be used for square/hex size.

 

[Slit518]

Cubits. Keep it biblical.

Another person of taste, I see!

 

[Committed Hero]

Poronkusema!

 

[Thomas Shey]

"Smacking" distance
"Shooting" distance
"Yeah, that's right, you'd better not come any closer" distance

So, 13th Age range categories?

 

[Thomas Shey]

To make it clear, I actually don't mind range bands conceptually (I have a little more problems with zones because I have trouble conveying them usefully), but I'm often playing games where I want more specific detail than that (because it allows distinctions in things like range, area and movement that usually broad categories don't) but there's nothing that says that distinction has to be important to everybody, and it isn't even always important to me.

 

[Staffan]

To make it clear, I actually don't mind range bands conceptually (I have a little more problems with zones because I have trouble conveying them usefully), but I'm often playing games where I want more specific detail than that (because it allows distinctions in things like range, area and movement that usually broad categories don't) but there's nothing that says that distinction has to be important to everybody, and it isn't even always important to me.

That's perfectly fair. More detail allows more nuance. For example, wood elves in 5e have a higher speed than humans, and that's part of the overall balance between them. If you move to a fuzzier system that won't matter anymore, and perhaps they should be given some other ability to compensate.

 

[aramis erak]

The following are all used in games I've run recently (last few years), but not all of them in the same one...
Feet, Yards, Miles
cm, m, Dm km
Shaku, Jō, Ken, Ri (Japanese Traditional Measure)
SI distances from millimeters to gigameters (millions of kilometers)
G·Turns (much easier than getting players to grok than M(km) aka Gm)
AU (~149.568 Gm)
Lightyear (9460.73 Tm, or 63241.1 AU)
Parsec (3.24LY, a contraction of Parallax Second - it's the distance of a body with 1 arc second of parallax on a 2 AU baseline)
1.5m grids
10m grids
8km grids
unspecified distance hex grids (Battlestations!)
game inches of 15', gridded at 4 squares to the 1', so 3.75 feet per grid-square

One I'm prepping for uses a game artifice rather than giving real-world units... Savage Worlds uses game inches - I forget whether it's 6 feet or 2m. Checking, it's 2 yards = 6 feet ≈ 183cm.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's perfectly fair. More detail allows more nuance. For example, wood elves in 5e have a higher speed than humans, and that's part of the overall balance between them. If you move to a fuzzier system that won't matter anymore, and perhaps they should be given some other ability to compensate.

It can also be relevant to making various weapons and such relevant, though of course not everyone cares (again, including sometimes me).

(As a note, 13th Age does give wood elves a different ability given movement is very general in it for just that reason).

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

That would probably require a significant overhaul. Especially given that 5.0e couldn't really keep 5-foot grid references out, despite not being a grid-required game. I'd say a 3rd-party could do it, but while 5.0 has been Commons-released, I don't expect the same from OneD&D.

Did Level Up include such a thing... cinematic mode with zones? Just speculating.

Yeah - ranged and melee weapons would be easy, but the spells is where it starts to take some work. It could be done, but we're talking almost at a spell-by-spell level once you get past touch range. With errata just about every time a new batch of spells drops.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Yeah - ranged and melee weapons would be easy, but the spells is where it starts to take some work. It could be done, but we're talking almost at a spell-by-spell level once you get past touch range. With errata just about every time a new batch of spells drops.

I don't see how spells are so different. They cause an effect within a range. The range is something you've already had to decide for the ranged weapons (near/close/far). So you mostly just need to decide how many things an AoE affects (which can be all in a zone or 1d6 random targets or a static number based on the diameter - the specifics are not important, only that there is a general ruling).

There's a few pells with unique effects, like Wall of Force, where you'd just have to trust the GM to go 'okay, the point of this spell is that you separate things from each other, so what do you want to separate/contain?' But, even as things exist in the base rules, many spells are murky enough that GM has to make judgement calls anyway... I don't see this as a big departure.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I don't see how spells are so different. They cause an effect within a range. The range is something you've already had to decide for the ranged weapons (near/close/far). So you mostly just need to decide how many things an AoE affects (which can be all in a zone or 1d6 random targets or a static number based on the diameter - the specifics are not important, only that there is a general ruling).

There's a few pells with unique effects, like Wall of Force, where you'd just have to trust the GM to go 'okay, the point of this spell is that you separate things from each other, so what do you want to separate/contain?' But, even as things exist in the base rules, many spells are murky enough that GM has to make judgement calls anyway... I don't see this as a big departure.

Sure, you could just start with "close = range up to 10', near = range up to 100', far = range up to 500'" or somesuch. But then how do you start balancing spells' areas of effect? How does lightning bolt compare to cloudkill, or burning hands to magic missile without introducing changing the power level of certain spells dramatically? If Wizards were to do it, I know I'd want a more thought-out approach than just some basic guidelines that I could've put together.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

But then how do you start balancing spells' areas of effect?

That depends entirely on what your goals for AoEs are. Do you want friendly fire to be a thing? Are you trying to avoid extra dice rolls, so no randomization via stuff like 1d6 random targets. Do you care about the differentiation between 10ft and 20ft area etc.

Edit: To be clear, you make a general ruling. There is no reason to go through spell by spell, because most of them are not doing anything particularly fancy.

