Stop Using Feet and Minutes!

119 posts / 0 new
Last post
When i open these packets, i hold my breath and hope you have finally fixed your measurements of distance and time.  Wizards, i am dissappoint.


  1. Much of the world doesn't know what a foot is.

  2. Everything is listed in multiples of 5 feet.  Divide those by five and call them what we call them in the game SPACES! 

  3. Having to multiply, divide and other arithmetic is not playing.  It's homework.

  4. YOU ALREADY FIXED THIS IN 4E.  You finally realized that the game doesn't operate in feet.  We use SPACES.  Why are you regressing?  To appease the old farts who can't accept improvements? 

  5. The game doesn't use seconds, minutes or hours.  We play in rounds, turns, encounters and days.  Once again, 4E admitted this and built the game around HOW PEOPLE ACTUALLY PLAY.


Hurr, hurr, derp and herp! My granddad played D&D with a slide rule and an abacus.  It was good enough for him.  We should continue to make the game hard to play, have the rules get in the way! Bob, grapple that guy so I can drive to the grocery store and get more Ensure and chips.


Stop regressing!  5E should be an improvement, not a step back to the old and busted crap YOU'VE ALREADY FIXED!  There are tons of Old School Renassance D&D products out there for people who want the misery of tHAC0 and imbalanced classes and poorly thought out multiclassing.

I disagree. I would rather have the game measured in the units my character would use, not what I would use. Talking about "spaces" or "turns" really reduces immersion for me and many others.
Hehehe, I actually somewhat agree with this, but that's because I nearly always play with a battlegrid.

The argument against it goes like this: making it into spaces increases the abstraction and makes it feel more like a game. TotM players have to mentally convert it back to feet.

My counter-argument: TotM players don't care about spaces OR feet. Why cater to them? Typical conversation might go like:

Wizard: I want to cast fireball. Can I catch them all in the blast?
DM: No, you can catch five orcs in the blast because they are all in a 30-foot sphere, but the sixth orc is 35 feet away from orc number 2, and orc number 7 and 8 are 50 feet away from the center of your blast...

Just kidding. TotM don't try to get nitty-gritty like that. The DM instead would say:

DM: You can catch five. Maybe six. But the other two are on a platform and outside the blast.

So whether it's feet or spaces, the TotM players don't really care. If it really matters, I think it's easy enough for them to multiply 6 spaces by 5 ft = 30 feet. For grid-map players, knowing it's 30 feet = 6 squares across is important enough to know every time, so I think the rules in this case should cater to them. But I am probably in the minority, against all the 2E grognards here.
I disagree. I would rather have the game measured in the units my character would use, not what I would use. Talking about "spaces" or "turns" really reduces immersion for me and many others.



+1
Hehehe, I actually somewhat agree with this, but that's because I nearly always play with a battlegrid.

The argument against it goes like this: making it into spaces increases the abstraction and makes it feel more like a game. TotM players have to mentally convert it back to feet.

My counter-argument: TotM players don't care about spaces OR feet. Why cater to them? Typical conversation might go like:

Wizard: I want to cast fireball. Can I catch them all in the blast?
DM: No, you can catch five orcs in the blast because they are all in a 30-foot sphere, but the sixth orc is 35 feet away from orc number 2, and orc number 7 and 8 are 50 feet away from the center of your blast...

Just kidding. TotM don't try to get nitty-gritty like that. The DM instead would say:

DM: You can catch five. Maybe six. But the other two are on a platform and outside the blast.

So whether it's feet or spaces, the TotM players don't really care. If it really matters, I think it's easy enough for them to multiply 6 spaces by 5 ft = 30 feet. For grid-map players, knowing it's 30 feet = 6 squares across is important enough to know every time, so I think the rules in this case should cater to them. But I am probably in the minority, against all the 2E grognards here.



this ToTM does not care about exact numbers, so when making them you should ignore them. the people who do use a grid, therefor there is no reason to not use unites of time and distance that work.
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
You all keep saying ToTM doesn't care about numbers. I beg to differ. Numbers are just as important. If I'm not using a grid and someone asks how far away the orcs are, what sense would it make to say "20 squares?" They are 100 feet away, so you can hit them with Ray of Frost but not Lance of Faith, with a bow but not a Handaxe. Numbers matter, even if you don't have a grid, even if you aren't going by precise measurements.

