# Community

 Dungeons & Dra.. Playtest Packet Di.. Kill the 5' increment with fire
Page 1 of 2  •
Switch to Forum Live View Kill the 5' increment with fire
12 months ago  ::  Jun 19, 2012 - 8:48PM #1
The_Yakk
Date Joined: Jul 12, 2008
Posts: 155
Kill the 5' increment.  But don't move back to squares.

Go with yards.

You have a movement speed of 5 yards per round (or whatever).  Standing up costs 1 yard of movement.  Every yard you move through difficult terrain costs an extra yard of movement.  Medium sized creatures take up one square yard of space, roughly.

Yards, for people not from the USA, are about as long as a meter.  (1 yard is about 0.9 meters)  It is also about as long as a reasonable stride length (ie, you can approximate how far something is in yards by counting steps).

Am I crazy?  Probably.
Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 19, 2012 - 10:22PM #2
EnglishLanguage
Date Joined: May 19, 2011
Posts: 4,973
Not sure how this changes anything besudes feet becoming yards.
Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 19, 2012 - 10:25PM #3
M.Coverdale
Date Joined: Jun 3, 2012
Posts: 300
The game designers would have to pull together new math and calculations for Rate of Travel...since the change is significant but not halved from current calculations.
Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 19, 2012 - 10:52PM #4
Nathanos
Date Joined: Aug 17, 2007
Posts: 171
Why not meters, then? Makes conversions to rate of travel much easier.
'That's just, like, your opinion, man.'
Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 19, 2012 - 10:56PM #5
zammm
Date Joined: Jul 3, 2003
Posts: 27,257
Why? You didn't explain that part--why change over to yards?

Jun 19, 2012 -- 10:52PM, Nathanos wrote:

Why not meters, then? Makes conversions to rate of travel much easier.

I like this reason, though.

 Level 2 Magic Judge ~ ~ ~ ~ Knowledge knows no bounds.Magic Area FAQ & Index | Magic General FAQ | Card Comparisons | The Wording ClinicRules Q&A FAQ | Cards & Combos FAQ | Keyword FAQ | Returning Player Rules Primer | My Trade BinderJoin the Wizards Community Marketplace group today!

And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 20, 2012 - 12:44AM #6
Shardey
Date Joined: Apr 18, 2010
Posts: 192
I find it unnecessary to change terminology. People are used to 5' increments.

Kinda like some people are used to feet and others are urging them to move to meters..

Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 20, 2012 - 1:07AM #7
SilentSin
Date Joined: Jul 6, 2009
Posts: 85
Using a meter increment instead of 5ft increments is mathematically quicker. If your speed is 6m, you move 6 spaces on the battle mat. If your speed is 30ft, you divide 30 by 5 ... and then move 6 spaces.

Using metric instead of imperial measurements is also mathematically quicker. We write numbers in decimal and everyone finds it easier to divide and multiply by multiples of 10 as a result. If we wrote numbers in hexadecimal, I would probably be suggesting a measurement system that uses multiples of 16 instead of 10. The programmers among you will understand that multiplying or dividing by a constant to convert between unit types is generally a few orders of magnitude faster than looking up arbitrary values in a table to do so.

Shardey - You say you find it unnecessary to change terminology. That's fine, why then do you find it necessary to change editions? If you stay with 4th or 3rd or whichever old edition you like best, you won't have to contend with change. I could make the same argument about any change between any editions, classes, races, feats, anything.

In 3rd edition they had Attacks of Opportunity, then in 4th they had Opportunity Attacks. In 3rd edition the top three ability scores were Str, Dex, Con, then in 4th they changed the order to Str, Con, Dex. In both of these cases is was "unnecessary" to make such trivial changes, but both offered advantages over not changing. Opportunity Attacks is faster and easier to say (even if only marginally) and the ability rearrangement was to line up with the 4th edition Defences list.

If anyone can think of even a single reason to stay with either imperial measurements or 5ft increments instead of yard increments, I'd love to hear it.
Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 20, 2012 - 3:51AM #8
Kalranya
Date Joined: May 24, 2012
Posts: 271
It would greatly amuse me if someone wrote an RPG with a math backbone in hexadecimal. Or octal.

And by the way, this whole feet vs. yards vs. meters vs. attoparsecs vs. light-nanoseconds vs. Smoots thing is why I like squares. How big is a square? Who cares! Use whatever you're comfortable with!
Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 20, 2012 - 4:10AM #9
Ksorkrax
Date Joined: Jun 5, 2012
Posts: 62

Jun 20, 2012 -- 3:51AM, Kalranya wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />And by the way, this whole feet vs. yards vs. meters vs. attoparsecs vs. light-nanoseconds vs. Smoots thing is why I like squares. How big is a square? Who cares! Use whatever you're comfortable with!

+1.
Squares rule.

Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 20, 2012 - 4:34AM #10
SilentSin
Date Joined: Jul 6, 2009
Posts: 85
It would greatly ammuse you, yes ... but you probably wouldn't play it.

The main reason we need to define the size of a square is for the transition between descriptive roleplaying and playing on the battle grid. If I describe a coridoor that is 20ft wide then we fight someone in it and I draw it as 2 squares wide, people tend to not like the idea that two guards can completely block that 20ft wide area. If you just drew the room and never told anyone how wide it was, you wouldn't need to define a size.