|
6 years ago ::
Dec 12, 2007 - 6:02PM
#71
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2005
|
I'm okay with dwarves being small. There's room for them now, since we're not going to have gnomes.
Dwarves aren't small, they're just short.
Which is probably why they're always so drunk and angry.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Dec 12, 2007 - 6:22PM
#72
|
|
|
Shin: Why that "Average human speed" should be used for the base of gaming rule? Are there any "realism" in that theory? That "average speed" should be the average speed of people actually walking on street or something.
Despite cultural differences, the 'average' speed is 1.25 meters/sec (= 4 feet/sec). There have been numerous studies because of traffic safety concerns, and this the official speed for both the US government (4 feet/sec) and the Canadian government (1.2 meters/sec).
Notice, using 4-ft squares (= 1.2 meter squares): average Human speed = 1 square per second = 6 squares per round.
That means, walking at a normal longterm sustainable pace covers a distance of 6 squares per round (each square being about 4 feet and the round being about 6 seconds), but the walker expends both the move action and the standard action.
However, during combat, a person does "fast walking" (= vigorous exercise walking) at about twice normal speeds. Therefore, during the 6-second round, the combatant can both cover the 6 squares of distance during the move action and still have time left over for a standard action.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Dec 12, 2007 - 6:52PM
#73
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2004
|
Despite cultural differences, the 'average' speed is 1.25 meters/sec (= 4 feet/sec). There have been numerous studies because of traffic safety concerns, and this the official speed for both the US government (4 feet/sec) and the Canadian government (1.2 meters/sec), and I assume other governments as well.
Actually, a recent research shows that the "average walking speed" of people in Tokyo (the largest city in the world, if you includes all it's capital territory) is 1.56m/second. And people in Osaka, the second largest city in Japan, walk at 1.6m/second in average. Those numbers are "faster" than 5 foot/second :D
As about half of the Japanese residents are living in those two cities and their peripheries, there are at least roughly 50,000,000 to 60,000,000 people walking "casually" at that speed. This number is far more than total population of entire Canada.
Those "official" number calculated for traffic safety by US government does nothing to do with actual walking speed of people in various part of the world.
And people in pre-modern age tend to walk much faster, and covered much longer distance/day. I guess people in a fantasy world tend to be good walkers comparing to people in modern countries.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Dec 12, 2007 - 7:16PM
#74
|
|
|
In Tokyo, 1.56m/second. And in Osaka, 1.6m/second in average. Those numbers are "faster" than 5 foot/second.
I suspect, these faster speeds specifically measure how long it takes to cross the street, when people rush slightly faster than usual. Perhaps they only measure the speeds of healthy male young adults. Even so, these generally faster speeds reflect a local urban culture that 'rushes' people. (:D Perhaps theyr being rushed by all that stress thats caused by the overcrowding.) In other words, urbanites are always in 'combat mode'. No doubt, Japanese who live on quieter islands walk slower.
There are cities in the US where people have average walking speeds that are slower or faster, than average. New York is famous for a 'fast pace', tho other cities are actually faster. But on average, its 1.2 m/s (4 ft/sec).
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Dec 12, 2007 - 8:49PM
#75
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
"Square" should equal about 4 ft x 4 ft
It would make sense if D&D used the same measurement for both height and length. As is, height is measured in units of 4 feet (Medium 4+, Large 8+, Huge 16+, etc.), but length is measured in units of 5 feet ("squares" being 5 x 5).
I would actually suggest 2.5 feet squares. The advantage of going that small it is actually better for matching up with real world objects. Chairs, tables, counters and such tend to match more closely with grid spaces at that scale. And groups of people tend to fit into more realistic spaces.
But it creates it's own problems in combat because now people need space beyond the square they are in around them to move and fight. And since you would have to double movement per turn it starts to get annoying to track.