I switch back and forth. Larger battles with tactical terrain and many characters I have to draw out on a grid. A sudden skirmish with wolves on the roadside doesn't require it, though. Either way I will give the distance in units familiar to the characters, because I am roleplaying and not playing a video game.

And does dividing a multiple of five by five really count as math? If you have been to elementary school, you should be able to do all of the math in Dungeons and Dragons.
Oh, I remember when "turn" meant "10 rounds"! Now "minute" does and gives people an intuitive frame of reference. "Turn" now means someone's initiative has come up.

Now, if we came up with a measurement people in D&D and our world used that was also 1sq long, we'd be fine! I know a yard/meter is 2 ft short, but...
Per round in TotM, how many times does it matter to know exact distance?
Per round on a grid, how many times does it matter to know exact distance?

It comes up more with grids, and so distance measurements should be adjusted for grids. ToTM players care about distance sometimes, but not as often. Most of the time it's simply melee range; charging range; short, medium, and long distance ranged attacks. Something abstract. Something that can be easily visualized... in the mind (hence the name). If ToTM players cared about getting any more exact than that, they can multiply the square measurement by 5. If it comes up so much that it's a problem, then it sounds like the game should be grid-based in the first place.

Conversely, grid players using 5-foot increments have to first divide by 5 to get the distance in squares or simply learn to count by 5 (as an aside, it's more difficult for most people to divide than it is to multiply). I'm fine with the mental math because I did it in 3e for so long, but at first it's unintuitive and tricky. Also, it seems simpler to say "difficult terrain consumes an extra square of movement" as opposed to "you must spend 10 feet of movement to move through 5 feet of difficult terrain."

For time measurements, "round" is fine for 6 seconds. Ten rounds in a minute. We don't need "turn" or anything confusing like that. We shouldn't make up a new word that simply replaces an old word. There is no word for "five foot square" or "six second duration," so we need game words for those concepts--square/space and round, respectively.
I agree with Lord_Kyrion. I much prefer to have units of time and distance expressed in real units. It helps with immersion in the game world and D&D is about more than moving miniatures around a gridded board killing the other miniatures on the board, that's what Dungeon Command is for.

When running across roof tops I don't want to know that the distance between buildings is 2 squares, I want to know that it is 10 feet.
When travelling to the next village, I want to know that it is 5 miles away and that it will take me 75 minutes to walk there, not that it is 5280 squares and 750 rounds away.

Is it so hard to remember that there are 10 rounds to a minute and 5 feet per square? I don't run gridded combat that often but I always know the distance in feet between various characters so that when my players ask me if they can do such and such I know if they are in range or not and advise them accordingly.

  1. Much of the world doesn't know what a foot is.

  2. Everything is listed in multiples of 5 feet.  Divide those by five and call them what we call them in the game SPACES! 

  3. Having to multiply, divide and other arithmetic is not playing.  It's homework.

  4. YOU ALREADY FIXED THIS IN 4E.  You finally realized that the game doesn't operate in feet.  We use SPACES.  Why are you regressing?  To appease the old farts who can't accept improvements? 

  5. The game doesn't use seconds, minutes or hours.  We play in rounds, turns, encounters and days.  Once again, 4E admitted this and built the game around HOW PEOPLE ACTUALLY PLAY.




I'm going ot address each of these as they're presented in a list. For the record, I'm a 4th edition fan.
1. This very true, but here's the solution.  In your game declare that 5ft = 1 meter or yard.  Seriously. The spacetime continuum will not implode and your game will still run just fine. Yes, you're technically losing some space, but will you actually notice it in game play? Not likely.  Especially if you play with a grid/hexes all the time. 

2. Squares (spaces) only work as a unit of measure if you're assuming the game is run with a grid/hexes.  This particular edition doesn't make that assumption so it's got to use some sort of real world measurement system for players to wrap their brains around.

3. Seriously? I'm not sure if you're trolling or not.  Math isn't something confined to school work.  It's part of daily life in the real world.  If you aren't going to buy into basic arithmetic you probably shouldn't be playing pen and paper RPGs. 

