I'm going to run in my campaign the shadowdale battle (the one with Bane avatar involved).
First question:
I need a HUGE map of the city, does anybody have one? Is possible to re-scale one and print it? or would the resolution be a problem?
Second question:
I'll play it as written in the old module of the "avatar" trilogy for AD&D, but i'll adapt to 3.5E. While I think I'll use the old mass combat rules (those for AD&D, found in the Companion Set), I'm still a little concerned about Bane stats. Do I have to use the ones found in "faith and panteons" (maybe removing the bonuses gained from his divine rank, since the gods have been stripped of their powers) or make them personally? Any suggestion?
P.S.: if you are aware of other sets of rules for mass combat, let me know.
Thak You.
I'm still a little concerned about Bane stats. Do I have to use the ones found in "faith and panteons" (maybe removing the bonuses gained from his divine rank, since the gods have been stripped of their powers) or make them personally?
There is no rule or requirement that stats for a divine being must be used as written.
I advise you to taylor Bane's stats in such a way that you present exactly the challenge level you need for this encounter.
P.S.: if you are aware of other sets of rules for mass combat, let me know.
I would suggest Cry Havoc by the most excellent Skip Williams.
You can also try Heroes of Battle by Dave Noonan, et. al.
Best of luck to you.
Heroes of battle contains no mass combat rules. Strange but true, it contains only suggestion on how to run a campaign in a "war enviroment". Those rules are contained in the Miniature Handbook instead.
At the moment I'm reading, the following rules set:
- companion set (D&D)
- battlesystem (AD&D)
- miniature handbook (3.5E)
- warpath (for pathfinder)
- mass combat rules (from conan rpg, by mongoose)
I think I'll use Battlesystem (some "light" version maybe), it's easy becouse I already have the stats of the armies in that format (from "shadowdale" module of the "avatar trilogy" for AD&D).
About the map of shadowdale.
I found a lot of maps of shadowdale, but Think this is the best one www.wizards.com/dnd/images/shadowdale_ma... , but it has no unit of measurement reported anywhere on it :-(
can anybody tell me how large should be shadowdale, i'm planning to overlap a grid on the map in order to play the mass combat, but i need to know first how big the squares must be according to the size of the town itself.
Its not great, but at least it has a scalebar, which you can hopefully read. Its from the Forgotten Realms Interactive Atlas, from the 2e days, so it should be a tad more accurate, though not quite as aesthetic. Hopefully it'll even be in a high enough resolution to actually be useful... which it isn't of course, but send me a PM and we'll try to work something out if you're interested in it. If not, the scalebar is 2,500', broken down into 500' segments, so you should be able to work out your own for the other map with a little bit of effort.
It's 4200 x 2700. It's from 3.5E's Shadowdale: The Scouring of the Land adventure. In fact, if you Google "Shadowdale" it should be in the first few images.
As for Bane's stats, why not use his aspect's stats from D&D Miniatures with maybe a few small changes? Again, Google is your friend for finding those.
@ Imruphel: that's the same map I posted :-)
@ Stigger: I'm Italian, and yes I'm interested in everything I could find useful, but I have a little problem understanding the "inch" & "yard" thing. We use the metric system here.
@ Imruphel: that's the same map I posted :-)
@wwanno: Oops. Sorry, mate! ;)
Ahhh, imperial vs metric.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Basically, imperial is backwards, retarded and inaccurate. In other words, it's perfect for medieval societies....
I'm sure you have access to proper conversions but all I bother to remember is that 12 inches is a foot, 3 feet is roughly a metre (OK, closer to 90 cm but who cares) and a mile is roughly 1.6 kms. That's enough to do most distance calculations in your head.
anyway..... could you explain me what mean (") and (') after a number? I suppose it is as uor m. for metres but I don't know if ' is for inches or foot or whatever else
#' = feet
Yeah, I know, it's a messed up system, but it's what we got, so
I blame the British, personally...
What I would recommend though is heading over to the Profantasy website and downloading the CC3 viewer that'll let you view vector based maps easily. After that we can probably arrange something through e-mail I won't mention here.
