What is preventing the inclusion of a toggle button to change from Imperial to Metric on the character sheet manager?
You don't have to worry about rounding up numbers since you already have official printed reference of what the converted numbers are (you have the official material in both Imperial and in Metric measurements).
The situation I face today is: my friends have bought printed copies of the books with metric units, we also use maps with metric grid (which, of course, match the movement/distance rules).
And, although I love the DNDBeyond characters creator and sheets, every time I play with them using my DNDB character sheet I have to keep constantly making this little annoying math in my head as I try to walk, range attack, calculate a spell area, etc... that is also one reason my friends decided not to use the dndbeyond character sheets.
What is preventing the inclusion of a toggle button to change from Imperial to Metric on the character sheet manager?
Localisation
Simply put, D&D Beyond offers the English version of the rules, which are presented in imperial measurements. Other languages may use metric, to varying degrees of accuracy, but English does not.
D&D Beyond does not have free reign to mix and match between localisations, WotC would need to publish an official English source with metric.
Oh, I see, I took for granted 2 things that i now realize are not true 1. that every localized version that uses the Metric System had the same numbers 2. that D&D Beyond had the right to use the other localized books as base for its own material
And, out of curiosity, what would be the steps required to actually implement that? Does Hasbro acquiring D&D Beyond brings this closer to become a reality?
I'm of the opinion that the US should have started to transition to metric decades ago (teach both systems, put both on signs, etc). That aside, since D&d is written with feet in mind, and changing to metric either ends up using fractions or skews the balance of sizes, ranges, and areas of effect, I wouldnt use it if it was available (because I would want the whole game to be balanced around those measurements rather than roughly adapted to it).
With a simple conversion of 1.5 meters / 5 feet it’s actually really easy to use and doesn’t adversely affect game balance at all.
Yeah... But honestly, I want a system where 1 square is 1 meter and everything scales off that. It makes more sense than 5 feet.
And besides, because if my first sentence lamenting the American education system, none of my friends would be down with metric.
If 1 square = 1 meter does a medium creature occupy 2*2 squares or 1*1. What about small creatures? Does Faerie Fire affect 4 squares by 4 squares or more? To have a square being 1m by 1m you really need to say all humanoids are smaller in D&D or you need to change the rules significantly.
The UK started the transistion to metric nearly 60 years ago (1965). and we still have a hodge podge where we are using both systems. While when filling in a form for my passport I have to put I am 1.7m tall if I am asked generally (or say to be given an appropriate sized horse when riding) I will say I am 5'7". Speed limits are still posted in mph and beer is bought in pints but milk is bought in litres. While I prefer the metric system to imperial I would prefer either system to using 2 simultaniously. The "Transistion" . is likely to take my whole life
With a simple conversion of 1.5 meters / 5 feet it’s actually really easy to use and doesn’t adversely affect game balance at all.
Yeah... But honestly, I want a system where 1 square is 1 meter and everything scales off that. It makes more sense than 5 feet.
And besides, because if my first sentence lamenting the American education system, none of my friends would be down with metric.
If 1 square = 1 meter does a medium creature occupy 2*2 squares or 1*1. What about small creatures? Does Faerie Fire affect 4 squares by 4 squares or more? To have a square being 1m by 1m you really need to say all humanoids are smaller in D&D or you need to change the rules significantly.
Same as now, a medium or small creature occupies 1 square. AOEs, ranges, squeezing, etc are what I meant about the whole system needing to be based on that square size and not just converted. I don't need to say humanoids are smaller, I just need to stop pretending their arms are 5 feet long... Which, yes, requires the rules to be rebalance (which I mentioned in my first comment as my ideal situation. I know it wont happen for 5e, just wishful thinking).
With a simple conversion of 1.5 meters / 5 feet it’s actually really easy to use and doesn’t adversely affect game balance at all.
Yeah... But honestly, I want a system where 1 square is 1 meter and everything scales off that. It makes more sense than 5 feet.
And besides, because if my first sentence lamenting the American education system, none of my friends would be down with metric.
I agree with you. To be honest, I was raised and educated in America and I still struggle with the imperial system because it’s all so arbitrary. I can look at the ground and estimate 1 meter, and extrapolate a kilometer from that in my head. How many ft are in a mile?!? 🤷♂️ My only reference for a mile is the distance from my parents’ house to my old elementary school because it was exactly 1 mile and I had to walk it whenever I missed the bus. 😂
With a simple conversion of 1.5 meters / 5 feet it’s actually really easy to use and doesn’t adversely affect game balance at all.
