Any experience with measuring instead of using a grid?
I am considering changing from using a grid and counting out squares to simply measuring distances on the board. This is based on some frustration I have seen from some new players about the diagonal move, a weird desire to not use hex grids from experienced players (weird to me, anyway), and some experiences in BG3. I can use rulers, but my plan is to have strings cut the length of common distances like a 6" string for 30' as the standard movement.
This seems like a good idea and easy to implement, but before I pull the trigger, I wanted to see if anyone else has done this in the past or sees some obvious pitfalls to doing so. I'm having a hard time coming up with cons.
| Pros |
Cons |
| Diagonal movement does not increase or decrease total movement |
Front of mini to back of mini vs front of mini to front of mini changes 5' of movement |
| Curved paths to avoid OA are possible |
|
| If terrain is scaled it does a better job of allowing for movement over things |
|
| Line of sight determinations easier? |
|
| Range determination clearer |
|
| Maps may be more varied if not defaulting to grids |
|
Does anyone have more cons to fill in that I should consider? Are there other pros I'm not thinking of? If you went to a table and they were using this method, do you think it would be easy to pick up? Does anyone think this would be easier or harder to learn than the grid for a new player?
Spoiler: Extra info
Show
My group loves minis - purchasing, printing, and painting, all part of the fun of the game, so we want to continue and not go theater of the mind. We do theater of the mind occasionally when it is the best method, but not for usual stuff. I have a large amount of terrain scaled to the right size to compare to the minis, so things like whether or not a boulder provides cover can be done by simply looking from one point to another and seeing what is in the way. I can print rings that can be placed around minis that will determine if anything passes within range and therefore gives an OA. I have sticky stuff I use to hold minis for painting that I have tested and would work just fine to anchor strings in various places for winding paths. The path would need to be laid so that the character moves along the string and has to allow them room for the mini to get past (or squeeze). I have a number of cones, squares, and circles in the appropriate size to allow for all spell types to be described, and we currently do not consider those to conform to a grid. Things can be angled in whatever way is necessary to get the effect, and we have a standing rule that if it gets part of you, you are in the effect. I have considered changing that to allow advantage on a save if you are only partially in the area, and it might coincide with this, but it doesn't have to.
Re: Any experience with measuring instead of using a grid?
Why not both? That's what I do. I play with a grid, which meets almost all of my needs, but I keep a tape measure on hand for edge cases.
Reasons to use a grid:
- Easy for players to visualize distance and area of effect.
- Takes the guesswork out of PC and monster movement "zones"
- Fewer (not zero, though :smallfurious:) arguments about placement and positioning
Reasons to use measurement:
- Great for resolving the "diagonal movement" argument: if their movement speed is 30' and you're using 5-foot squares, measure out a radius of 6 inches and tell them "you can move to this square, this square, or this square." Then let them pick from those available squares.
- Helpful for sprinting across the map or judging very long-distance attacks.
- Surface-to-air attacks and flying are easier to judge.
One other thought: don't rely on specific lengths of string. Storing and sorting them will be a pain, you'll get flustered trying to find the "right length" in the moment you need it, and they're not nearly as versatile. Every time I've tried to do "templates" like that for some basic application in a game, I've inevitably had to bodge together several different components because my players came up with a weird value or edge case I didn't expect. Modular pieces are great for some applications, like modular dungeon tiles for terrain. But for this application, I don't think templates are the way to go. Too many races are 25' or 35' of movement, too many monsters are 50' or 40'.
I use a solid metal tape measure you'd find in a toolchest, and my players don't complain, but it's pretty anachronistic and can feel "wrong" at the fantasy table. For almost no money you can get yourself a soft tape measure, like the type that's used in tailoring/sewing work. This one is a great, low-profile option that wouldn't hurt the aesthetics of your table, since it's all-black and can be practically hidden in your palm. You (or one of your players) probably already possesses either that retractable version or the very low-tech "loose tape" version -- they come standard with even the cheapest sewing kits. Either one will be much more versatile than cutting a dozen different lengths of string.