4. Fixed?  I'm not sure you're being objective about this.  It wasn't broken to begin with.  Again, 4th edition had totally different assumptions about how players interacted with the meta ideas and materials of the game itself.  That's completely divorced from fact that the real people who play D&D don't actually function in a Mindcraft-like world of perfect little squares.  They still think in terms of real world measurement systems. After all, abstractions (which is really what D&D is) only are abstractions if they're recognizable as a play on something else.

5. The game totally uses standard time measurements.  People actually take them into consideration all the time when playing D&D.  Rounds, encounters, and turns are all described as functions of standard time measurements. They don't exist in this pretty little D&D vacuum.


I think most of your problem stems from a complete disregard for reality.
For both theater of the mind and grid:

“Engaged” (1 yard) - sword swing
“Close” (upto 10 yards) - dagger throw, normal move, close quarters combat
“Distant” (upto 100 yards) - bow shot
For both theater of the mind and grid:

“Engaged” (1 yard) - sword swing
“Close” (upto 10 yards) - dagger throw, normal move, close quarters combat
“Distant” (upto 100 yards) - bow shot


Or even simpler:

"Melee" - you can wallop them with something
"Ranged" - you'll have to shoot them with something instead

Tactical combat with things like reach and OAs, and "theatre of the mind" (such a ridiculous phrase), don't really mix, IMO. If you're going to fill your game with rules that relate to a grid, then bite the bullet and say it uses a grid.
For both theater of the mind and grid:

“Engaged” (1 yard) - sword swing
“Close” (upto 10 yards) - dagger throw, normal move, close quarters combat
“Distant” (upto 100 yards) - bow shot


Or even simpler:

"Melee" - you can wallop them with something
"Ranged" - you'll have to shoot them with something instead

Tactical combat with things like reach and OAs, and "theatre of the mind" (such a ridiculous phrase), don't really mix, IMO. If you're going to fill your game with rules that relate to a grid, then bite the bullet and say it uses a grid.


That medial boundary of “close” is very useful. 

Close defines whatever you can reach by moving to it on your turn. This is also about the same distance that a dagger throw can reach. By definition, this is close quarters combat.

Close within 10 yards is highly useful for organizing space intuitively for theater of the mind.

Targets that are beyond close are distant, out of reach of a move, but within reach of a bow.

The range of a dagger (roughly 10 yards with accuracy) is very different from the range of an arrow (roughly 100 yards with accuracy). Keeping the boundary of close in mind helps mentally keep track of the battle field more easily. Allies and enemies are either close or distant, and this helps determine what your combat actions can be.

Note, 100 yards is roughly the distance of a football field. If you stand at one end, anything on that field is within arrow distance. This is also about the same distance as a city block.

Likewise the boundary of close helps visualize whether spell ranges reach or not. For example, a Fireball might reach a distant range then set off a close explosion.



By the way these are reallife military ranges.
• Engaged = hand-to-hand
• Close = also called “very short range” = close quarters
• Distant = “short range” for a gun

(Long range = “long range” for a sniper rifle)
People are still complaining about this insignificant stuff?
People are still complaining about this insignificant stuff?


What you said sounds like a complaint. Was it significant?
completely disagree with OP.

FOr me, talking in feet and minutes etc helps with immersion. Taking about spaces etc = boardgame talk for me, not an RPG.
completely disagree with OP.

FOr me, talking in feet and minutes etc helps with immersion. Taking about spaces etc = boardgame talk for me, not an RPG.


What about yards?



Anyway, I like yards, but only for ballparking distances, not for “square-counting”.

I dont care if one weapon throws upto 9 yards while another throws upto 11 yards. Threat them both as if upto 10 yards, and be done with it.
It is easy to visualize the scene, simply by asking, “Is the door close?”

Meaning, it is within walking distance andor the range of a spell.

The Idea behind next is a core or base ruleset that can be added on with any modular rulesets. It should be free of cumbersome measurements in the core. The standard should be the easiest to add on to. Starting out with descriptors: normal reach, extended reach, Inner range, Outer range.


For those groups who love thou, inch, foot, yard, chain, furlong, mile, and league; they should be able to have an Imperial ruleset add on. Those who want a more streamlined measurement system should be able to opt in for a Metric ruleset add on.  Those who what a demonized measurement system, should be able to have an Abyssal ruleset add on.


