How much would you need to change if 1 square = 1 yard and not 5 feet?

[Greywander]

I like the idea of using a metric where 1 yard = 1 square (also plays nicely with metric, using 1 meter instead), and it actually fits pretty well with most existing speeds and ranges. The average humanoid with a 30 foot speed would then have a 10 yard speed, and a spell with a range of 60 feet would have a range of 20 yards. The fact that you don't need to divide by 5 to get the distance in squares makes it a lot more intuitive. There is a bit of wonkiness when dealing with creatures whose speeds are anything other than 30, though, as they're almost entirely in increments of 5: small creatures default to 25, wood elves have 35, some especially fast or slow creatures have 20 or 40. Fortunately, because 1 yard = 3 feet, these are all withing one foot of the nearest yard, so rounding shouldn't be too hard.

I'm a little more concerned about things like size and reach. If I were writing my own system I'd probably say a standard human occupies a 1 yard square (but is tall, so two 1 yard cubes stacked on top of each other), has a reach of 0 to 1 yard, and most weapons would extend their range by 1 more yard. So an unarmed human or a human wielding an especially short weapon like a dagger would have a shorter range than someone using a sword (although they would have a minimum range of 1 yard, so if you move into their space they wouldn't be able to attack with a sword). But we're not making our own system, just converting 5e to use 1 yard squares.

Since all distances are already withing one foot of the nearest yard, I suppose a medium creature would occupy a 2 yard square and have a reach of 2 yards. Perhaps a small creature occupies a 2 yard square, but only has a 1 yard reach, and a tiny creature occupies a 1 yard square with a 1 yard reach. Or, would it make sense for a medium creature to occupy only a 1 yard square and have a reach of 1 yard? I'm not sure it actually makes that much of a difference from a game balance perspective, so what sounds better/more realistic/more intuitive? Or, do you think the system would benefit from a rewrite of how reach and weapons work to make martial characters a bit more tactical and interesting?

[Zhorn]

Didn't 4e do distances in squares?

[Luccan]

If all you were changing was the distance of a square and you were willing to adjust all values as necessary, there would probably be minimal impact. Maybe some issues on pre made battle maps for adventures. Oh, movement speed, you can currently get movement speeds that don't divide by 3. That's an issue. But it sounds like what you really want to do is completely adjust how the spacing of all of combat works and I'm not clear on why. Why is it better if humans take up multiple squares?

Also, I'm not sure I agree 3 foot squares are more intuitive. IME most people count the squares one at a time like "5,10,15,20..." And I suspect that's easier because everything either ends in 5 or 0. The easiest counting conversion for those people in your system would be to divide the distance in feet by 3, then count the spaces out. I know that will make things harder on some.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Didn't 4e do distances in squares?

Yeah. They were effectively arbitrary distances IIRC. There are a couple of mentions that one square is 5 feet, but all distances (including ranges, etc) were given in squares, so you could use any scaling you felt fit right.



Also, I'm not sure I agree 3 foot squares are more intuitive. IME most people count the squares one at a time like "5,10,15,20..." And I suspect that's easier because everything either ends in 5 or 0.

I know I do, at least when I'm playing grid-based (ie online). I do things in inches with a ruler (handwaving most of it) when I just sketch it out on a dry erase mat/board. I'd find multiples of yards as being annoying, unless everything were that way (ie all spell ranges and movements were in integer yards). But that's basically doing it like 4e's squares.

[Amdy_vill]

So I believe nonenglish dnd books do this, meters not years but its only .28 difference

[Mellack]

Didn't 4e do distances in squares?

It kinda goes all the way back to original D&D. It measured things in 1" squares, with the specification that 1" = 10 feet in dungeons and 1" = 10 yards outside.

[Greywander]

I'd find multiples of yards as being annoying, unless everything were that way (ie all spell ranges and movements were in integer yards). But that's basically doing it like 4e's squares.
Yes, this would be the intent, express everything in yards. The thing is, units of 5 feet aren't really used for anything, it's basically an arbitrary choice. For those who would prefer to use the metric system, it becomes even more awkward. I'm just thinking it would be a lot easier to be able to look at your sheet and see a speed of 10 or a range of 20 and then look at the battle grid and be able to count out 10 or 20 squares, instead of having to figure out how many square 120 feet is.

For creatures smaller than a single square, the imperial system also has some antiquated units (perfect for a medieval fantasy setting) that express half of a yard (the cubit, 18 inches) and quarter of a yard (the span, 9 inches). Maybe it's just me, but I kind of like having a nice unit I can use instead of using fractions of a unit. There's not really any other way to say 2.5 feet (you could use inches, I suppose), but you can say a cubit instead of half a yard, or a span instead of half a cubit.