(snip) I blame the British, personally... (snip)
At least the Brits embraced a decent system when it came along. Those crazy Yankees are still using a silly medieval system for measurement. ;)
@wwanno: Yes, the fact that it is not base 10 means that imperial is a silly system to use, especially when you need accuracy. Ask NASA.
Imperial is fine for fireballs, estimating a bank robber's height or real medieval life where there weren't precise engineering calculations involved. However, the 21st Century basically demands the metric system. Heck, anyone with an interest in accuracy should be demanding the metric system. ;)
Yes, I read the NASA comment the first time (FYI, repeating a comment doesn't make it more clever). And their making one conversion error isn't enough to up-end a system for an entire nation, particularly since making that change won't stop them making mistakes, including mistakes which have gotten astronauts killed which had nothing to do with a measurement system.
As for accuracy, how is Imperial any less accurate than metric? A measurement expressed as 73 and 3/16th inches instead of as 1.8589625 meters is no less accurate. The distance is exactly the same no matter how you express it. Any and every system of measurement is accurate so long as the units of measurement remain consistent every time. Just because both systems express those measurements in different ways, that doesn't make one more or less accurate than the other.
The only time the metric system is of any real use is when measuring something so small that you need to work with units like micrometers and nanometers, and those situations are so corner case that, again, it's not worth up-ending a system for an entire nation just because someone feels the need to accurately measure the circumference of a hair follicle.
1 yard = 3 feet = 36 inches (you have to make a calculation to convert from one to another)
0.001km = 0.01hm = 0.1dam = 1m = 10dm = 100cm = 1000mm (you simply have to shift a ".")
It's not about accuracy, every system is accurate (it's math after all), it's about simplicity.
Anyway, nobody can blame me for not knowing that 1foot = 12inches. And in my previous statement ("it may be silly but...."), "silly" was not referred to your system, but to the fact that i don't know it (a thing that to other people may appear as silly)
It's not about accuracy, every system is accurate (it's math after all), it's about simplicity.
True, though simplicity is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find the metric system particularly simple to use or easy to remember (By which I mean the size of the units, not how they're converted), but that's because it isn't based on real units of measurement. It has no touchstone in the real world. A meter is nothing, a made-up unit, while a foot is called a foot because it's roughly based on the size of a human foot. Knowing how long my foot is, I can come up with a pretty accurate guess of how wide a room is just by eyeballing it. I could get even more accurate if I measure it out with my feet. And the units based in a feet are much simpler than the equivalent metric units. It's easier to remember that my foot is 10 1/2" long, for instance, than remembering that it's about 26.67 centimeters, which is too big a number to be working with when measuring things so small.
And as I mentioned before, human height is clearer when you're using feet. Saying you're 6'1" or 4'11" paints a clearer picture in someone's mind than saying they're 1.86 meters tall or 1.50 meters tall. 1.86 --> to 1.50 just doesn't evoke just how great the size difference is. I don't consider that a matter of nationalism, but of usefulness, and I don't find a system of measurement particularly useful when it doesn't offer sufficient gradation with its base units at the degree where it's more likely to be needed in everyday life (Measuring height, wall space, door frames, furniture, etc). If a meter were roughly the size of a foot that'd be one thing, and I could probably get behind the metric system in that case, but it's not. The meter is too big while the centimeter is too small for the sorts of measurements I'm most likely to make on a daily basis, which is why I don't care for it.
But of course that's just me. To each their own.
It's not about accuracy, every system is accurate (it's math after all), it's about simplicity.
True, though simplicity is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find the metric system particularly simple to use or easy to remember (By which I mean the size of the units, not how they're converted), but that's because it isn't based on real units of measurement. It has no touchstone in the real world. A meter is nothing, a made-up unit, while a foot is called a foot because it's roughly based on the size of a human foot. Knowing how long my foot is, I can come up with a pretty accurate guess of how wide a room is just by eyeballing it. I could get even more accurate if I measure it out with my feet. And the units based in a feet are much simpler than the equivalent metric units. It's easier to remember that my foot is 10 1/2" long, for instance, than remembering that it's about 26.67 centimeters, which is too big a number to be working with when measuring things so small.