Re: Any experience with measuring instead of using a grid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ionathus
One other thought:
don't rely on specific lengths of string. Storing and sorting them will be a pain, you'll get flustered trying to find the "right length" in the moment you need it, and they're not nearly as versatile. Every time I've tried to do "templates" like that for some basic application in a game, I've inevitably had to bodge together several different components because my players came up with a weird value or edge case I didn't expect. Modular pieces are great for some applications, like modular dungeon tiles for terrain. But for this application, I don't think templates are the way to go. Too many races are 25' or 35' of movement, too many monsters are 50' or 40'.
I use a solid metal tape measure you'd find in a toolchest, and my players don't complain, but it's pretty anachronistic and can feel "wrong" at the fantasy table. For almost no money you can get yourself a soft tape measure, like the type that's used in tailoring/sewing work.
This one is a great, low-profile option that wouldn't hurt the aesthetics of your table, since it's all-black and can be practically hidden in your palm. You (or one of your players) probably already possesses either that retractable version or the very low-tech "loose tape" version -- they come standard with even the cheapest sewing kits. Either one will be
much more versatile than cutting a dozen different lengths of string.
I like the plastic measuring sticks I've found in other games. No bigger around than a pencil, measure up to 18" (one was 24" I think). If you want pre-measured and on the cheap, hit the hardware store, buy some 1/4" dowel, cut to length and then color code them with paint/marker.
On the original post: This was the origin of D&D...games measured on a table top using measuring tape or rulers (or little cardboard templates!). Welcome back to the past!
- M
Re: Any experience with measuring instead of using a grid?
I do have a fabric measuring tape that I can use. My main reason for thinking strings was to make it flexible enough and small enough to make curves easily. But I see the drawbacks you mean and agree that's not ideal. Color-coded dowels would be easier to sort, but they aren't flexible, which probably doesn't help in a lot of cases, although they would be easier for straight lines. Maybe a few rods of specific distances for often repeated things, and the tape for most things.
As to the benefits of a grid listed, I have found that for my table, those aren't big benefits. People are constantly counting out squares to figure out their distance to something - years in and none of us have a good feel for the distances without counting them. A tape measure would be easier there. The arguments about placement and positioning is a good point, although that's not something that comes up with my regular group.
Thanks for the input!
Re: Any experience with measuring instead of using a grid?
At my table we often use a combination of measuring and a grid (or a hex). The way I see it is that the grid is a way to facilitate the distances, the grid is not The Truth™. You can have a grid and use a stick to measure distances, then place minis on the closest square/hex.
Really. This is not an "instead of" thing. You can combine them and utilize the benefit of both.
Re: Any experience with measuring instead of using a grid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Darth Credence
I do have a fabric measuring tape that I can use. My main reason for thinking strings was to make it flexible enough and small enough to make curves easily. But I see the drawbacks you mean and agree that's not ideal. Color-coded dowels would be easier to sort, but they aren't flexible, which probably doesn't help in a lot of cases, although they would be easier for straight lines. Maybe a few rods of specific distances for often repeated things, and the tape for most things.
As to the benefits of a grid listed, I have found that for my table, those aren't big benefits. People are constantly counting out squares to figure out their distance to something - years in and none of us have a good feel for the distances without counting them. A tape measure would be easier there. The arguments about placement and positioning is a good point, although that's not something that comes up with my regular group.
Thanks for the input!
Sure thing! Your response brings me to a follow-up question: you mention wanting to make curves, what uses are you seeing for that? I think you mentioned making windy paths...is that for an effect like the "Wall of [Stone]/[Fire]/[Thorns]" spells? Or are you seeing your PCs weaving through enemies a lot of the time?
In five years of DMing, I think I could count on one hand the number of times my players could be said to be "maneuvering" with their movement. It's almost always straight lines towards whatever they want to hit/avoid getting hit by. But that could just be my table, and your table likes doing a lot more "duck and weave" thing!
If, like you say, everybody at the table is still counting distances, it might be a good idea to just buy one of those tape measures for each player and let everyone go hog wild. It's not how most modern games play but if it's easier for you, that's all that matters! The only true rule is consistency: in this case, either way you need to give your players a concrete way of always knowing how to reckon the distance, or else they might feel like you're being needlessly arbitrary. As a plus, it gives you more freedom to design terrain that doesn't have grid marks baked in.