The Idea behind next is a core or base ruleset that can be added on with any modular rulesets. It should be free of cumbersome measurements in the core. The standard should be the easiest to add on to. Starting out with descriptors: normal reach, extended reach, Inner range, Outer range.


For those groups who love thou, inch, foot, yard, chain, furlong, mile, and league; they should be able to have an Imperial ruleset add on. Those who want a more streamlined measurement system should be able to opt in for a Metric ruleset add on.  Those who what a demonized measurement system, should be able to have an Abyssal ruleset add on.




Demons have their own measurement system? Let's just write the game using that! D&D does automatically make us all satanists after all.
When i open these packets, i hold my breath and hope you have finally fixed your measurements of distance and time.  Wizards, i am dissappoint.


  1. Much of the world doesn't know what a foot is.

  2. Everything is listed in multiples of 5 feet.  Divide those by five and call them what we call them in the game SPACES! 

  3. Having to multiply, divide and other arithmetic is not playing.  It's homework.

  4. YOU ALREADY FIXED THIS IN 4E.  You finally realized that the game doesn't operate in feet.  We use SPACES.  Why are you regressing?  To appease the old farts who can't accept improvements? 

  5. The game doesn't use seconds, minutes or hours.  We play in rounds, turns, encounters and days.  Once again, 4E admitted this and built the game around HOW PEOPLE ACTUALLY PLAY.


Hurr, hurr, derp and herp! My granddad played D&D with a slide rule and an abacus.  It was good enough for him.  We should continue to make the game hard to play, have the rules get in the way! Bob, grapple that guy so I can drive to the grocery store and get more Ensure and chips.


Stop regressing!  5E should be an improvement, not a step back to the old and busted crap YOU'VE ALREADY FIXED!  There are tons of Old School Renassance D&D products out there for people who want the misery of tHAC0 and imbalanced classes and poorly thought out multiclassing.


#1 And the other part of the world doesn't use metric. And?
#2 they COULD, but is your calculator finger broken? If you like spaces, it SHOULD be very easy to fix.
#3 Math is bad... So you've already complained about High jumps, resistance and vulnerability?...
#5 Really? I found seconds, min, hours, days and miles easily.  (PG#16-17 DM)  Or you could look at healing (how to 19-20) or time (how to 8).

L.K. Thanks, Supper Rhetoric Power Level 9000 *wink* LOOOOOVE IT!

Everyone else: In a fantasy setting, such as D&D there could be any number of different measurement systems. Dwarves could base a measurement system based on a Dwarven  King’s beard overall length and rate of growth. Druids could base a measurement system based on an old tree. Dragons could measure by the relative size and weights of varying precious metals and gems. Yes, even Demons, could very much, have their own measurement system.  Any measurement system imaginable could be developed.  The system should be able to let groups opt into a measurement system of their choosing.

I'm just going to throw this one out there, since the claim was made that 4e didn't use feet and inches.  This is actually incorrect.  The skills Acrobatics and Athletics depended on the use of feet when measuring distance, and these are two very useful and integral skills, for both in and out of combat.

Even in 4e, where almost all of that was abstracted, they still had to use feet as a basis for the world.
4th Edition used feet because greater granularity was desired for those specific tasks. I'm not sure when it's important to to have a rope that's 11 feet off the ground as opposed to 13 feet, but there you go. AFAIK, they removed the reference to feet and changed it to squares in the errata.
I let my subscription lapse, but the character creator and the compendium have all the current errata for 4e.  I recall even those sources still being in feet, but I could be wrong.

In either case, I am just going off the knowledge I have right now, and if I'm wrong, that's cool.
I'm going ot address each of these as they're presented in a list. For the record, I'm a 4th edition fan.
1. This very true, but here's the solution.  In your game declare that 5ft = 1 meter or yard.  Seriously. The spacetime continuum will not implode and your game will still run just fine. Yes, you're technically losing some space, but will you actually notice it in game play? Not likely.  Especially if you play with a grid/hexes all the time. 

2. Squares (spaces) only work as a unit of measure if you're assuming the game is run with a grid/hexes.  This particular edition doesn't make that assumption so it's got to use some sort of real world measurement system for players to wrap their brains around.

3. Seriously? I'm not sure if you're trolling or not.  Math isn't something confined to school work.  It's part of daily life in the real world.  If you aren't going to buy into basic arithmetic you probably shouldn't be playing pen and paper RPGs. 

