Grid space

[Uatu]

I think we talked about this before, but...

How many feet should one square (48 x 48 pixels) represent in battle?

Basically, a 48 x 48 pixel icon right now is doing what a 25 mm miniature would be doing... 25 mm = 6 feet, right?

Strangely, the AD&D books then decided that 1 inch on the grids (1 inch = 25.4 mm) was 10 feet INDOORS and 10 yards OUTDOORS...

So it seems that 6 feet = 10 feet = 30 feet (ergh?)

But anyway, I was thinking that we have two choices here...

1. Make everything as realistic/standardized as possible, so that 6' per 48 x 48 pixels is adhered to throughout (so all magic, weapon ranges would be set to 1 square = 6 feet measurements).
2. Follow the books' quirky rules - yes, the figures (icons) are 48 pixels = 6', but 1 square is also 1", so all our ranges should be set to this measuring stick. On the bright side, calculations are easy (everything rounds down nicely), etc., people used to doing their thing with miniatures will adapt easily to DC... (also, DC's combat grids aren't huge, so in a way this will minimize areas/ranges a bit.)

But either way will work for me.

(The 25 mm = 6 feet thing is what my memory tells me - anyone else remember?)

[manikus]

I think there is a third option that we should consider- treat the cells as 10x10 and remake all of the icons smaller.
Then, our dragons will not need resizing by anyones standards.
Just joking with ya. (Of course)

I'm really okay with either, but I like the first one best. But, that makes the field of combat 300' by 300'. You would never be out of range of bows and crossbows (and firearms for those using them), I'm not too sure about other missile weapons off the top of my head. At higher levels, some spell effects would be able to hit everything on the field of combat for good or ill.
Following this logic leads me to wanting to use the second option. We've already discussed how a square on the map does not equal a 48x48 icon though. So, if the combat map is scaled so that an icon is more or less 6 feet tall (I think it might actually be scaled so that they are 3'x3' - but I also think that CocoaSpud didn't try and scale them at all), then this type of logic seems to dictate that we look back to the first option.

So, the real question then becomes, which one is less work to achieve, b/c I do agree that we should be consistent. Whichever one seems the easiest to do now, is the one we should do and that will be the standard from here on out.

Note: I was excited when I first saw this topic b/c I though it was Spelljammer related, you know, like Realmspace, or Greyspace.

[Uatu]

Ha ha... No, no Spelljammer/Realmsjammer/etc. here...

Hmm - well, when I think about it, it does seem that FRUA was more geared to option 2 (although I am not sure, and icon sizes were more random than they are now)... Maybe option 2 would be better for FRUA enthusiasts?

[manikus]

Yes, the second option may be the best choice for now. Once we're passed 1.0 and somebody gives us the ability to lay out the combats the way we would like, then we could choose a different way to do it.

[Uatu]

Okay, then I guess I will have to redo my ice storm spell icon (and my still-worked-on fireball icon)...

[manikus]

I'm assuming this means your coverage icons and that they are bigger than 1x1, then.

[Uatu]

Well, the ice storm area was set for 6' per square...

[manikus]

Maybe it could just be used for the new spell, 'Greater Icestorm'.

[Uatu]

Weeeell... (Anyway, it'll probably be a while before I fix it...)

[manikus]

At least you'll be making a smaller coverage sprite instead of a larger one.