Jay
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Dec 12, 2007 - 9:59PM
#76
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2004
|
Please look this photo.  This is the dining table in my house covered by a home-made battle grid. It is 36 squares x 64 squares. It is the "upper limit" for my current resident. It still cannot fully handle some extreme combat encounters shown in official campaign modules (say, an encounter which starts at 480 ft. in distance, that means 96 squares away). Please try not to make each squares any smaller in the gaming world. It will make D&D even much harder to play at home. On the other hand, if 4e adapts 1 square = 2m, I am really happy with that. Metric is so much better than imperial measurement method. And easy to calculate. I am tired of dealing with those silly cubic feet, "x numbers of 10-foot cube", gallons and such. It is 21st century now boys! Well, most fantasy minis tend to be a little bit too big for this scale (roughly 1/80). But I don't care much. Most fantasy minis, both DDM and recent metal ones, are already bigger than they meant to be. Current scale is 1/60 (1inch : 5 foot = 60 inch). But compare some human minis of DDM to Tamiya's 1/48 soldiers. They are actually almost the same in size.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Dec 13, 2007 - 12:29PM
#77
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2007
|
Born and raised in the US, and even I'd like to see a move to a metric system. I think the easiest thing to do would be 1 meter squares. Then #squares and distance are at a 1:1 ratio.
Moreover, I think a 1 meter scale is very useful.
For example, a medium creatures is 1-2 meters tall (~3.5-7 feet), and has a 2x2 personal space (ie. the approximate area within 1 step). The 1 meter scale also allows for more weapon ranges. An unarmed strike or dagger might have a 1 meter range (ie. the approximate length of the arm). A sword might have 2 meters (1 meter for arm +1 meter for blade). A spear 3 meters, a polearm 4 meter, etc.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Dec 14, 2007 - 7:38PM
#78
|
|
|
Exploring a 1-meter squareTruth be told, I can live with D&D going metric. A 1-meter 'square' is appealing. (But dont actually say 'meter' because it sounds way too modern.  ) The problem with a 1-meter 'square' is, the anthropocentric distance of about 1.2 meters has a life of its own, and ignoring it can causes distortions in simulations. Even so, the distance of 1.2 meters is so close to 1 meter, its worth exploring the possibility of finagling this 1.2 distance within a 1-meter square system. Below are some considerations. Equivalences1 meter = 3.281 feet 1.219 meter = 4 feet Human Height and Large HumansIf a square is 1 meter, a significant number of Humans would be Large size. Player characters would inevitably gain the option to play a Large character. Of course, many players want the option of Large. Going metric requires new rules for combat for Large size that wont imbalance gameplay. Especially the advantage of reach must be fixed. Moreover, all smaller races, Dwarf, Halfling, and Gnome, would be Medium size.
- Size Cataories (Simplified)
- 1.0 meters (3 feet 3 inches): upper limit of Small size
- 1.4 meters (4 feet 8 inches): (a possible definition of dwarfism)
- 1.7 meters (5 feet 7 inches): average human height
- 2.0 meters (6 feet 7 inches): upper limit of Medium size (a possible definition of gigantism)
- 4.0 meters (13 feet 2 inches): upper limit of Large size
*Note: Over 2.0 meters is extraordinarily tall and counterposes under 1.4 meters which can be considered dwarfism.
- Size Catagory Considerations
- 1.00 meters (3 feet 3.4 inches): upper limit of Small size?
- 1.37 meters (4 feet 5.8 inches): a possible definition of dwarfism (20% deviation from average height)
- 1.42 meters (4 feet 7.9 inches): a possible definition of dwarfism
- 1.47 meters (4 feet 10. inches): a common definition of dwarfism
- 1.64 meters (5 feet 4.0 inches): average human height (female)
- 1.71 meters (5 feet 7.0 inches): average human height
- 1.78 meters (5 feet 10. inches): average human height (male)
- 2.00 meters (6 feet 6.7 inches): upper limit of Medium size?
