|
5 years ago ::
Dec 06, 2007 - 11:33AM
#51
|
|
|
Real inches are twelths of a foot, but these were so called scale inches (from the table-top roots of D&D).
I can't find my copy of Das offizielle SPIELER HANDBUCH von Gary Gygax at the moment, but surely it also had those strange scales inches?
In Switzerland e.g., the foot was ten 10 inches...
My memory however fails at the exact measurements in the german book... i think you are right that those inches were used, but i am sure a fireball was measured in meters...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 08, 2007 - 2:01PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Dec 17, 2005
|
I am pretty sure ADnD didn´t use "inches"...
1 inch = 2.54 centimeters
i think you mean "yards"
1 yard = 0.9144 meters
No, he's right. Ranges in AD&D were listed as "inches" which corresponded to a certain number of yards depending on the circumstances. (Outdoors 1 inch equaled 10 yards, indoors 1 inch = 10 feet, except for spell areas of effect and a few other things where "1"" = 10 feet.)
Movement rates for characters were 6", 9" and 12" for example. If your movement rate was "6 inches" that meant you could move 60 feet per round (a minute), or 6 feet per "segment" (six seconds).
It was AD&D showing its wargaming roots.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 09, 2007 - 5:24PM
#53
|
|
|
This was mentioned already in several forms, but logically this system makes much more sense. The best example I can give is when members of a session I was in got up and acted out the ridiculousness of combat where each combatant takes up a 5'x5' square. In our kitchen. In real life, kitchen combat would be a bit cramped, I admit. In D/D however, kitchen combat means almost every square should be considered at least half occupied before the combatants even draw swords.
If you want real appreciation for combat reflexes, be the rogue getting four attacks of opportunity in six seconds as the rest of your gaming group skirts the edge of your five foot square. Even better, go outside (you'll probably have to) and have them go to the edge of their own squares that are as far away from you as possible. Technically, this is what could be happening in combat as you "threaten" them with your mighty 8 feet long rogue arms.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 09, 2007 - 8:23PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2003
|
I'm happy with 5' squares. As mentioned a couple of time, 5' is only an inch off 1.5m which makes it much easier to visualize for those of us who live in metric-using nations.
If I had not spent as much time in the United States as I did when I was younger, I wouldn't have the first clue what 5 feet looked like (aside from three people sitting on a sofa while one of them has a leg curled up :P)
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 10, 2007 - 12:40PM
#55
|
|
|
If someone doesnt care if a measurement makes any sense or not in reality, but only cares if it has easy numbers to count, why argue for the number "1.5 meters", when surely the number "1 meter" is even simpler to work with?
Just pretend every square equals exactly 1 m. The round approximation of 1 m is actually closer to the realistic length (1.2 m) than 1.5 m would be.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 10, 2007 - 2:13PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2007
|
There's a vast flaw in the 4' square theory. It doesn't work well for a "threatened" area at all. Since a medium creature is what the single square is all about we'll talk about a Human here. And an average Human is about roughly Five and Half feet tall. Now since people are as Tall as they are wide with arms out-stretched, that means they are occupying a 5'6" area at one time. Including weapons that are anywhere from a foot to three feet long and suddenly that threatened range is increased dramatically. A Five foot square is _tiny_ for people to work within, in the context of a person occupying an area, battle ready, legs in position to sprint/charge whatever. 4' just makes it unreasonable especially for people like me who are 6'1". At this point i should almost be a Large creature. Considering with a sword I'm easily threatening 2 squares out. This is why 5' should stay the norm for what it is. I believe it has been thought out before and why it is, what it is. For people who don't want to use square movement, just multiply it, it's very easy 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 10, 2007 - 2:44PM
#57
|
|
|
Since a person threatens adjacent squares, the threat occupies about 12 feet by 12 feet. Thats about right.
:D Apparently there was a 'vast flaw' in your calculation.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 10, 2007 - 4:05PM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2004
|
I can't see any significant merit on making a square 20% smaller in the game world.
IIRC D20 SW is using 2 meters = Square right? Even that may work. DnD 3.0 and after, PCs are assumed to be "always moving around" and not "just standing in the center of the square like a chess piece. It is a fantasy game with abstract combat system.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 10, 2007 - 8:58PM
#59
|
|
|
A significant merit of a 4-ft square is the ability to use the same measurement for height and distance.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 10, 2007 - 9:39PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Dec 17, 2005
|
A significant merit of a 4-ft square is the ability to use the same measurement for height and distance.
...Because 5' high lengths can't be used to measure height?
|
|
|