Yeah... But honestly, I want a system where 1 square is 1 meter and everything scales off that. It makes more sense than 5 feet.
And besides, because if my first sentence lamenting the American education system, none of my friends would be down with metric.
If 1 square = 1 meter does a medium creature occupy 2*2 squares or 1*1. What about small creatures? Does Faerie Fire affect 4 squares by 4 squares or more? To have a square being 1m by 1m you really need to say all humanoids are smaller in D&D or you need to change the rules significantly.
Same as now, a medium or small creature occupies 1 square. AOEs, ranges, squeezing, etc are what I meant about the whole system needing to be based on that square size and not just converted. I don't need to say humanoids are smaller, I just need to stop pretending their arms are 5 feet long... Which, yes, requires the rules to be rebalance (which I mentioned in my first comment as my ideal situation. I know it wont happen for 5e, just wishful thinking).
We aren’t supposed to pretend their arms are 5 ft long, we’re supposed to imagine them moving around and controlling a 5 ft × 5 ft space.
With a simple conversion of 1.5 meters / 5 feet it’s actually really easy to use and doesn’t adversely affect game balance at all.
Yeah... But honestly, I want a system where 1 square is 1 meter and everything scales off that. It makes more sense than 5 feet.
And besides, because if my first sentence lamenting the American education system, none of my friends would be down with metric.
If 1 square = 1 meter does a medium creature occupy 2*2 squares or 1*1. What about small creatures? Does Faerie Fire affect 4 squares by 4 squares or more? To have a square being 1m by 1m you really need to say all humanoids are smaller in D&D or you need to change the rules significantly.
Same as now, a medium or small creature occupies 1 square. AOEs, ranges, squeezing, etc are what I meant about the whole system needing to be based on that square size and not just converted. I don't need to say humanoids are smaller, I just need to stop pretending their arms are 5 feet long... Which, yes, requires the rules to be rebalance (which I mentioned in my first comment as my ideal situation. I know it wont happen for 5e, just wishful thinking).
We aren’t supposed to pretend their arms are 5 ft long, we’re supposed to imagine them moving around and controlling a 5 ft × 5 ft space.
I get that, but it still doesn't make sense that their attack radius even when stuck in place, laying on their back, and without triggering movement triggers covers a 15 foot diameter minimum.
Like how can a medium PC be fighting a creature, then turn and move to attack a second creature 10 feet from the first without having to move out of that creature's attack radius and triggering an OA? For that matter, how can you possibly grapple 2 creatures 10 feet apart? With 1 meter squares, the 3 creatures would be no more than 6~7 feet apart which 1 PC's armspan more realistically covers.
I just want rules and reality to not be so inconsistent with each other with small, simple changes.
I agree, 1 meter would be better for representing the physical space a creature directly occupies. But Americans wouldn’t know what to do with a meter and 3.3 ft would be too awkward. I suppose they could have gone with yards and meters and treated them as close enough to be the same and called it day. But that doesn’t account for actual threat range.
My arm at the fingertips is a yard from my sternum. Add a 3 foot long shortsword in my hand and I would only have to move a few inches or not at all to threaten someone within 5 feet of me in any direction. Make it a full on longsword and my threat range is even bigger. Remember, I don’t need to hit the far side of an opponent, just the closest parts. When considering overall threat range (instead of the space I immediately occupy) and 5 feet is not unreasonable. I may only occupy a 3 ft × 3 ft space in a fighting stance, but my threat range is easily 5 ft × 5 ft, likely more if I move a few inches. And 6 inches of movement should not be enough to provoke an OA. I would say that a combatant could control a 5 ft (or 1.5 m) space and reasonably threaten an enemy who is controlling their own space. It’s not unrealistic.
I agree, 1 meter would be better for representing the physical space a creature directly occupies. But Americans wouldn’t know what to do with a meter and 3.3 ft would be too awkward. I suppose they could have gone with yards and meters and treated them as close enough to be the same and called it day. But that doesn’t account for actual threat range.
Which I addressed and lamented about in multiple comments including my first one.