Re: Any experience with measuring instead of using a grid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ionathus
Sure thing! Your response brings me to a follow-up question: you mention wanting to make curves, what uses are you seeing for that? I think you mentioned making windy paths...is that for an effect like the "Wall of [Stone]/[Fire]/[Thorns]" spells? Or are you seeing your PCs weaving through enemies a lot of the time?
In five years of DMing, I think I could count on one hand the number of times my players could be said to be "maneuvering" with their movement. It's almost always straight lines towards whatever they want to hit/avoid getting hit by. But that could just be my table, and your table likes doing a lot more "duck and weave" thing!
If, like you say, everybody at the table is still counting distances, it might be a good idea to just buy one of those tape measures for each player and let everyone go hog wild. It's not how most modern games play but if it's easier for you, that's all that matters! The only true rule is consistency: in this case, either way you need to give your players a concrete way of always knowing how to reckon the distance, or else they might feel like you're being needlessly arbitrary. As a plus, it gives you more freedom to design terrain that doesn't have grid marks baked in.
That is for PCs weaving around. It is mostly about terrain effects - I have a 3D printer and time, so I have a ridiculous amount of terrain scatter. A small number of battles take place in a relatively open area. But if they are in a forest, there are trees, bushes, and boulders all over, eliminating a lot of straight lines. Or if they are in a building, there will usually be stuff in the rooms - a great hall with tables and chairs that they have to move around, a bedroom with wardrobes, beds, chairs, and the like, a kitchen full of barrels, crates, and stoves. Curves would be helpful in getting the most out of the distance while being able to go around the stuff in the way, and something that curves can also help with defining distance if they climb over something (I'm thinking the scene in D&D:HAT when Xenk is leaving and he walks straight over the boulder in the way.) A lot of the time, that won't matter, but if it's the trunk of a fallen sequoia, that will take some movement.
In addition, BG3 made me see how one could avoid opportunity attacks through how you move. If you curve just out of their reach, they don't get the attack, but grid movement might cost a little more movement than necessary to pull that off.
Consistency as the true rule is a good point. And your last point about terrain that doesn't have grid marks, that's huge for me. I have a couple of chessex battle maps with grids that I use, but as I've built up my terrain library, it has seemed more and more constricting. I want to get to a place where the maps are still the ground because then I can do colors, but ultimately stop boxing myself in. That's as much a mental thing for me as anything - I see all the straight lines and I want to start putting the terrain bits in line with the grid. One time I realized I had made an orchard, not a grove.
@Mastikator - when you use the measurement to get where they want to go then put them in the nearest square, does that ever cause issues? I don't think it would with my players, but I could see some groups I've played with in the past arguing over which square is actually appropriate.
Re: Any experience with measuring instead of using a grid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Darth Credence
People are constantly counting out squares to figure out their distance to something - years in and none of us have a good feel for the distances without counting them.
That might be a good argument against using measurements, actually. Counting squares is quiet and unobtrusive; pulling out a measuring tape, on the other hand, means leaning over the table, jostling minis, maybe standing up and walking around to a different point and asking someone else to scoot aside for a moment...
It's not a terrible idea to keep some rulers or templates around for the edge cases, but having to use them constantly would, I think, be a pain in the butt. You'd be better off just accepting some looseness with the grid and not worrying about exact paths too much. ("Can I move like this?" "Eh, sure, looks about right/no, that would probably take too long.")
Re: Any experience with measuring instead of using a grid?
Done it, works fine. Typical tailoring/sewing measuring tape is all we needed. We go center to center for ranges and however the heck you want to measure for movement. Knocked out some circles and trianges from old coat hangers; super cheap, durable, had them for years until someone lost them in a move. As a bonus, lots of non-D&D games aren't grid mapped by default and its easier to switch to them if you're comfortable without a battlemat.
Just don't sweat the occasional half inch or inch of honest mistakes and its great.
Re: Any experience with measuring instead of using a grid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grod_The_Giant
That might be a good argument against using measurements, actually. Counting squares is quiet and unobtrusive; pulling out a measuring tape, on the other hand, means leaning over the table, jostling minis, maybe standing up and walking around to a different point and asking someone else to scoot aside for a moment...