4. Fixed?  I'm not sure you're being objective about this.  It wasn't broken to begin with.  Again, 4th edition had totally different assumptions about how players interacted with the meta ideas and materials of the game itself.  That's completely divorced from fact that the real people who play D&D don't actually function in a Mindcraft-like world of perfect little squares.  They still think in terms of real world measurement systems. After all, abstractions (which is really what D&D is) only are abstractions if they're recognizable as a play on something else.

5. The game totally uses standard time measurements.  People actually take them into consideration all the time when playing D&D.  Rounds, encounters, and turns are all described as functions of standard time measurements. They don't exist in this pretty little D&D vacuum.


I think most of your problem stems from a complete disregard for reality.



I hope most of this makes it into the Time and Movement chapter of the PHB.

 

 

I agree natural units of time and distance are easier to visualize. That said, could we not include both imperial and metric units?

The only argument in favor of "imperial only" is that it would take WoTC time and effort to include both measures. But surely game design should be player-friendly not publisher-friendly. It's not a question of how difficult it is for players, it's a question of the publisher removing friction from the system.

The most common use if distance is in combat, which seems to use 5 feet increments. Since 5 feet is about 1.5m, it would be fairly simple to put a conversion on brackets after each mention: e.g. Base move is 30 feet (9m) , reach is 5 feet (1.5m), move 10 feet (3m) when disengaging, etc.
Since 5 feet is about 1.5m, it would be fairly simple to put a conversion on brackets after each mention: e.g. Base move is 30 feet (9m) , reach is 5 feet (1.5m), move 10 feet (3m) when disengaging, etc.


Doubling all measurements is distracting. It is an extra layer of complexity in a game that already is complex and technical, and in need of as-simple-as-possible.



Yards≈meters seems convenient. Yards are good for the US, because yard refers to football and gun ranges. Yards are good for the game because Yard=square, and yards keep the math digits small.



The ideal solution seems to be for D&D Basic to convert all measurements into “engaged”, “close”, “distant”. These ballpark distances are great for theater of the mind.

Then modules can easily convert these ballpark distances into whichever units the players want.

• Engaged (1 yard, 1 meter, 1 square, 3 feet)
• Close (upto 10 yards, 10 meters, 10 squares, 30 feet)
• Distant (upto 100 yards, 100 meters, 100 squares, 300 feet)



On top of this, the tactical grid-map wargame module can easily add tables for more detailed distances.
The problem of “minute counting” is the same as “square counting”. The problem is excessive attention to keep track of incremental differences.

One task requires 1 minute. Another 5 minutes. 10 minutes. 15 minutes. 20 minutes. 30 minutes. 40 minutes. 1 hour. There is no need for all of these different and overlapping spans of time.

It is better to just ballpark the amount of time.



Just about every aspect of the game that requires a span of time can pick one of these five.

• Turn (6 Seconds)
• Minute
• Encounter (10 Minutes)
• Hour
• Long Rest (7 Hours)



Altho the combat of a combat encounter lasts less than a minute, the addition of the cleanup, treasure hunt, and cooldown afterward last roughly 10 minutes altogether.



I suspect, the designers intentionally base the gaming math on the minute.

1/10 of Minute (Turn)
Minute
10 Minutes (Encounter)

Thus, there are 100 Turns per 10-Minute ritual. This is convenient for suspenseful “countdown” scenarios.





Alternatively, it is worth noting, the quasi 15-minute interval is a standard unit of time: one hundredth of a day, the “centiday”.

(Namely 14.4 minutes, also called the “ke” in Chinese time.)

Thus this encounter length is about 15 minutes, being 1% of a day. This includes any kind of encounter, whether combat, social, exploration, ritual, even power nap (to offset fatigue from sleep deficit with a benefit lasting about 10% of day), or so on.

• 50% of a day: daytime
• 30% of a day: stretch, ideal amount of sleep, 7 hours
• 10% of a day: session, period of research, 2½ hours
• 5% of a day: long hour, relaxed meal, recouperation
• 1% of a day: encounter, about 15 minutes
• 0.1% of a day: scene, in a movie averages about 1½ minutes, minimally 2 seconds, maximally 3 minutes


In other words, there are potentially 100 encounters per day. Or 70 encounters per waking day, not including sleep.