My arm at the fingertips is a yard from my sternum. Add a 3 foot long shortsword in my hand and I would only have to move a few inches or not at all to threaten someone within 5 feet of me in any direction. Make it a full on longsword and my threat range is even bigger. Remember, I don’t need to hit the far side of an opponent, just the closest parts. When considering overall threat range (instead of the space I immediately occupy) and 5 feet is not unreasonable. I may only occupy a 3 ft × 3 ft space in a fighting stance, but my threat range is easily 5 ft × 5 ft, likely more if I move a few inches. And 6 inches of movement should not be enough to provoke an OA. I would say that a combatant could control a 5 ft (or 1.5 m) space and reasonably threaten an enemy who is controlling their own space. It’s not unrealistic.
My problem is not with the concept of 5 feet being the space you control, but with 5 feet beyond that space being your range of influence. The range you control and influence should be tied to attack reach, and the space you occupy be what has to be within reach to be hit by an attack.
Maybe it is too granular for the simple 5e design philosophy, but the idea that you can be grappling a creature (which logically requires you to be at one edge of your space) and a creature 10 feet away from the one you are holding in your hand can't pass by you without being attacked is just hard to imagine.
But it wouldn’t be 10 feet away, only 5 feet away. Remember, you don’t have to hit the far side of them, only the near side. And 2+ foot long arm holding a 3+ foot long sword can hit something 5 feet away.
But it wouldn’t be 10 feet away, only 5 feet away. Remember, you don’t have to hit the far side of them, only the near side. And 2+ foot long arm holding a 3+ foot long sword can hit something 5 feet away.
They are 10 feet away from the creature you are holding with your hand. According to the combat rules that makes them 5 feet from you, but in reality, (assuming the creature you have grappled has not crossed into your space, your arm is only 1 foot into their space to hold center mass, you have a 6 foot arm span, and any normal attempt for the passing creature to stay on the far side of their own space,) your attack reach would have to exceed 6 feet to hit their center mass. Anything less than that would just glance off armor.
Every individual square is 1 square foot, and each 5-foot square is color blocked. A solid square is a square foot that is actually being occupied by a Medium sized creature, and an empty square is just part of their threat range. Alright?
This first image represents three combatants, one red and one green hostile both flanking a blue friendly:
You can see that although they each only physically occupy a 3 ft × 3 ft square, their threat range extends out from them a couple of feet to allow them to attack each other. Right?
This second image represents your scenario of two combatants grappling, red Vs blue, and the green combatants attempting to leave the blue creature’s reach, provoking an Opportunity Attack:
You can see there is only 4 feet of space separating the blue friendly from the green hostile. With a 2½ ft arm length and a 3 ft long weapon, it is completely plausible for that blue creature to attack that green creature.
Your “10 ft” presumes that the enemy’s entire square is threatened, but it doesn’t have to be, just a little bit of it is enough to stab someone. You don’t need to run the entire length of your blade through an opponent, the first six inches is enough. That’s the killy part.
Every individual square is 1 square foot, and each 5-foot square is color blocked. A solid square is a square foot that is actually being occupied by a Medium sized creature, and an empty square is just part of their threat range. Alright?
This first image represents three combatants, one red and one green hostile both flanking a blue friendly:
You can see that although they each only physically occupy a 3 ft × 3 ft square, their threat range extends out from them a couple of feet to allow them to attack each other. Right?
This second image represents your scenario of two combatants grappling, red Vs blue, and the green combatants attempting to leave the blue creature’s reach, provoking an Opportunity Attack:
You can see there is only 4 feet of space separating the blue friendly from the green hostile. With a 2½ ft arm length and a 3 ft long weapon, it is completely plausible for that blue creature to attack that green creature.
Your “10 ft” presumes that the enemy’s entire square is threatened, but it doesn’t have to be, just a little bit of it is enough to stab someone. You don’t need to run the entire length of your blade through an opponent, the first six inches is enough. That’s the killy part.
In my mind creatures are not 3 foot diameter barrels with 2.5 foot long limbs sticking out. I'm fairly thick, and my shoulders don't quite span 2 feet, and my arm span is only 6 feet, not 8 as the barrel creature in your graphic has...
2 feet less IRL arm span than the graphic, 2 feet wider IRL gap between attacking and targeted creatures as in your graphic. After adjusting for actual human proportions, your explanation actually tells me that no attack with less than a 4.5-5 foot blade could hit. Which is about what I expected, and was my problem with the whole "controlled space" explanation. And it only gets much worse with non-medium creatures.