I'm still not sure if a medium creature should occupy a 1 yard square or a 2 yard square (the latter of which is closer to a 5 foot square), or whether it's reach should be 1 yard or 2. I'm leaning toward using 1 yard on both.

[Theodoxus]

I went back to squares, ala 4E, pretty quickly. As implied above, once you convert speed from 25', 30' or 35' for standard humanoids to 5, 6, and 7 squares, you can then decide how big those squares are. You can say they're only a yard. And now humans move 18 yards in a round instead of 30'. The nice thing is the conversion only has to happen once. Everything in 5E is modeled in 5' increments, so you can quickly and easily divide their speed by 5, that equals squares and then multiply the squares by the unit of measure you prefer.

Just for sake of completeness, I've been perusing a lot of systems lately, mostly looking at different magic systems, but also character creation and dice mechanics. By far the most common unit of measure for a humanoid is 5', closely followed by 2 yards/meters. Yours is the first I've seen looking at a single yard. Certainly not saying it's badwrongfun, just not common. I think the idea is that humans (and presumably demi-humans) don't like being crowded. We "throw our weight around" to get that 5' clearance (and really, with the Covid mindset so prevalent, that 6' clearance). :smallbiggrin:

TL;DR version: I'd recommend just using squares; the actual UoM is totally handwave-worthy.

[Greywander]

I'm not saying humans are 1 yard tall, but that they (possibly) occupy a 1 yard square. In terms of volume, I'd probably model them as two 1 yard cubes stacked vertically, so 2 yards tall, but only 1 yard wide. Unless you're maneuvering in three dimensions, this probably isn't important, though. That said, I have played with the idea of having multiple size configurations: bipeds like humans are "tall" i.e. two cubes stacked vertically, while many quadrupeds are "long" i.e. two cubes side-by-side. Some creatures might be neither long nor tall, for example something like a snake might occupy a larger space but not fill it completely, representing how there are many ways they can position their bodies within that space and allowing other creatures to partially share that space. But then we're getting into needing to know which direction a creature is facing (for long creatures, at least), which is something 5e specifically doesn't do.

[Luccan]

Yes, this would be the intent, express everything in yards. The thing is, units of 5 feet aren't really used for anything, it's basically an arbitrary choice. For those who would prefer to use the metric system, it becomes even more awkward. I'm just thinking it would be a lot easier to be able to look at your sheet and see a speed of 10 or a range of 20 and then look at the battle grid and be able to count out 10 or 20 squares, instead of having to figure out how many square 120 feet is.

Which would just mean the measurement in the rules should be in squares for use on a battlegrid, with the actual dimensions of those squares left to DM/table discretion. I really can't figure out the exact appeal of a yard vs 5 feet. They're equally arbitrary choices and while the yard has a "nicer" breakdown in terms of, well, terms you can use, that's really only relevant if breaking down the numbers is aesthetically offensive. You also have to consider a lot of people don't know what a cubit or a span are (I certainly didn't until I saw your other comment, so thank you for teaching me something!) If you want to change the measurements, it shouldn't cause problems as long as you provide the adjustments for your table.


I'm not saying humans are 1 yard tall, but that they (possibly) occupy a 1 yard square. In terms of volume, I'd probably model them as two 1 yard cubes stacked vertically, so 2 yards tall, but only 1 yard wide. Unless you're maneuvering in three dimensions, this probably isn't important, though. That said, I have played with the idea of having multiple size configurations: bipeds like humans are "tall" i.e. two cubes stacked vertically, while many quadrupeds are "long" i.e. two cubes side-by-side. Some creatures might be neither long nor tall, for example something like a snake might occupy a larger space but not fill it completely, representing how there are many ways they can position their bodies within that space and allowing other creatures to partially share that space. But then we're getting into needing to know which direction a creature is facing (for long creatures, at least), which is something 5e specifically doesn't do.

While I don't like how their decision interacts with certain things, 5e abandoned facing rules because they can make the game complicated, at least if you follow "logic" on certain things. That said, it can be useful, letting you do things like squeeze past a horse and cart or block off an alley without putting you an arbitrary extra 5 feet back.