And as I mentioned before, human height is clearer when you're using feet. Saying you're 6'1" or 4'11" paints a clearer picture in someone's mind than saying they're 1.86 meters tall or 1.50 meters tall. 1.86 --> to 1.50 just doesn't evoke just how great the size difference is. I don't consider that a matter of nationalism, but of usefulness, and I don't find a system of measurement particularly useful when it doesn't offer sufficient gradation with its base units at the degree where it's more likely to be needed in everyday life (Measuring height, wall space, door frames, furniture, etc). If a meter were roughly the size of a foot that'd be one thing, and I could probably get behind the metric system in that case, but it's not. The meter is too big while the centimeter is too small for the sorts of measurements I'm most likely to make on a daily basis, which is why I don't care for it.
But of course that's just me. To each their own.
A- then you can't talk of accuracy anymore about that system. The moment you use "your foot" and not "1foot=12inches" to measure the room, you voluntarily lose every accuracy.
B- those aren't the only ones. we have km=1000m, hm=100m, dam=10m (little used, but it exists), dm=0.1m (little used too), cm=0.01m, mm=0.001m
Anyway it seems to me that the only real "problem" is the way they teached us at school when we were child. I'm used to metres, you are used to feet, and we are unconfortable with other system. But that's not a big "problem", I only need to know that 12inche=1foot and I'm ok. I can adapt myself (I have to do since I bought the 3.5 premium reprints which were not translated into Italian).
And its more applicable to D&D, since the monetary system used in the Realms is essentially metric, given that it is based on the number 10... to bring us slightly back towards topic.
A- then you can't talk of accuracy anymore about that system. The moment you use "your foot" and not "1foot=12inches" to measure the room, you voluntarily lose every accuracy.
You do realize, right, that I said it made it easy to guess? By definition, guessing is inaccurate, but that doesn't mean it's not useful. And usefulness and practicality are what're important in day to day life. And I guess you missed the part where I said "Knowing how long my foot is"? I'm not conflating my foot size with 12". I know how long it is, which is 10 1/2". I even specifically called out its measurement in the metric system as 26.67 centimeters. But I guess that number didn't tell you a whole lot. Point is, when you don't have a ruler or tape measure handy, it can be useful sometimes to be able to eyeball a space and tell roughly whether something will fit or not.
When I want and need accuracy, though, I use my tape measure. Like yesterday, when I was measuring out a wall where I wanted to put a new bed to see if it'd fit (it's 5' wide, has drawers on each side and, judging by my dresser, drawers need 9" of clearance to open fully. The wall section is 7'7" wide, so that leaves me 1'1" of clearance), measuring another wall to see how much footage of wall-mounted shelves I can put up, excluding the 2'8" of wall which is taken up by the door when it's opened all the way, leaving me 12'10" of wall space, and so on. Again, every system of measurement is accurate so long as the units used to measure remain a consistent size. But it's also useful to guesstimate sizes when you don't have a measuring tool handy.
B- those aren't the only ones. we have km=1000m, hm=100m, dam=10m (little used, but it exists), dm=0.1m (little used too), cm=0.01m, mm=0.001m
I know, but they're too swingy, like my height example. Comparing someone who's 1.86 meters tall to someone who's 1.50 meters tall. Change that to decimeters and it's now 18.6 decimeters tall and 15.0 decimeters tall. There is no unit in the metric system that breaks down smaller figures like the sorts of things you'd be measuring in every day life, walls, couches, people, etc, to managable sizes. The numbers are either too big or they're too small and have to resort to a string of decimal points. It's either 18.542 or 1.8542. The wall where I'm putting up my shelves are either 4.7244 meters or 47.244 decimeters. A foot is just a more useful unit of measurement to work with. Well, at least in my opinion.
Anyway it seems to me that the only real "problem" is the way they teached us at school when we were child. I'm used to metres, you are used to feet, and we are unconfortable with other system. But that's not a big "problem", I only need to know that 12inche=1foot and I'm ok. I can adapt myself (I have to do since I bought the 3.5 premium reprints which were not translated into Italian).