It's not a terrible idea to keep some rulers or templates around for the edge cases, but having to use them constantly would, I think, be a pain in the butt. You'd be better off just accepting some looseness with the grid and not worrying about exact paths too much. ("Can I move like this?" "Eh, sure, looks about right/no, that would probably take too long.")
Agreed. I took it a step further and usually avoid using a grid unless it's absolutely necessary. I'm way more interested in the attempt of the actions rather than waiting for them to count squares three times to find the most optimal have to achieve their goals.
Another interesting side effect of this is they know when I pull out the grid that it's go time and everybody leans in.
Re: Any experience with measuring instead of using a grid?
Having some experience with TT warrgames, my comments.
Pre-cut color coded dowels aka measuring sticks. For most applications this is the best way to go. It’s a clear way to measure AoE and a lot of movement is straight line. Strings end up being a little imprecise because they can be stretched and don’t lie flat and straight. In cases where curved movement is being done a flexible tape measure can fill the gaps.
Front to back measuring. There are three main protocols that can be adopted. (1) all turns are free so it doesn’t matter, (2) measure center starting point to center end point (3) paint a dot on the front to mark the front and then measure starting dot to ending dot.
Line of Sight. This is where the measuring sticks shine. Measure center to center and if the stick passes over terrain then you apply the relevant effect.
For me the biggest con is having sufficient terrain to put on the table.
Re: Any experience with measuring instead of using a grid?
We did this in microarmor games, on a sand table, all the time.
Mirrors to help assess line of sight.
1' rulers and 3' year yard sticks to measure distance (given in most games back then in inches)
Tailor's tape also used to measure distance.
In a pinch, a piece of string, from point to point, then laid against the yardstick.
Re: Any experience with measuring instead of using a grid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Telok
Just don't sweat the occasional half inch or inch of honest mistakes and its great.
In my experience this has been the hardest part of the whole thing -- building trust in my players that I'm not going to fleece them on the margin of error.
Every time there's an edge case in measuring distances, I try to make a fair ruling. I like to think that I come down in favor of the players' intentions about 60% of the time -- i.e. they get the positioning they're hoping for and are able to do the thing they wanted to do. Only problem is that the other 40% really sucks.
Especially for the melee martials in the group, who don't get to do much (if any) of their cool stuff if they're not in melee range. On the occasion that they're 5' or 10' out of the space they want to be, and they think it should be doable, but I make a judgment call and cut them short, that's a pretty crappy-feeling turn for both of us. Everyone at my table understands that I'm on their side, but rulings like this can feel particularly arbitrary, especially when your movement is the only thing keeping you from having a useful turn. Yes yes I know, "just buy ranged weapons." They don't want it and I'm not pushing them towards it. They like living a specific archetype and I'm more interested in giving them fun ways to play that than tell them "optimize or quit whining"
Re: Any experience with measuring instead of using a grid?
I believe the Iron Kingdoms RPG (the middle one which used a system derived form the war games) did this by default. Back when I played it, we tried it by RAW for a couple of sessions and then switched to hexes IIRC. Busting out the tape measure just felt too fiddly for an RPG to me and my group (although many of us also play wargames and are fine with it there - not sure why the difference).
Re: Any experience with measuring instead of using a grid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ionathus
Especially for the melee martials in the group, who don't get to do much (if any) of their cool stuff if they're not in melee range. On the occasion that they're 5' or 10' out of the space they want to be, and they think it should be doable, but I make a judgment call and cut them short, that's a pretty crappy-feeling turn for both of us. Everyone at my table understands that I'm on their side, but rulings like this can feel particularly arbitrary, especially when your movement is the only thing keeping you from having a useful turn. Yes yes I know, "just buy ranged weapons." They don't want it and I'm not pushing them towards it. They like living a specific archetype and I'm more interested in giving them fun ways to play that than tell them "optimize or quit whining"
Oh, yeah. That's a D&D thing these days. My games the "melee" mostly pick up smoke grenades and a high power rifle. For D&D we always use a grid and smaller maps so two thirds the party isn't regularly hosed by like two harpies with short bows. Yeah, I remember the battlemaster fighter blowing through 20 arrows of dragon slaying we bought with a literal ton of gold, and hitting with two of them. Because strength spec, ya know? I can't help you there.