Personally, I find the percentage of a day useful for ballparking the passage of narrative time. During especially busy days, it is possible to use pennies, nickles, and quarters, to track 100 cents per day. A nickel is a casual hour. 70 cents means time for sleep. But it is easy to just guestimate.



Anyway. D&D rules only need to refer to five amounts of time. Just about everything can be treated as if one of these.

Turn
Minute
• Encounter (roughly 10 or 15 minutes)
Hour
Stretch (roughly 7 hours, 6 to 8 hours)




When i open these packets, i hold my breath and hope you have finally fixed your measurements of distance and time.  Wizards, i am dissappoint.


  1. Much of the world doesn't know what a foot is.

  2. Everything is listed in multiples of 5 feet.  Divide those by five and call them what we call them in the game SPACES! 

  3. Having to multiply, divide and other arithmetic is not playing.  It's homework.

  4. YOU ALREADY FIXED THIS IN 4E.  You finally realized that the game doesn't operate in feet.  We use SPACES.  Why are you regressing?  To appease the old farts who can't accept improvements? 

  5. The game doesn't use seconds, minutes or hours.  We play in rounds, turns, encounters and days.  Once again, 4E admitted this and built the game around HOW PEOPLE ACTUALLY PLAY.


Hurr, hurr, derp and herp! My granddad played D&D with a slide rule and an abacus.  It was good enough for him.  We should continue to make the game hard to play, have the rules get in the way! Bob, grapple that guy so I can drive to the grocery store and get more Ensure and chips.


Stop regressing!  5E should be an improvement, not a step back to the old and busted crap YOU'VE ALREADY FIXED!  There are tons of Old School Renassance D&D products out there for people who want the misery of tHAC0 and imbalanced classes and poorly thought out multiclassing.




1. Why aren't you up in arms about the weight system?
2. No thanks. Many players don't feel the need to use a battle mat and minis.
3. Calm down. Basic math is not hard.
4. 4e.... feel free to keep playing.
5. Again... 4e.. feel free to keep playing.


If you really LOVE 4e than just keep playing 4e. You don't need to keep throwing money at WoTC for published adventures and splat books. I know it is scary that your edition is going to lose official support but don't worry, many of us have had to deal with it for decades at this point and were doing just fine. I do suggest not trying to rely on memes that have, at this point, ceased to even be remotely funny by the way if you want to be taken seriously and not just stand out as the sterotypical 4e player that the older editions claim 4e is made up of.
People are still complaining about this insignificant stuff?


What you said sounds like a complaint. Was it significant?



Yes. It was a significant complaint about people complaining about insignficant things. The game designers have way more important things to work on than this.
I'm going ot address each of these as they're presented in a list. For the record, I'm a 4th edition fan.
1. This very true, but here's the solution.  In your game declare that 5ft = 1 meter or yard.  Seriously. The spacetime continuum will not implode and your game will still run just fine. Yes, you're technically losing some space, but will you actually notice it in game play? Not likely.  Especially if you play with a grid/hexes all the time. 

2. Squares (spaces) only work as a unit of measure if you're assuming the game is run with a grid/hexes.  This particular edition doesn't make that assumption so it's got to use some sort of real world measurement system for players to wrap their brains around.

3. Seriously? I'm not sure if you're trolling or not.  Math isn't something confined to school work.  It's part of daily life in the real world.  If you aren't going to buy into basic arithmetic you probably shouldn't be playing pen and paper RPGs. 

4. Fixed?  I'm not sure you're being objective about this.  It wasn't broken to begin with.  Again, 4th edition had totally different assumptions about how players interacted with the meta ideas and materials of the game itself.  That's completely divorced from fact that the real people who play D&D don't actually function in a Mindcraft-like world of perfect little squares.  They still think in terms of real world measurement systems. After all, abstractions (which is really what D&D is) only are abstractions if they're recognizable as a play on something else.

5. The game totally uses standard time measurements.  People actually take them into consideration all the time when playing D&D.  Rounds, encounters, and turns are all described as functions of standard time measurements. They don't exist in this pretty little D&D vacuum.


I think most of your problem stems from a complete disregard for reality.



I hope most of this makes it into the Time and Movement chapter of the PHB.




