A lot of people have complained about the switch from 5' to 1 square in the game terminology. I had chalked it up to a standardized print run, for international sales (ie, everyone else in the world uses the metric system, but since we can't seem to find it out, they're left wondering what the heck 5' looks like)
But tonight while playing I had a few thoughts that made me think it might be for other reasons as well. Consider Difficult Terrain ... what is easier to understand? This square takes 2 squares of movement to move into or this 5' square takes 10' of movement to move into? It also helps the 1-1-1-1 diagonal idea go down, since you aren't confronted so explicitly with the non-euclidean space. The space a creature takes up is more succinctly expressed, as are area affects and push/pull/slide affects.
Am I the only one starting to warm to the whole square idea? The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to really like it!
My suspicion is that your a little off with the idea that this was done for reasons of international sales and the metric system. I'm from a country that uses the metric system and understanding 5 feet really is very easy to grasp. Its slightly less then two metres or roughly how far an adult can go with two steps.
If they where keen to go with international sales they'd change the weight system or something. I mean to understand 5 feet takes very little time and once you got it - well you got it.
With lbs. its far far harder. I mean even if I find a way to pick up 5 pounds is that really going to tell me how heavy 100 lbs. is? I doubt it.
Not that this is really a big deal. One does not really need to have an intuitive understanding of how heavy the objects are to play the game. It mostly does not come up and in any case many of the items are every day - or close enough to every day, that we have handled them in our lives. I don't really need to understand what the weight of a crossbow is in pounds to have some idea of how much a crossbow actually weighs. I've picked up objects that were close enough to crossbows to make a 'good enough for government work' guess.
Beyond this the issue of weight almost always comes up in terms of character carrying capacity and from the boards I get the impression that those numbers were not vetted by any Kinesiology grads. In other words their saying things weigh X pounds but apparently what X pounds means is kind of arbitrary - they could have used 'stones' and I doubt it'd make much difference.
My suspicion is that your a little off with the idea that this was done for reasons of international sales and the metric system. I'm from a country that uses the metric system and understanding 5 feet really is very easy to grasp. Its slightly less then two metres or roughly how far an adult can go with two steps.
If they where keen to go with international sales they'd change the weight system or something. I mean to understand 5 feet takes very little time and once you got it - well you got it.
With lbs. its far far harder. I mean even if I find a way to pick up 5 pounds is that really going to tell me how heavy 100 lbs. is? I doubt it.
Not that this is really a big deal. One does not really need to have an intuitive understanding of how heavy the objects are to play the game. It mostly does not come up and in any case many of the items are every day - or close enough to every day, that we have handled them in our lives. I don't really need to understand what the weight of a crossbow is in pounds to have some idea of how much a crossbow actually weighs. I've picked up objects that were close enough to crossbows to make a 'good enough for government work' guess.
Heh, I fully accept that. As I said, the whole metric idea was my first thought as I didn't really understand the change. But now I'm starting to see there might actually be some pretty good gameplay advantages to using squares instead of feet ...
I WISH we'd switch to the metric system. Stupid imperial system. I still don't know how many ounces are in a pound (and don't even get me started on what a fluid ounce is!)
I WISH we'd switch to the metric system. Stupid imperial system. I still don't know how many ounces are in a pound (and don't even get me started on what a fluid ounce is!)
Yeah, but isn't the Imperial System more in line with D&D? I mean old European systems of measurements were based off stupid things like the average size of everyone's foot, or some kings foot, or the length of a dragon from head to tail.
The metric system is so cold. Literally. A meter is 1/10,000,000 the length from the north pole to the equator through Paris (which I guess also means the metric system is hot, but systems of measurement just don't do it for me). Star Wars supported this idea by using the metric system, what with their 2 meter squares. Or was it one meter? I forget, though I guess this only proves your point even futher.
|
I still don't know how many ounces are in a pound (and don't even get me started on what a fluid ounce is!)
There are 16 ounces in a pound. Of course, then we'd have to get into talk of pounds-mass, and pounds-force, and many other wonderful bits of lunacy. Of course, I can't forget my favorite either - the SLUG.
|
I still don't know how many ounces are in a pound (and don't even get me started on what a fluid ounce is!)There are 16 ounces in a pound. Of course, then we'd have to get into talk of pounds-mass, and pounds-force, and many other wonderful bits of lunacy. Of course, I can't forget my favorite either - the SLUG.
My personal favorite is the cubit.
I'm still ambivalent about using squares. Since my first reaction is the interest of role-play rather than mechanics I'll probably remain ambivalent and just be a bit less strict about player movement.
I prefer 1-2-1.
I don't care what the unit is, non-euclidian space is non-euclidian space.
As for metric, I do wish we'd go to metric for official measures, but imperial units are MUCH better in the kitchen than metric. Powers of 10 make math easy for bookkeeping and things like that. However, Powers of 2 (which happen a lot in Imperial units for volume) are convenient in the kitchen, because making half or double a recipe is easier.
I don't care what the unit is, non-euclidian space is non-euclidian space.
As for metric, I do wish we'd go to metric for official measures, but imperial units are MUCH better in the kitchen than metric. Powers of 10 make math easy for bookkeeping and things like that. However, Powers of 2 (which happen a lot in Imperial units for volume) are convenient in the kitchen, because making half or double a recipe is easier.