Fair point. It's easier to work with a system of measurement if you grew up with it. Although I'd be more in favor of the metric system if the meter was approximately the same length as a foot. I can see why WotC sticks with that system, though. A square, for instance, is 5'. If it were metric instead then they couldn't make it a straight conversion, because that'd be 1.524 meters. Can you imagine that entry? "Square = 1.524 Meters." So they'd have to go with meters as the base measurement. 1 meter is too small, while 2 meters is pretty big. I could stand in a 5' square and, while it can be roomy, if I extend my arms out too far they go outside the boundaries (I.E. Invade the boundaries of an opponent who I'm attacking). The 2 meter square's pretty big by comparison, though. I could stand in the middle with my arms outstretched to either side as far as they can reach and still have room to spare. It's a 30% increase on the size of the current D&D square. I have no point to make with that. I just thought it was interesting to consider.
you said: "By definition, guessing is inaccurate, but that doesn't mean it's not useful. And usefulness and practicality are what're important in day to day life. And I guess you missed the part where I said "Knowing how long my foot is"? [...] when you don't have a ruler or tape measure handy, it can be useful sometimes to be able to eyeball a space and tell roughly whether something will fit or not."
well I know how long is 1m, and simply looking at any given space I'm able to say "it's rougly 2m long".
you said:"The numbers are either too big or they're too small and have to resort to a string of decimal points."
each unit must be used according to the one thing you are going to measure. Obviously we don't use Km to measure people heights.
you said: "I can see why WotC sticks with that system, though. A square, for instance, is 5'. If it were metric instead then they couldn't make it a straight conversion, because that'd be 1.524 meters. Can you imagine that entry? "Square = 1.524 Meters." So they'd have to go with meters as the base measurement. 1 meter is too small, while 2 meters is pretty big. I could stand in a 5' square and, while it can be roomy, if I extend my arms out too far they go outside the boundaries (I.E. Invade the boundaries of an opponent who I'm attacking). The 2 meter square's pretty big by comparison, though. I could stand in the middle with my arms outstretched to either side as far as they can reach and still have room to spare. It's a 30% increase on the size of the current D&D square."
I can assure that WotC translates its books (not every book) in Italian (I have the 3.0 core rulebooks in Italian) and in those books 1square is a 1.5m square. That has no impact on game itself. The fact you didn't even think to this possibility (for you it should be 1m or 2m, you wiped the 1.5m option away) is becouse nobody teached you to use our system properly (or if they teached it's rules, they didn't make you practice with it enough). WotC could one day decide to use metric system in its book and say 1square = 1.5m = 4'11", that would have no impact on game itself. So why didn't do it before (nor it will do in future)? Becouse WotC is selling its book to people who aren't used to the metric system. It's not a matter of "which system it's better", it's a matter of "to whom am I going to sell my books?"
You say that Imperial is more "intuitive" (at least it's what I understood from your previous statement) becouse it uses "feet" (that are real, and easy) to measure thing. But is it true for all of its unit of measurement?
From wikipedia: 1chain = 22yards = 66feet A chain is the distance between the two wickets on a cricket pitch
Seriously? I berely know what cricket is (but again this is a cultural factor)! But of one thing I'm pretty sure, you don't use "the distance between the two wickets" to measure anything, becouse it's abstract for you just like it is for you 20m.
The metric system is used worldwide, I think tehere is a reason. And the reason is that it is easier, you have to multiply always for 10. While 12'' = 1 foot, 3' = 1yard, 22yards = 1 chain. In your system it always changes.
But in the end it's anyway a cultural factor
Yes, I read the NASA comment the first time (FYI, repeating a comment doesn't make it more clever). (snip)
It is, however, accurate.
(snip) As for accuracy, how is Imperial any less accurate than metric? A measurement expressed as 73 and 3/16th inches instead of as 1.8589625 meters is no less accurate. (snip)
Look, I understand you are deliberately and willfully being obtuse so I'll just ask you to input 73 3/16 into a calculator and multiply it by, say, 45 4/15. The fact that you have to convert those fractions into decimals before you can do the calculation creates an extra step with a greater chance of an error.
So, yes, metric is more accurate in the sense that it is easier to use and more likely to generate an accurate result. But you already knew that.