Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Luega 01-02-06, 03:15 PM	Have anyone ever thought about this? A five foot square is a mighty big space (1.5m. for those using the metric system, and that's only on one side). Slightly too large I'd say. A fighter doesn't really need that much space (compare to GURPS where they use 1m. hexes). Now, this thread was inspired by the speed (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=562135) thread, as this subject is related to movement (sorta). What would the impact on the game be if I used smaller squares. The effects on movement speeds, and what about reach?
Seerow 01-02-06, 03:28 PM	Well, if you used 3 foot squares instead(the one meter), you'd get about 7 squares of movement from small creatures, 10 squares from large, and reach weapons would be able to reach anything within 3 squares of them. I dunno, I'd just stick with the 5 foot squares for simplicities sake.
Temrek 01-02-06, 04:09 PM	A fighter probubly needs that much space for his footwork.
Jerks 01-02-06, 11:41 PM	Keep in mind that that space is only what's needed for fighting (unhindered). Swinging a greatsword around probably means that your buddy shouldn't try and stand too close to you. Races of Destiny or Complete Adventurer (can't remember which one) has some rules about fighting and maneuvering in the middle of crowds.
Sosthenes 01-03-06, 07:00 AM	Ever seen two people engage in hand-to-hand combat? There's quit a lot of foot-work and back-and-forth exchanges of blows. Plus the substantial reach of some weapons... Also note that a D&D combat round is 6 seconds, that's six GURPS rounds. So a lot of the movement that you'd specifically have to make in the other system is already figured in a D20 round. For the plethora of different combat styles a D&D party will encounter, five feet seems about right. If you just have musketeers fencing on a narrow stairway, well...
Tyler Do'Urden 01-03-06, 07:42 AM	When I was still going to taekwondo classes on a regular basis, we sparred in 10 ft. squares a few times. It felt so cramped it wasn't even funny. In my experience, 5ft squares are a pretty realistic depiction of how much space people take up running around trying not to die. However, you could get some really interesting results with 3 ft squares in regards to the size difference between Small and Medium creatures. Small space: 3ft. Small unarmed or melee: 3ft. Small with reach: 6ft. Medium space: 6ft. Medium unarmed: 3ft. Medium melee: 6ft. Medium reach: 9ft. Large space: 9 ft. Large unarmed: 6 ft. Large melee: 9 ft. Large reach: 12 ft. And for some reason, I feel like this should be in hexes. Move speeds should be kept the same (the overall distance not the number of squares), so someone with a 30 ft. move speed would then move 10 squares with a single move. Unless, of course, you want to nerf move speeds.
Snicker 01-04-06, 10:34 AM	Note that the 5 ft square is the entirety of space you have to work with when: Avoiding a fireball with evasion (completely negating damage) Performing complicated martial arts techniques Total defense Swinging double weapons Grappling Defensive Casting ...and basically every other maneuver in D&D.
Lord Welkerfan 01-07-06, 11:14 AM	Also note that 5 is a nice, easily dealt with number. Numbers like 3 or 4 don't multiply as easily and can take more time to work with in-game.
Gilean 01-07-06, 12:52 PM	However, you could get some really interesting results with 3 ft squares in regards to the size difference between Small and Medium creatures.Alternatively, differentiate weapons by length. Long, medium and short ones, for example. Daggers and unarmed strikes being short. If you are out of the proper reach, but one category above or below, -2 or -4 attacks. Gives some use for the pesky daggers.
Pz.Az.04Maus 01-07-06, 01:57 PM	3 things that I have to say: 1. You have one tiny car. 2. Is your car the size of a very small human? 3. Do your ears hang low, do they wobble to and fro?
Krunk Ironmaw 01-07-06, 02:56 PM	I have been to Norway and most of Europe. As with most of the rest of Europe, small cars are necessary. European urban areas are pretty cramped. Average sized European cars could fit into the back of my Nissan Armada.
EvilVegan 01-07-06, 03:54 PM	3 things that I have to say: 1. You have one tiny car. 2. Is your car the size of a very small human? 3. Do your ears hang low, do they wobble to and fro? I'd like to add: 4. Can you tie them in a knot, can you tie them ina bow?
Jentsu 01-08-06, 04:37 PM	I've usually subdivided into 2.5ft squares, though I used 5ft for combat between medium/small creatures. If 5 feet seems too big for one person, just think of how far apart the measure is from one arm to the other, outstretched. My arms would probably be about or almost 5feet from tip to tip like that. Now imagine weapons in these hands. Even one dagger in either hand would push me enough to reach people in either square outside my own, and that's saying I stand in the very middle. I could move around in that square, so as to avoid blows. Imagine yourself locked in a 6x6 foot room with someone else, and you're fighting in it. Practically no space to move around and do anything, especially with a longsword. Try a 10x10 room. It's still awfully tight space, and you can't really move very far, but for stationary fighting, this would be alright, which is what is represented by two people in 5ft squares fighting without moving much out of those squares.
Ulorian 01-09-06, 03:02 PM	My arms would probably be about or almost 5feet from tip to tip like that. Now imagine weapons in these hands.You must be very short! For most people, their armspan is exactly equal to their height. Even if you are abnormally broad-shouldered or long-armed (or small-shouldered and short-armed), the difference would be an inch or two at most. So for the average human, a 5' square is considerably less than his or her armspan in width. Not very big at all.