|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 2:52PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2007
|
Probably already suggested, but it doesn't break things that much to say 5 feet = 1 meter for AoE, does it?
Personally? I don't care much. I got used to use squares for everything, and always write the square-size after everything, like: Speed 30ft/9m (6 squares). The problem stated here is that local publishers will use normal math and convert 5ft to 1.5m. There is nothing we can do to change that, this is pure conversion. Locally changing it to 1m or 2m will mostly bring the purists' rage because "they messed up the original math". Changing the base unit to yard will mostly ensure that local publishers will convert it to 1m, since they are almost the same. I understand that WotC don't want to publish in metric because US units are on imperial, but they are a huge entertainment group. They have licenses to sell overseas, and everyone else in the world uses metric. They can throw us a bone doing some math that don't get everything hard enough once converted to metric. And going to define how many squares is on 27 meters is not as easy as defining how many squares are on 120 ft.
[<()>]Proud Brazilian. Typos are free bonuses. Good Quotes
Show
Metaplot is to DMs what railroading is to players.
There are really three types of feats, in my opinion. My ratings are based on how much they add flavorwise to your character:
Feats that you pick because they fit your character: For instance, Jack of All Trades, Disciple of Lore, Skill Focus, Potent Restorables. In my game, my Artificer studied healing and magic extensively. He had a strong belief that while it wasn't possible to be the best at everything, it was important to understand a bit of everything. These feats didn't add any more opportunity to roleplay; they reinforced the ideas already presented with mechanics to back them up.
Feats that you pick because they represent what your character is becoming:For instance, Multiclass feats, White Lotus Evasion. My rogue is taking a Warden multiclass; representing him overcoming his fears of primal spirits. My artificer is taking White Lotus Evasion, because it represents him returning to his elven roots. These feats accompany adding ideas to your character, and add mechanics that allow these ideas to function where if they were missing, it would not.
Feats You Pick Because You Need Them Or Solely Because of a Mechanical Bonus: For instance, Weapon Proficency, Arcane Implement Proficency, Expertise. If you need to take a feat in order either 1. Complete a reasonable archetype (Enchanter who fights with Sword and Spell) or 2. Meet the expectations that the group puts on you (ie; In order to play in this Super Optimized group, I need to have X otherwise I'm pulling the group down), then it fits this. On the same end, sometimes you're going to pick a feat because it makes combat more fun; not because it adds to your character in any way. Expanded critical hit range? Makes the game more fun; but other than "My character got better", there's not much to it.
I would say that general feats often fall more often into the "Solely Because of a Mechanical Bonus" column. There's exceptions of course (Skill Power), but that's generally how I perceive things.
My DDI subscription is renewed. I really missed the compendium on my table.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 3:02PM
#42
|
|
|
+1
Make it so that people using minis and the map system convert their hexes/squares to 2m and make it so that all measurements in the game are rebuilt into the metric system.
We're all nerds anyway, at least this way it will be SUPER easy to figure out how far it is to travel the 5k to the next village.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 3:02PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Oct 18, 2009
|
No one is asking for metric units in D&D. We just want to replace one imperial unit (feet) for another imperial unit (yards).
[<o>]
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 8:08AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Jul 27, 2009
|
+1 vote for feet to yards.
Is there anything in D&D, other than 5 foot squares, where the loss of granularity matters?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 8:17AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2004
|
+1 vote for feet to yards.
Is there anything in D&D, other than 5 foot squares, where the loss of granularity matters?
Creature height, vertical jumping distance.
Also, there's a bit of reality check. It's hard for me to imagine fighting effectively while standing in a 3 ft wide corridor.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 10:45AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Feb 18, 2009
|
Just to play devil's advocate here...
The debate is how can we measure it so that we can have one unit be the same as the other (1 yard = 1 meter, etc). So here's my idea: Why don't we assign everything to a standard unit, that can be entirely made up for D&D purposes. You can call this unit 5' in one game, a yard in another, a meter in a third... You'd be able to easily measure EVERYTHING and yet there'd be no issue of conversion or having to print multiple rules.
And we could call this measurement "a square..."
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 6:16PM
#47
|
|
|
Probably already suggested, but it doesn't break things that much to say 5 feet = 1 meter for AoE, does it? You can pretend that instead of Feet (30 cm), D&D means Span (20 cm).
Personally, I like the Imperial measures. I grew up on metric, but I found it quaint and interesting to have to use feet and miles, even if I had to convert in my head. So I second sticking with Imperical/Biblical units.
Actually, the “biblical unit”, namely the cubit (ama) is about 0.5 meter. 2 cubits = 1 meter.
Also, the “imperial unit”, namely the yard, is moreorless equivalent to a meter.
So even with “quaint” units of measure in mind, for flavor, it still makes most sense for D&D to adopt the American “yard”, which everybody else can read as “meters”.
Yards are familiar because of their use in American football, which is a good way to understand a combat area, or an open battle field. Yards are also in use for measuring gun shooting distances, which gives a good sense of how far arrows travel. And so on.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 6:21PM
#48
|
|
|
Also, there's a bit of reality check. It's hard for me to imagine fighting effectively while standing in a 3 ft wide corridor.
In this case, using yard-squares normalizes taking a 1-yard step each round during melee combat. This is more realistic, because melee combatants do move alot, and makes the grid play more exciting.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 7:04PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2004
|
Also, there's a bit of reality check. It's hard for me to imagine fighting effectively while standing in a 3 ft wide corridor.
In this case, using yard-squares normalizes taking a 1-yard step each round during melee combat. This is more realistic, because melee combatants do move alot, and makes the grid play more exciting.
Not sure I follow what you're saying. But it would be interesting to use 1 yard squares, but maybe say that you get a penalty if you aren't adjacent to at least two open squares, because you don't have room to move. Heh, you could even have a space factor for weapons that says how many adjacent squares you need to fight effectively. A dagger would work fine in that 3 ft corridor, but a glaive might need a considerable space. (I wouldn't be too excited to see that as part of the core rules, but it might make for a neat module.)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 2:55AM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Oct 18, 2009
|
Also, there's a bit of reality check. It's hard for me to imagine fighting effectively while standing in a 3 ft wide corridor.
The "basic unit" for mapping/movement could be 2 yards (6 feet), not one (3 feet). It's closer to the current standard of 5 feet.
[<o>]
|
|
|
