|
6 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 9:16AM
#21
|
|
|
Players don't use feet at the table. We use squares. 4E admitted to this and you're regressing to the bad old days of having to divide by five. Much of the world doesn't know what 5 feet means.
Some players use squares. Not all. I'd be willing to wager maybe not even half. We did in 4E because everything was measured that way and more imporantly the blasts and bursts had some sort of weird minecraft blockiness to them so that everything had shapr corners where things could hide to stay safe from the blast (or burst).
Minecraft explosions and effect areas (such as from a splash potion) work in circles . I wish that when people mentioned videogames they would actually know something about the videogame they were talking about beforehand.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS.
Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 10:55AM
#22
|
|
|
Aw, I was hoping this would be about the metric system.
While yes, gridded combat would be a bit easier if measured in squares, I'd like something a bit more believable in-game. I don't want to see an adventuring store selling a "10 square long hempen rope".
What about paces? It wouldn't break verisimilitude for me to enter a corridor about two paces across and roughly ten paces long.
I like that idea. Of course a pace is a different thing for a halfling than an elf...
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 10:57PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2008
|
I guess part of this comes from my expeirences gaming with both a grid and some very loose Theater of the Mind, but to everyone saying "we use TotM, so we want feet instead of squares or spaces", I honestly want to know how often you have to count out the number of feet for your attacks and movement. In every single TotM game I have played, the distances were ignored in favor of keeping things moving, because we had no references and things were where ever we said they were.
However, for those of us who use battlemats and grids, we are stuck doing extra, pointless math. I cannot express how happy I was to see my 4e character had their movement in squares, so I no longer had to go "Well, I can move 30 ft, 30 divided by 5 is 6, so I can move six squares" and then start deciding my movement. Even worse for spells and ranged attacks, because you would have to do this every time.
Probably the absolute best solution would be to include both, but that will just cause an increase in bulk as they write at two different numbers for ranges. If we can't do that though, why should the people who have the least need for the numbers (because they are simply picturing the action and won't typically need the measurements) dictate what units are used? If you absolutley need to know, well do the reverse of our math, 6 squares, 6 times 5 is 30, so you can move 30 ft, because I guarentee you'll need it less often than we do.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 11:12PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
Aw, I was hoping this would be about the metric system.
While yes, gridded combat would be a bit easier if measured in squares, I'd like something a bit more believable in-game. I don't want to see an adventuring store selling a "10 square long hempen rope".
What about paces? It wouldn't break verisimilitude for me to enter a corridor about two paces across and roughly ten paces long.
I like that idea. Of course a pace is a different thing for a halfling than an elf...
Yeah, pace would change per character, which is just an nightmare. Or it could be the players pace, but that too can vary quite a bit.
For me, feet, inches and minutes work fine. Squares would also work as could yards, but they wouldn't be my first pick. Now time, I'd rather see rounds/encounter/daily durations.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 12:24AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Mar 11, 2007
|
Aw, I was hoping this would be about the metric system.
While yes, gridded combat would be a bit easier if measured in squares, I'd like something a bit more believable in-game. I don't want to see an adventuring store selling a "10 square long hempen rope".
What about paces? It wouldn't break verisimilitude for me to enter a corridor about two paces across and roughly ten paces long.
I like that idea. Of course a pace is a different thing for a halfling than an elf...
The same could be said for using "foot" as a unit of measurement too. As you don't currently re-calculate distances in halfling feet or half-ogre feet, the same could be said for accepting a human's pace as standard. Of course it could be the pace of the high king of the land, or defined as the arm span of the Most Ticklish Elf, or how high a dwarf could reach without getting a stepstool, or whatever flavor method you'd like.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 12:44AM
#26
|
|
|
I for one found 4e's use of only squares very inconvienent :P I prefer the feet system myself.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 3:14AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
The 5-feet increment unit works well for both ToTM and TV, i don't see it go soon. Its easy enought to convert and i have observed that many hardcore map users generally use the term ''square'' anyway, when moving or calling ranges. I have a player who still use the 5-foot step when shifting in 4E games. And his Rogue backstab peole when he use sneak attack. He also says attack of opportunity instead of opportunity attack etc... The human nature is that many people just stick to calling things as they are used to... 
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 7:18AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
The 5-feet increment unit works well for both ToTM and TV, i don't see it go soon.
Its easy enought to convert and i have observed that many hardcore map users generally use the term ''square'' anyway, when moving or calling ranges.
This.
I don't understand why people on either side of this "debate" keep saying things like, "The other unit is meaningless and no one understands what it means."
That is a silly thing to say. Multiplying or dividing by 5 is the second easiest (right behind 10). So saying, "Squares are meaningless" is silly, because a Square equals 5 ft by 5 ft. And saying, "No one understands what feet even mean" is also silly, again, because 5 ft by 5 ft equals a Square.
What I do think is an issue are powers that grant a bonus to speed in single feet, as opposed to multiples of 5. The Rogue tricks Climb Sheer Surfaces, Superior Footwork, and Vault are examples of this. They let you roll your skill die and add the result to the distance you climb, walk, or jump (in feet). So you get between 1 and 12 extra feet (depending on level). How often will this be actually useful? How often does the DM say to you, "Sorry, the orc is thirty-two feet away from you" in theater of the mind style of playing? No one can keep track of positions down to the nearest foot. These powers get a bit better once you get a D6 (and even more when you get the d8) because the chance of moving an extra 5 feet is there. The d10 and d12 make it even better (you could get 10 feet), but even then the issue is still there: getting 7 extra feet vs 6 extra feet is pretty pointless.
The issue is even sillier with using Vault to make a High Jump: you add the skill die result to the distance you can jump...in inches. With High Jump distance calculated in feet...how often does the DM say, "Sorry, you made it up 13 feet (including your height and extending your arms above you), but the ledge is 13 feet, 3 inches." I don't think I have ever seen a published D&D adventure that includes height of an object down to inches.
As for units of time, I again find it silly. 1 minute = 10 rounds. So you are tracking no matter what. When a spell says it lasts for 1 minute, you don't suddenly lose the ability to count to 10. If you can track 10 rounds, you can track 1 minute.
It is worth noting that 4E worked the same way, it just simplified it one step further. Powers that lasted "Until the End of the Encounter" actually lasted 5 minutes. In other words: long enough that you don't have to bother tracking them during combat. Typically, the party would have a short rest after the fight, so no need to track at all.
1 minute duration spells are the same for D&D Next. In all my playtest sessions, I've never had a fight go more than 10 rounds...I don't even think I've had one go more than 6 rounds (and that was due to a lot of missing).
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 7:35AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
What I do think is an issue are powers that grant a bonus to speed in single feet, as opposed to multiples of 5. The Rogue tricks Climb Sheer Surfaces, Superior Footwork, and Vault are examples of this.
I agree, all should work by increment of 5 feet. I'd prefer if you spent your skill die to increase the climb, jump or movement by fixed distance (ex. 5 or 10 feet).
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 7:53AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
What I do think is an issue are powers that grant a bonus to speed in single feet, as opposed to multiples of 5. The Rogue tricks Climb Sheer Surfaces, Superior Footwork, and Vault are examples of this.
I agree, all should work by increment of 5 feet. I'd prefer if you spent your skill die to increase the climb, jump or movement by fixed distance (ex. 5 or 10 feet).
Yup. There are enough powers that have you spend the die for something instead of rolling it that this wouldn't seem out of place. Something like: Spend your skill die to increase the distance you move (or jump or climb) by 5 feet. If you are level 12 or higher, you increase the distance by 10 feet.
For the high jump I would make it add 1 foot (or 2 at level 12).
|
|
|