D&D treats it like hit boxes in a video game. In D&D, they are the equivalent of barrels. Remember, it’s an abstraction, not a simulation.
Right, it is just 2 foot diameter barrels in my mind, since that is the size people are.
I didn't mean to start a long discussion about this, it was just passive wishful thinking of a tighter, crunchier space and movement rules to go with whole number metric measurements if designed from the ground up.
What is preventing the inclusion of a toggle button to change from Imperial to Metric on the character sheet manager?
You don't have to worry about rounding up numbers since you already have official printed reference of what the converted numbers are (you have the official material in both Imperial and in Metric measurements).
The situation I face today is: my friends have bought printed copies of the books with metric units, we also use maps with metric grid (which, of course, match the movement/distance rules).
And, although I love the DNDBeyond characters creator and sheets, every time I play with them using my DNDB character sheet I have to keep constantly making this little annoying math in my head as I try to walk, range attack, calculate a spell area, etc... that is also one reason my friends decided not to use the dndbeyond character sheets.
Localisation
Simply put, D&D Beyond offers the English version of the rules, which are presented in imperial measurements. Other languages may use metric, to varying degrees of accuracy, but English does not.
D&D Beyond does not have free reign to mix and match between localisations, WotC would need to publish an official English source with metric.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Oh, I see, I took for granted 2 things that i now realize are not true
1. that every localized version that uses the Metric System had the same numbers
2. that D&D Beyond had the right to use the other localized books as base for its own material
And, out of curiosity, what would be the steps required to actually implement that?
Does Hasbro acquiring D&D Beyond brings this closer to become a reality?
Thanks for the reply, Davyd
I'm of the opinion that the US should have started to transition to metric decades ago (teach both systems, put both on signs, etc). That aside, since D&d is written with feet in mind, and changing to metric either ends up using fractions or skews the balance of sizes, ranges, and areas of effect, I wouldnt use it if it was available (because I would want the whole game to be balanced around those measurements rather than roughly adapted to it).
With a simple conversion of 1.5 meters / 5 feet it’s actually really easy to use and doesn’t adversely affect game balance at all.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah... But honestly, I want a system where 1 square is 1 meter and everything scales off that. It makes more sense than 5 feet.
And besides, because if my first sentence lamenting the American education system, none of my friends would be down with metric.
If 1 square = 1 meter does a medium creature occupy 2*2 squares or 1*1. What about small creatures? Does Faerie Fire affect 4 squares by 4 squares or more? To have a square being 1m by 1m you really need to say all humanoids are smaller in D&D or you need to change the rules significantly.
The UK started the transistion to metric nearly 60 years ago (1965). and we still have a hodge podge where we are using both systems. While when filling in a form for my passport I have to put I am 1.7m tall if I am asked generally (or say to be given an appropriate sized horse when riding) I will say I am 5'7". Speed limits are still posted in mph and beer is bought in pints but milk is bought in litres. While I prefer the metric system to imperial I would prefer either system to using 2 simultaniously. The "Transistion" . is likely to take my whole life
Same as now, a medium or small creature occupies 1 square. AOEs, ranges, squeezing, etc are what I meant about the whole system needing to be based on that square size and not just converted. I don't need to say humanoids are smaller, I just need to stop pretending their arms are 5 feet long... Which, yes, requires the rules to be rebalance (which I mentioned in my first comment as my ideal situation. I know it wont happen for 5e, just wishful thinking).
I agree with you. To be honest, I was raised and educated in America and I still struggle with the imperial system because it’s all so arbitrary. I can look at the ground and estimate 1 meter, and extrapolate a kilometer from that in my head. How many ft are in a mile?!? 🤷♂️ My only reference for a mile is the distance from my parents’ house to my old elementary school because it was exactly 1 mile and I had to walk it whenever I missed the bus. 😂
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
We aren’t supposed to pretend their arms are 5 ft long, we’re supposed to imagine them moving around and controlling a 5 ft × 5 ft space.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I get that, but it still doesn't make sense that their attack radius even when stuck in place, laying on their back, and without triggering movement triggers covers a 15 foot diameter minimum.