That I don't understand, if a recipe requires 20gr of flour, for example, and you wanna double it, you double it to 40gr, or you take half the measure which is 10gr?
Liquid ounces etc just muck things up IMO
I prefer 1-2-1.
One thing I wish they'd have touched on in the books (or maybe they did and I missed it?) is how much the new movement system works with a hex grid as opposed to the square. You can't flank with as many figures, and larger creatures become a bit wonky, but suddenly 1-1-1 becomes euclidean again, and AEs even become more circular.
I don't want to derail my thread though, so lets get back to imperial vs metric! :P
That I don't understand, if a recipe requires 20gr of flour, for example, and you wanna double it, you double it to 40gr, or you take half the measure which is 10gr?
Liquid ounces etc just muck things up IMO
Maybe it's a cooking thing? I don't really get it either; it seems that either system should handle doubling and halving pretty much the same right? (I probably don't want to know this answer ...)
|
I prefer 1-2-1.One thing I wish they'd have touched on in the books (or maybe they did and I missed it?) is how much the new movement system works with a hex grid as opposed to the square. You can't flank with as many figures, and larger creatures become a bit wonky, but suddenly 1-1-1 becomes euclidean again, and AEs even become more circular.
I don't want to derail my thread though, so lets get back to imperial vs metric! :P
The 3.5 DMG has rules to use a hex grid, AoEs and flanking.
I prefer 1-2-1.One thing I wish they'd have touched on in the books (or maybe they did and I missed it?) is how much the new movement system works with a hex grid as opposed to the square. You can't flank with as many figures, and larger creatures become a bit wonky, but suddenly 1-1-1 becomes euclidean again, and AEs even become more circular.
I don't want to derail my thread though, so lets get back to imperial vs metric! :P
The old 1E AD&D DMG had rules for hexes as well. I like hexes for the reasons stated above. I think you can find the 3.5E rules for hexes at the Hypertext SRD (just Google it).
Contributor
|
When I double a recipe, if I get confused, I usually add the amount listed, then do it again. It's pretty easy. Most recipes I have are in imperial, and I don't know the relative values off the top of my head.
As For not finding Imperial confusing in a metric country, Jeremy, you and I live in Canada; we use a half-assed metric system, since it's implementation was kind of cut short. Do you know how many kg do you weigh? How tall you are in cm? I sure don't. Most peopel I know use Celsius for low temperatures and Farenheit for high temperatures (I suspect because they like to complain about the heat and the cold). I lived in NZ for two years, which is far more metric than here, although most people there measure their weight in stones (which I also don't really understand).
I have heard folks from truly metric countries say that they appreciate when games either use metric or system-neutral measurements like squares. Of course, personal mileage may vary.
(Heh, I still say mileage. Never heard anyone say kilometerage)
Am I the only one starting to warm to the whole square idea? The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to really like it!
I think it's fine, and it makes it easier for some players. Good change.
I prefer 1-2-1.
So do I -- house ruling time!
|
Contributor
|
I prefer 1-2-1.So do I -- house ruling time!
I've said this elsewhere, and probably will again. I started play-testing KotS fully expecting, even wanting, to HATE 1-1-1-1 diagonal movement.
After the first fight, I realized that it didn't actually bother me in play at all. My group is now seriously considering bringing it into our 3.5 game.
It may not work for you in the long run, but play a few sessions with it before you decide to change it.
I prefer 1-2-1.So do I -- house ruling time!I've said this elsewhere, and probably will again. I started play-testing KotS fully expecting, even wanting, to HATE 1-1-1-1 diagonal movement.
After the first fight, I realized that it didn't actually bother me in play at all. My group is now seriously considering bringing it into our 3.5 game.
It may not work for you in the long run, but play a few sessions with it before you decide to change it.
I've now played three sessions with 1-1-1 diagonals. I still don't like it and neither does the rest of my group :)
Fair enough. It won't be for everyone.
True. Actually, we've been experimenting with hexes, so we may switch to that and keep 1-1-1.
Until the spells involved get errata'ed, squirrelloid and others have found a way to break 4E with a little help from your friendly, neighbourhood, diagonal movement....
(Warning, high level Orcus-killing involved)
*spoiler omitted*
Pretty interesting. Even if you could sell me on Blood Pulse doing damage per square though, I think you'd be hard pressed selling me on each square getting the bonus Bolstering Blood damage seperately. Still, clever approach. You could try to get him to move on a double diagonal (up AND diagonally for something like 23 squares as well) to speed things up, but I'm not sure how you'd set a situation up to require that level of movement.
Maybe it's a cooking thing? I don't really get it either; it seems that either system should handle doubling and halving pretty much the same right? (I probably don't want to know this answer ...)
This should explain it rather succinctly:
Ask Science!Edit: Link seems slightly broken somehow, so here is url: http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/b*@@@ing_about_people_not_using_metrics
Edit: Ah. The auto-censor is eating the link. I think you guys can figure out the full URL.
This should explain it rather succinctly:
Ask Science!Edit: Link seems slightly broken somehow, so here is url: http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/b%&@*ing_about_people_not_using_met rics
Edit: Ah. The auto-censor is eating the link. I think you guys can figure out the full URL.
I'd assume in a metric system we'd be able to get cups marked with 1/3 and 1/4 marks ... heck it seems like it'd be too useful for a capitalistic market to NOT create.
I get the point he's trying to make, but I'm not swayed. I still wish we used metric. :)