If you get the shared spacing and facing things figured out in a way that can easily be transferred to whatever measurements people are using (like by stating things in squares) I'd be interested to see it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My big issue with using grid units throughout is that they tie you to a grid and make it hard to do with without one. My preferred style is measured, not gridded. I'm pretty loose about the measurements, using the minis and map as a visual reminder of where things are, not a hard rule structure.

And sometimes I like to shift scale, so one inch of space is 10 feet or even larger.

Of course online play means working on a grid, but yeah. Not my favorite.

4e was super grid centric. And that was annoying wherever you didn't want high tactics combat.

[JellyPooga]

Despite the popular opinion that the metric system and only using multiples of 5's and 10's is more intuitive, the imperial system and using multiples of more numbers (e.g. 2,3,5, 7 and 11) is way more useful.

Here's a link to an rather interesting video by Lindybeige (https://youtu.be/R2paSGQRwvo) for an dive into ye olde British coinage and monetary system that explains why (Warning: hour long tangenital video). Imperial distance/length measurements operate on a similarly sensible and useful scale and restricting it to using only 5ft increments is about as intuitive, useful and beyond my comprehension as only using five dollar bills to pay for everything. Yeah, it's easy because you only have one denomination, but it's also super clunky, making paying for anything with lower value impossible and high value harder.

I personally see only benefits to adapting D&D to a "yard standard" instead of the "5ft standard".

I would suggest that rather than having a Medium creature occupy a 1x2yrd space, to occupy a 2x2yrd space, if only because the former invites you to have different creatures of the same size category but different space dimensions (e.g. a medium sized dog might occupy 2x1yrd, while a horse occupies 4x2 and an ogre 2x3 and similarly arbitrary "spaces"); something the rules doesn't currently account for. That said, replacing "size category" with a more granular "space category" might not be a bad idea, though it might take a little jiggery pokery to work out any kinks.

[KorvinStarmast]

Despite the popular opinion that the metric system and only using multiples of 5's and 10's is more intuitive, the imperial system and using multiples of more numbers (e.g. 2,3,5, 7 and 11) is way more useful.
{snip rest of excellent post} Yep. I had a DM who did that ages ago. Everything was based on "Your average fighting Man/Warrior is 6' tall, all squares are 6' on a side" when we were dungeon delving. With two abreast, their 'zones' overlapped and blocked a 10' hallway, but on his grids most hallways were 12' wide. He liked measurements with yardsticks.

[LtPowers]

Traditionally, D20 systems converting to meters (roughly equivalent to yards) go with one square = two meters, not one. Going down to one makes it really hard to fit large maps on the table.


Powers &8^]

[Sigreid]

In purely practical terms, it really doesn't matter what scale you use as long as your consistent.

[DwarfFighter]

Nothing needs to change.

You already count squares and multiply with 5 to get the distance in ft., or divide distances in ft. by 5 to get the number of squares to count. With 1 yard squares you multiply or divide by 3 instead.

You may want to keep the space characters take up, and their reach, to the same number of squares as the normal system if you like the "snap to grid" style of normal 5e.

[MoiMagnus]

In one of my homebrews, I use the (Roman) pace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_(unit)), which is 1p = 5ft = 1.5m. Much simpler than the 5ft standard.

Currently in 5e, we use the 1.5m standard, and that's honestly horrible to use, but we don't play often enough to try to change to really bother fixing it. (And it's better for us than feet, as while we all see what is 2 feet by looking at our shoes, we have no intuitive notion of what is 30ft)

The 1m or 1yard standard looks fine too.

[N810]

Not that much Just give your players a conversion chart.
(example)

5' = 1 yard
10' = 2 yards
15' = 3 yards
20' = 4 yards
25' = 5 yards
30' = 6 yards
35' = 7 yards
40' = 8 yards
45' = 9 yards
50' = 10 yards
55' = 11 yards
60' = 12 yards

[heavyfuel]

@OP

Wouldn't this nerf melee characters who now have to get in closer to attack?


So I believe nonenglish dnd books do this, meters not years but its only .28 difference

Portuguese books use 5ft = 1.5m. 5ft is actually 1 inch longer than 1.5m, but that's nothing really.

[Segev]

5e at least claims it ia built for granularity down to single feet. The valor bard even has a feature that is very weird when restricted to five foot squares. (It shoves people an inspiration die in feet.)

In light of this, keeping everything the same and going to squares being one yard only changes calculations. 25 feet of movement becomes eight squares (24 feet, really) and 50 feet of movement (a dash for such a creature) becomes 17 squares (51 feet, really).

