The idea that one normal human sized character fills up a 10" square is one of the absurdities of D&D. One that owes it’s roots IMHO to its early origins as a fantasy addition the historical miniatures rules Chainmail, where each miniature represents several men. Seriously, in real or real-ish combat 10 feet are something like extended skirmish order, not the shield wall that characterized melee combat. Because in a battle between men on 3’ centers and 10’ centers, all the men on 10’ centers would have to defend against 3 men which would more than make up for any difference in manauverability.
I like the occasional brick work on the far walls on the Isomorphic maps…I’ve always wanted to experiment with large areas where the levels are on a slant…because assuming that most dungeons are re-purposed/played out mines this should be fairly common. Mines tend to follow the slope of the ore-body and in mountains that is usually not perfectly flat.
I believe it’s 5 by 5 feet, not 10 by 10, and that’s the space used by an armed person fighting another. It includes space to swing weapons and do some footwork, I assume. I’m not sure if every D&D edition allows people to share that square, but I think they should, at a serious penalty in combat because they keep getting in each other’s way.
1 Like
Oops. Still to much space IMHO.Most battles are fought with soldiers much closer together. Yes, fighting close together does cramp your style, but fighting two to one is a much greater advantage than the rules acknowledge. To put it into game terms, parries (with a weapon) and blocks (with a shield) are much more significant than dodging. It is VERY difficult to defend against simultaneous attacks.
Much less outside of a battle. People will often walk two abreast down a 5 foot corridor.
I haven’t really delved into it much since 1st ed. but back then the standard map grid was definitely 10’. However, AD&D had much more freeform combat; maps were measured in squares (or arbitrarily-scaled hexes for outdoors) but combat didn’t take place using them for measurement like in later more miniatures-oriented editions, which have gotten closer to the game’s supposed Chainmail origins.
1 Like
Okay as somebody whose name ends with an s I can categorically say that the possessive should not be apostrophe s but simply an apostrophe. I know it’s a little niggling detail but it aggravates me when people don’t understand this rule. So this is Ross’ comment not Ross’s comment.
1 Like
I don’t get that.
With plurals, it makes sense to just have a trailing apostrophe, because, for example, sisters is pronounced the same as sisters’ - you don’t say “the sisterses hair.”
However, when I say the hair belonging to Ross, I do pronounce the extra syllable - I don’t say “Ross hair” I say “Rosses” hair.
So I don’t see why it should be spelled Ross’ instead of Ross’s - the latter is what I’m actually pronouncing.
2 Likes
Your opinion differs from the rule given in Strunk and White’s Elements of Style.
Strunk & White is not taken as gospel or even actual “rules” by linguists.
1 Like
Thanks for this. When people say not to use the passive voice I want to shake them.
The passive voice is preferred by me.
Since this has devolved into a debate about language…
Does anyone else see the title of this post/topic and first think it’s talking about a drawer to store maps in?
I swear, every time I read the topic, my mind pronounces it “drore” until I correct it to draw-er.
Both are cromulent as I understand it. I tend to use whatever sounds better in context. Sorry, but for me, that’s Ross’s 
1 Like
My friend pronounces ‘drawers’ ‘draws’. She also pronounces ‘iron’ ‘iyn’. Drives me crackers.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
