|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 1:01PM
#1
|
|
|
Space and Time
This thread can be for any issues involving space and time, including mechanics, flavor, measurement units, nomenclature, problems, and so on.
Remove the Creature Size table
Eliminate the table for creature size. Because. Some large creatures have long reach, like giants with giant clubs. Some large creatures dont, like horses, or gelatinous cubes. Some large creatures take up a lot of space, like snakes, or giant eagles with wings spread out, some dont. Some large creatures are slow and ponderous, some are agile. Some are strong, some are weak. And so on. Let all mechanics for monsters of various sizes be found in the statblock. Theyr all different anyway.
The upshot of this is:
• players can pick balanced large races for their character concept
• removing the size table is one less complication to worry about
• the size table doesnt really work anyway
Yards?
For now, since Next is going back to “feet”. What about instead going from 5-foot units to 3-foot “yards”.
• Importantly, yards as units allows more nuanced mechanics for weapon reach.
• Those accustomed to thinking in “squares” can easily substitute “yards”.
• Also metric players can handwave these as “meters”. (1 yard = ∙9 m).
• The D&D tradition has precedent for yards.
• The ancient “cubit” equals often exactly half a meter, and about half a yard. Useful in “kings cubit” settings.
• A yard (36") is equal to about an average pace while walking (30").
• And to me it sounds natural enough to use in the context of mapless encounters.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 2:47PM
#2
|
|
|
The question of yards adds the point that smaller 3-ft units allows more nuanced mechanics for weapon reach. Great swords can reach 2 yd, while some polearms 3 yd, and so on.
Also. Eliminate the table for size categories. Some large creatures have long reach, like giants with giant clubs. Some large creatures dont, like horses, or gelatinous cubes. Some large creatures take up a lot of space, like snakes, or giant eagles with wings spread out, some dont. Some large creatures are slow and ponderous, some are agile. Some are strong, some are weak. And so on. Let all mechanics for monsters of various sizes be found in the statblock. Theyr all different anyway.
• The upshot of this is: removing the size table is one less complication to worry about, the table doesnt really work anyway, ... and then nothing prevents players from picking balanced large races for their character concept.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 2:52PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2010
|
I like the idea of switching to Yard myself. It realy is much nicer, and it can be easily converted to meteres or squares as need be.
I aslo agree that the size table was just confusing and uncessary for me.
But what does this have to do with "time"? :P
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 2:53PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Dec 15, 2009
|
I'm glad you added the second post, explaining why you wanted to change to Yards. As it stood, it just seemed like a meaningless flavor change. You make a good case for why the change would work. I'm all for any change that buffs the Combat mechanics, which I feel are not treated as well as the Magic mechanics. I'd like to see more information and peoples opinions on whether this would work well or not.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 5:55PM
#5
|
|
|
Hmm... Yards does seem MUCH mor elegant than feet. +1!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 6:05PM
#6
|
|
|
Metres would be ideal, but yards are cool with me since they're almost the same. Measurements in feet are annoying.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 7:24PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2012
|
Hmm... Yards does seem MUCH mor elegant than feet. +1!
Not really. Yards aren't any more (or less) elegant than feet. But based on prior comments from Haldrick in another thread, in response to something I said... far more convenient. So I guess, in that sense, they're more elegant.
Because simplicity is elegant, yes?
I support this idea.
(My thing is realism in combat, and it seems that one yard is just about right for "maximum" striking distance when unarmed, or armed with a small knife or dagger. Yeah, it's probably a little long for some situations, but close enough to be fudged by a halfway competent DM.)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 7:38PM
#8
|
|
|
Meters and yards kind of don't work either because then you have absurdities like a five meter reach with a long spear.
Just abstracting it to squares worked fine with 3rd and 4th, so I don't see why we can't do that. (If you're not using the grid, then you're probably abstracting ranges anyway, so it wouldn't matter on that front.)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 7:55PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2012
|
you have a good point, especially with strength. A fat blob can barely stand even though they would weigh close to a thousand pounds. Meanwhile you have people like Thor or Hercules who aren't fat blobs but should be able to lift one. While a giant or dragon might have a high strength, a fattened up cow that never moves might not. Zombies and Vampires might have very high strengths without having to grow in size in order to flip a carriage.
Options are Liberating
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 7:58PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2007
|
Meters and yards kind of don't work either because then you have absurdities like a five meter reach with a long spear.
...
I think the idea is that instead of working in 5 foot increments you work in two yard or two meter increments. You'd then convert reaches and such appropriately, so a long spear would have a three or four yard reach.
Personally I don't have a problem with 5 foot increments, but I can see the argument that switching to yards in the US and meters everywhere else might work well for non-US players.
|
|
|