Hehe, I don't think WotC would want it worded so passive aggressively, but that'd be neat if it happened :D
1. Why aren't you up in arms about the weight system?
2. No thanks. Many players don't feel the need to use a battle mat and minis.
3. Calm down. Basic math is not hard.
4. 4e.... feel free to keep playing.
5. Again... 4e.. feel free to keep playing.



1. Nobody, and I mean nobody, truly cares about tracking item weights unless someone is clearly abusing it. Even then, I don't think the DM finds out until the wizard tries to pull two ladders and a horse out of his backpack.
2. Every game I've played since high school (10 years?) has used maps in some way or another. The only games I've played lacking maps were non-D&D, like Shadowrun. Simply put, I don't play D&D for the engaging setting (except for Planescape or Eberron).
3. Division (35 feet / 5 foot-per-square = 7 squares) is less intuitive and slower than multiplication (7 squares x 5 feet = 35 feet) for most people. I turn the question on the anti-battlegrid people: why does multiplication seem so hard for you, especially since you don't plan on needing to use exact measurements as often as a grid player would?
4+5. I dislike 4E for a number of reasons, but using squares instead of awkward 5-foot blocks is not one of them. I am more partial to 3E. DND Next represents an attempt to take the best from each edition while eliminating the worst parts. Telling someone to "just go play something else" is not a very inclusive attitude and strikes me as downright rude.

Anyway, I agree with Haldrik. If we want to tailor the game toward Theater of the Mind players, then dump distance units entirely and convert it to engagement ranges. You're not 5 feet away, you're Close or in Melee. Your spell range isn't 100 feet, it's Long. Disengaging changes your engagement range from Close to Medium without provoking an opportunity attack. And so on.

The upside is each range can easily be converted to whatever units you imagine. 1 square = 5 feet = 2 meters.
I disagree and prefer feet and minutes as unit of time and distance measurement.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I too prefer ft and second measurements. 
For things relating to combat I rather they use Squares and Turns/Rounds

For everything else I rather they use Feets and Minutes, etc

It shouldnt even be difficult to implement both

Fireball - Radius 15ft, 6x6 AoE
Don't really care about the time messurement but being europeans my players really hate the ft distance messurement. It's a messurement we never ever use over here and many don't even have a concept of how long it is.
Hehehe, I actually somewhat agree with this, but that's because I nearly always play with a battlegrid.

The argument against it goes like this: making it into spaces increases the abstraction and makes it feel more like a game. TotM players have to mentally convert it back to feet.

My counter-argument: TotM players don't care about spaces OR feet. Why cater to them? Typical conversation might go like:

Wizard: I want to cast fireball. Can I catch them all in the blast?
DM: No, you can catch five orcs in the blast because they are all in a 30-foot sphere, but the sixth orc is 35 feet away from orc number 2, and orc number 7 and 8 are 50 feet away from the center of your blast...

Just kidding. TotM don't try to get nitty-gritty like that. The DM instead would say:

DM: You can catch five. Maybe six. But the other two are on a platform and outside the blast.

So whether it's feet or spaces, the TotM players don't really care. If it really matters, I think it's easy enough for them to multiply 6 spaces by 5 ft = 30 feet. For grid-map players, knowing it's 30 feet = 6 squares across is important enough to know every time, so I think the rules in this case should cater to them. But I am probably in the minority, against all the 2E grognards here.



Yep. On all points.



heck, at least measure things in yards. It's close enough to a meter to not worry about the difference.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
When i open these packets, i hold my breath and hope you have finally fixed your measurements of distance and time.  Wizards, i am dissappoint.


  1. Much of the world doesn't know what a foot is.

  2. Everything is listed in multiples of 5 feet.  Divide those by five and call them what we call them in the game SPACES! 

  3. Having to multiply, divide and other arithmetic is not playing.  It's homework.

  4. YOU ALREADY FIXED THIS IN 4E.  You finally realized that the game doesn't operate in feet.  We use SPACES.  Why are you regressing?  To appease the old farts who can't accept improvements? 

  5. The game doesn't use seconds, minutes or hours.  We play in rounds, turns, encounters and days.  Once again, 4E admitted this and built the game around HOW PEOPLE ACTUALLY PLAY.


Hurr, hurr, derp and herp! My granddad played D&D with a slide rule and an abacus.  It was good enough for him.  We should continue to make the game hard to play, have the rules get in the way! Bob, grapple that guy so I can drive to the grocery store and get more Ensure and chips.