How does lightning bolt compare to cloudkill

One hits everyone in an area once, the other is an area damage-over-time?

burning hands to magic missile

Hits everyone in an area vs hits 3 targets of your choice?

These were bad examples, because they are actually different, and the zone thing doesn't change them.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

That depends entirely on what your goals for AoEs are. Do you want friendly fire to be a thing? Are you trying to avoid extra dice rolls, so no randomization via stuff like 1d6 random targets. Do you care about the differentiation between 10ft and 20ft area etc.

Edit: To be clear, you make a general ruling. There is no reason to go through spell by spell, because most of them are not doing anything particularly fancy.



One hits everyone in an area once, the other is an area damage-over-time?



Hits everyone in an area vs hits 3 targets of your choice?

These were bad examples, because they are actually different, and the zone thing doesn't change them.

I disagree - their difference is exactly the point - between levels and different effects, the balance of the game should mostly be preserved if a group were to switch to close/near/far mechanics. Without more granularity in the design, I suspect that balance would change. Maybe that's an acceptable risk in the mechanics, maybe not.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I disagree - their difference is exactly the point - between levels and different effects, the balance of the game should mostly be preserved if a group were to switch to close/near/far mechanics. Without more granularity in the design, I suspect that balance would change. Maybe that's an acceptable risk in the mechanics, maybe not.

I feel like you are not understanding zones, if you think these example spells changed in any noticeable fashion over gridless DnD being played right at this very moment and GM making vibe guesses on how many things any AoE catches.

 

[Staffan]

Sure, you could just start with "close = range up to 10', near = range up to 100', far = range up to 500'" or somesuch. But then how do you start balancing spells' areas of effect? How does lightning bolt compare to cloudkill, or burning hands to magic missile without introducing changing the power level of certain spells dramatically? If Wizards were to do it, I know I'd want a more thought-out approach than just some basic guidelines that I could've put together.

I do not think it would be a good idea to just add zones to 5e-as-is. You'd need to build the system assuming that's what's in use, and design spells accordingly. So, using burning hands as an example, you don't go "how would I convert a 15 ft cone into zones?". You'd go "OK, this spell creates a directed gout of flames. That sounds like an AOE, and kind of indiscriminate. So maybe all targets except the caster in either the same zone or an adjacent one?"

I could also see a general rule about how if you're trying to avoid friendly fire, you can make an AOE that normally hits a whole zone hit something like 1d6 targets instead. To me, that even seems more "realistic" than using the frozen-in-time grid to maximize damage to the enemies while also avoiding your pals – people do move around in fights, and explosions aren't known for their pinpoint precision.

I also don't think zones and range bands mix very well.

 

[CubicsRube]

I'm ok with either, as long as the system is built around the concept.

D&D for example is built around tactical combat to a degree where 5 foot range matters. That's ok because it's a combat rpg.

If i'm playing an rpg that has more focus on heists, or base building, or diplomacy, i want combat simplified in ways such as ranges so the ruleset can shift its focus elsewhere.

 

[Staffan]

Another thing I thought of regarding range bands: they work best in a situation where there is a single thing to focus on, and everything else is defined in relation to that thing and with the relationship between different non-focus things being mostly irrelevant. The only situation I can think of where this is mostly true is when the PCs are all in the same vehicle, and in a chase/vehicle combat situation.

 

[Ulfgeir]

I prefer games where you don't need exact measurements. Zones as in Fate or The Troubleshooters works quite well.

If a grid and tactical map is needed, then fine, having 1 square equal either 1 meter or 5 feet is irrelevant as long as it is consistent, and matches the scale of the system (and the figures used). But when distance goes up, it kind of turns abstract, so then it is more "is he in range of your ranged weapon or not".

While it might feel good for authenticity to both ingame and out-of game use weird archaic units, it will lead to people having to recalculate it into something they are familiar with. And that will slow things down.

Edit: If one want some more reality-based ranges for mediaevalish games...

• Grappling (includes using knives)
• Punching/kicking
• Sword-range
• Polearm/Greatsword (spears are polearms)
• Throwing distance (axes/knives/darts/javelins)
• Archery-range (also includes crossbows)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Another thing I thought of regarding range bands: they work best in a situation where there is a single thing to focus on, and everything else is defined in relation to that thing and with the relationship between different non-focus things being mostly irrelevant. The only situation I can think of where this is mostly true is when the PCs are all in the same vehicle, and in a chase/vehicle combat situation.

In practice, it can work out that way in any modern or future game where a situation where one of the sets of opponents is unlikely to be dealing with two sets of opponents, one of which is flanking them at a distance comes up. Since that's not particularly common in most RPGs, its why it was a functional choice in the original Traveler.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I prefer games where you don't need exact measurements. Zones as in Fate or The Troubleshooters works quite well.

If a grid and tactical map is needed, then fine, having 1 square equal either 1 meter or 5 feet is irrelevant as long as it is consistent, and matches the scale of the system (and the figures used). But when distance goes up, it kind of turns abstract, so then it is more "is he in range of your ranged weapon or not".

Well, it can very well be "what range band is the target in" or "what range modifier do you take to that range" if your game is fussy about such things (such as many that I prefer).