[rlc]

I think I’ve seen “2 meters” in place of “5 feet,” so “2 yards” would probably work just as well as that, but still not as good as “5 feet,” unless you do decide to label everything in squares, rather than in feet that are increments of 5.

[Segev]

Expanding on using one square is one yard a bit, you would be able to hit anybody up to two squares away from you with a normal attack, unless they were at the very, very edge of that, so it's safe to say 2 squares is normal melee range. Reach would still add only about 1 square, though, to a total of 3, because that'd be 9 feet out, and reach only lets you attack out to 10 feet, so they'd have to be just within the fourth square to be technically in the 10 foot reach (i.e. unlikely). You could get a little more granular, letting attacks that have five ft. reach try to hit people in the second square out with, say, a -1 penalty for being at the edge of your reach, and let people with reach attack out to three squares without penalty and out to 4 with a -2 penalty (for it being very likely they're actually out of your reach).

You should probably have Medium creatures take up 4 squares, and similarly expand large, huge, and gargantuan footprints. Small probably can actually stay as being 1 square. Though this might further penalize small creatures, since this effectively reduces their reach.

[Tanarii]

Using a 1yd/1m grid would have the advantage of making mapping typically narrow residential corridors more accurate. Unfortunately you'd need to change the space rules too. Right now you have to squeeze to fit in that.

[Greywander]

Speaking of squeezing, I'm sure we can all agree that a human can fit through a 1 yard wide hole. What about a hole only half a yard wide? That's only one and a half feet. It might be physically possible for particularly slender people, but you have to figure your shoulders are probably at least a foot wide, and a medium sized creature might not be especially slender.

Also, armspan is apparently about the same as height. This means that a six foot tall person has an armspan of about six feet. If we're talking about how much space a person needs to move around freely for combat, then it makes sense that they would need a space about the size of their arm span. You'd be fine standing in a 3 foot square, but fighting in one would feel rather cramped, I'd imagine. That said, armspan also relates to reach, and we're talking about putting humans in a space where their reach is inside the space and doesn't extend outside of it. With a weapon, you could extend your reach enough to strike someone in the next space over, or we could assume that you move to the edge of the space you occupy in order to strike, then pull back to the center of your space to defend yourself.

All of this appears to be adding up to medium sized creatures occupying a 2 yard square, but having a 1 yard reach. We could possibly add more varieties of reach weapons as well, with some weapons extending your reach to 2 yards, and some to 3 yards. Personally, I think it would be interesting for something like a greatsword to have a 2 yard reach (they can get up to 6 feet long), while a true polearm has a 3 yard reach.

Oh, also an interesting side note if medium creatures occupy a 2 yard space: One way to model a hex grid is to take a square grid and shift every other row half a tile to the left or right, or to shift every other column up or down. You get hex-based movement but using square tiles. But maybe you like square grids because it makes it easier to do things like buildings. Well, if you take each tile and split it into quarter tiles, then you can have a true square grid, but since a unit occupies four of these quarter tiles you can have them move in a hex pattern. Basically, you move one tile forward and half a tile to the side, and that counts as moving a distance of 1. Since you're using quarter tiles, you already have a grid to snap to while moving half tile distances. This wouldn't matter much if you're using a virtual tabletop, since most of those can calculate true distance, but using a physical battlemat you could approximate things by allowing movement of 2 squares forward and 1 square to the side to consume 2 yards of movement.

[Segev]

Using a 1yd/1m grid would have the advantage of making mapping typically narrow residential corridors more accurate. Unfortunately you'd need to change the space rules too. Right now you have to squeeze to fit in that.
Technically, all squeezing means mechanically is that you move at half speed. Fully armored and kitted out for dungeon-crawling, could you run full speed down a normal 3-foot wide hallway?

[Tanarii]

Technically, all squeezing means mechanically is that you move at half speed. Fully armored and kitted out for dungeon-crawling, could you run full speed down a normal 3-foot wide hallway?It does a lot more than that.

While squeezing through a space, a creature must spend 1 extra foot for every foot it moves there, and it has disadvantage on attack rolls and Dexterity saving throws. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage while it's in the smaller space.
PHB p192


Speaking of squeezing, I'm sure we can all agree that a human can fit through a 1 yard wide hole. What about a hole only half a yard wide? That's only one and a half feet. It might be physically possible for particularly slender people, but you have to figure your shoulders are probably at least a foot wide, and a medium sized creature might not be especially slender.
A yard across is already an incredibly small space to be able to effectively fight in, both offensively and defensively. It might actually be better to require the standard "space" to be 2x2 yards for Medium creatures.