- 2.01 meters (6 feet 7.0 inches): generally not identified as gigantism but possibly
- 2.05 meters (6 feet 9.0 inches): a possible definition of gigantism (20% deviation from average height)
- 2.25 meters (7 feet 4.6 inches): a common definition of gigantism
- 2.29 meters (7 feet 6.0 inches): a possible definition of gigantism
- 2.40 meters (8 feet 0.0 inches): a possible definition of gigantism
- 4.00 meters (13 feet 1.5 inches): upper limit of Large size
2 meters equals almost 6 feet 7 inches. If meters determine size catagories, any exceptionally tall Human over 2 meters will be Large size, with all of its combat advantages. At the other end of the bell curve, even people who express dwarfism, being smaller than 4 foot 2 inches, would still be over 1 meter tall, thus still Medium size. Halflings and Dwarves would be unambiguously Medium size. Generally, going metric would remove options to play Small size characters. Human Speed
- 8 squares per round (where each square equals 1 meter)
Average human speed is 1.25 meters per second (4.500 km/h, 4 feet per second, or 2.796 miles per hour). With a round being 6 seconds, Humans thus cover 7.5 meters per round (24 feet per round). Even tho slightly rushed, its fine to round upward to 8 squares per round (1.333 meters per second, 4.800 km/h, 28 feet per round, or 2.983 miles per hour), because this speed matches a number of studies that clock people crossing streets. In combat, characters walk twice as fast (because half their time is used for the standard action). This fast walking (2.667 meters per second, 8 feet per second, 9.600 km/h, 5.965 miles per hour) is vigorous but doable. Human Body Space
- Body space in social interactions
- 1 square away (being the adjacent square): friend
- 2 squares away: formal social interaction
- 4 squares away: anonymous public space
Human body space is about 1.2 meters diameter (4 feet). If each square equals 1 meter, then a person who is in the adjacent square is 1 meter away and definitely within the body space, appropriate for a friend, and a person 2 squares away is 2 meters away and definitely outside the body space, appropriate for a formal social interaction. In public anonymous space, people tend to keep about 3.66 meters apart (12 feet), and 4 squares away is an acceptable approximation.
- Body space and weapon reach
- 1 square away (adjacent square): grappling, kicking, dagger, longsword, spear.
- 2 squares away: longspear, greatsword.
- 3 squares away: greatspear, spiked chain.
A person threatens any adjacent square with an attack-of-opportunity. If squares are 1 meter, the threat reasonably occupies a 3 meter x 3 meter area (roughly 10 feet x 10 feet). The human arm is a bit over half a meter (approximately 70 cm) and reaches into the adjacent square. Almost all sword blades are under a meter, and can only reach the adjacent square. A broadsword, like the viking sword, averages a 75 cm blade (and a 22 cm hilt totaling 97 cm). In other words, the sword blade extends the arms reach but not enough to reach someone 2 squares away. Likewise, a longsword averaging a 92 cm blade (and a 18 cm hilt totaling 110 cm). Notably, a greatsword, like a highland claymore, averages a 107 cm blade (and a 33 cm grip totalling 140 cm). Thus it extends the arms reach by over a meter and can reach over the adjacent square to attack someone 2 squares away. A spear, because of how its held, effectively reaches the adjacent square only. However, a longspear over 2½ meters (8 feet 2 inches) can reach 2 squares away. A 'greatspear', like a pike, over 3½ meters (11 feet 6 inches) can reach 3 squares away. In sumIn sum, setting a square to exactly 1 meter is workable. The only disruptive consequence noted here, is the existence of Large Humans and the need to balance them in combat, especially their reach.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Dec 15, 2007 - 7:45PM
#79
|
Date Joined:
Sep 15, 2007
|
Exploring a 1-meter square
Truth be told, I can live with D&D going metric. A 1-meter 'square' is appealing. (But dont actually say 'meter' because it sounds way too modern. )
...
In sum
In sum, setting a square to exactly 1 meter is workable. The only disruptive consequence noted here, is the existence of Large Humans and the need to balance them in combat, especially their reach.
With such detailed analysis, perhaps you can answer this: What is the minimum size a room must be to accommodate a proper square dance?
And, does this affect the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin?
All silliness aside, the real questions of scale do not so much affect size and movement as they do weapon and spell range. Must the effective range of a crossbow now be measured in arbitrary squares rather than fixed linear range?
Hmmm... I say they should pick a scale and stick to it, otherwise they disrupt the very foundation of the game (being the origins in rules for miniatures that rely heavily on scale).
The 4 ft scale has merits beyond the obvious. Many lumber measurements are traditionally in 4 ft increments, so this scale would better suit typical human construction.
mdono 
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Dec 18, 2007 - 6:14AM
#80
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2003
|
If a "square" is approximately 4 ft x 4 ft:
1320 squares = mile
820 squares = kilometer
So, a 1000 (or 1024?) squares is somewhere between the US and Euro measurements.
Would we call this a Kilosquare?
~~~~~
I'm a big fan of the 1 square = 1 meter approach. There's no scientific reason for this, I just think that 1:1 is easy. If you are six squares away you are six meters away.
No multiplying. Nice!
|
|
|