Stop regressing!  5E should be an improvement, not a step back to the old and busted crap YOU'VE ALREADY FIXED!  There are tons of Old School Renassance D&D products out there for people who want the misery of tHAC0 and imbalanced classes and poorly thought out multiclassing.


1) I agree fully, let's make each square go from 5' to 1m. Meters are easier to measure and the entire world (with the exception of the US) uses Meters. I have no clue why the US doesn't use meters, but it would be incredibly easy to convert 5e from feet to meters.

2) See #1

3) See THAC0 (BTW, you're still using THAC0 in 4th edition, they just made it look different)

4) They are 'regressing' because the game stopped being a Role Playing Game and started becoming a beat-em-up tabletop game. I wholeheartedly applaud their efforts to bring in realistic units of measure instead of just squares. I just would hope that they would use a Metric system instead of the Imperial system (That was made up quite randomly I think).

5) If you're playing the game by the book, it does. Each round is roughly 10-15 seconds, the problem with this though is that the packets don't really say how long the rounds are, so you're left with abilities that could last anywhere from 1-6 rounds... It's very confusing until we get that hammered out.

And we  didn't play with an abacus and a slide rule, that's just silly. We did it with paper, a few polyhedral dice, and a couple of books. There wasn't a perfect balance in every situation, but in an entire game, the balance was quite profound. Seeing that Paladins are even capable of theft made me almost close the 4e books and go crawling back to AD&D (you know, back where the best campaigns ever made are).
When i open these packets, i hold my breath and hope you have finally fixed your measurements of distance and time.  Wizards, i am dissappoint.


  1. Much of the world doesn't know what a foot is.

  2. Everything is listed in multiples of 5 feet.  Divide those by five and call them what we call them in the game SPACES! 

  3. Having to multiply, divide and other arithmetic is not playing.  It's homework.

  4. YOU ALREADY FIXED THIS IN 4E.  You finally realized that the game doesn't operate in feet.  We use SPACES.  Why are you regressing?  To appease the old farts who can't accept improvements? 

  5. The game doesn't use seconds, minutes or hours.  We play in rounds, turns, encounters and days.  Once again, 4E admitted this and built the game around HOW PEOPLE ACTUALLY PLAY.


Hurr, hurr, derp and herp! My granddad played D&D with a slide rule and an abacus.  It was good enough for him.  We should continue to make the game hard to play, have the rules get in the way! Bob, grapple that guy so I can drive to the grocery store and get more Ensure and chips.


Stop regressing!  5E should be an improvement, not a step back to the old and busted crap YOU'VE ALREADY FIXED!  There are tons of Old School Renassance D&D products out there for people who want the misery of tHAC0 and imbalanced classes and poorly thought out multiclassing.


1) I agree fully, let's make each square go from 5' to 1m. Meters are easier to measure and the entire world (with the exception of the US) uses Meters. I have no clue why the US doesn't use meters, but it would be incredibly easy to convert 5e from feet to meters.

2) See #1

3) See THAC0 (BTW, you're still using THAC0 in 4th edition, they just made it look different)

4) They are 'regressing' because the game stopped being a Role Playing Game and started becoming a beat-em-up tabletop game. I wholeheartedly applaud their efforts to bring in realistic units of measure instead of just squares. I just would hope that they would use a Metric system instead of the Imperial system (That was made up quite randomly I think).

5) If you're playing the game by the book, it does. Each round is roughly 10-15 seconds, the problem with this though is that the packets don't really say how long the rounds are, so you're left with abilities that could last anywhere from 1-6 rounds... It's very confusing until we get that hammered out.

And we  didn't play with an abacus and a slide rule, that's just silly. We did it with paper, a few polyhedral dice, and a couple of books. There wasn't a perfect balance in every situation, but in an entire game, the balance was quite profound. Seeing that Paladins are even capable of theft made me almost close the 4e books and go crawling back to AD&D (you know, back where the best campaigns ever made are).



1 round = 6 seconds
1 minute = 10 rounds

Pretty simple.... in fact I don't think this particular metric has ever changed. 
Ahh, I must have not read that in the packet. Thought I went cover to cover, but I do tend to go all glazey eyed after a while.