Like how can a medium PC be fighting a creature, then turn and move to attack a second creature 10 feet from the first without having to move out of that creature's attack radius and triggering an OA? For that matter, how can you possibly grapple 2 creatures 10 feet apart? With 1 meter squares, the 3 creatures would be no more than 6~7 feet apart which 1 PC's armspan more realistically covers.
I just want rules and reality to not be so inconsistent with each other with small, simple changes.
I agree, 1 meter would be better for representing the physical space a creature directly occupies. But Americans wouldn’t know what to do with a meter and 3.3 ft would be too awkward. I suppose they could have gone with yards and meters and treated them as close enough to be the same and called it day. But that doesn’t account for actual threat range.
My arm at the fingertips is a yard from my sternum. Add a 3 foot long shortsword in my hand and I would only have to move a few inches or not at all to threaten someone within 5 feet of me in any direction. Make it a full on longsword and my threat range is even bigger. Remember, I don’t need to hit the far side of an opponent, just the closest parts. When considering overall threat range (instead of the space I immediately occupy) and 5 feet is not unreasonable. I may only occupy a 3 ft × 3 ft space in a fighting stance, but my threat range is easily 5 ft × 5 ft, likely more if I move a few inches. And 6 inches of movement should not be enough to provoke an OA. I would say that a combatant could control a 5 ft (or 1.5 m) space and reasonably threaten an enemy who is controlling their own space. It’s not unrealistic.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Which I addressed and lamented about in multiple comments including my first one.
My problem is not with the concept of 5 feet being the space you control, but with 5 feet beyond that space being your range of influence. The range you control and influence should be tied to attack reach, and the space you occupy be what has to be within reach to be hit by an attack.
Maybe it is too granular for the simple 5e design philosophy, but the idea that you can be grappling a creature (which logically requires you to be at one edge of your space) and a creature 10 feet away from the one you are holding in your hand can't pass by you without being attacked is just hard to imagine.
But it wouldn’t be 10 feet away, only 5 feet away. Remember, you don’t have to hit the far side of them, only the near side. And 2+ foot long arm holding a 3+ foot long sword can hit something 5 feet away.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
They are 10 feet away from the creature you are holding with your hand. According to the combat rules that makes them 5 feet from you, but in reality, (assuming the creature you have grappled has not crossed into your space, your arm is only 1 foot into their space to hold center mass, you have a 6 foot arm span, and any normal attempt for the passing creature to stay on the far side of their own space,) your attack reach would have to exceed 6 feet to hit their center mass. Anything less than that would just glance off armor.
Look at it like this:
Every individual square is 1 square foot, and each 5-foot square is color blocked. A solid square is a square foot that is actually being occupied by a Medium sized creature, and an empty square is just part of their threat range. Alright?
This first image represents three combatants, one red and one green hostile both flanking a blue friendly:
You can see that although they each only physically occupy a 3 ft × 3 ft square, their threat range extends out from them a couple of feet to allow them to attack each other. Right?
This second image represents your scenario of two combatants grappling, red Vs blue, and the green combatants attempting to leave the blue creature’s reach, provoking an Opportunity Attack:
You can see there is only 4 feet of space separating the blue friendly from the green hostile. With a 2½ ft arm length and a 3 ft long weapon, it is completely plausible for that blue creature to attack that green creature.
Your “10 ft” presumes that the enemy’s entire square is threatened, but it doesn’t have to be, just a little bit of it is enough to stab someone. You don’t need to run the entire length of your blade through an opponent, the first six inches is enough. That’s the killy part.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
In my mind creatures are not 3 foot diameter barrels with 2.5 foot long limbs sticking out. I'm fairly thick, and my shoulders don't quite span 2 feet, and my arm span is only 6 feet, not 8 as the barrel creature in your graphic has...
2 feet less IRL arm span than the graphic, 2 feet wider IRL gap between attacking and targeted creatures as in your graphic. After adjusting for actual human proportions, your explanation actually tells me that no attack with less than a 4.5-5 foot blade could hit. Which is about what I expected, and was my problem with the whole "controlled space" explanation. And it only gets much worse with non-medium creatures.
D&D treats it like hit boxes in a video game. In D&D, they are the equivalent of barrels. Remember, it’s an abstraction, not a simulation.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Right, it is just 2 foot diameter barrels in my mind, since that is the size people are.
I didn't mean to start a long discussion about this, it was just passive wishful thinking of a tighter, crunchier space and movement rules to go with whole number metric measurements if designed from the ground up.
“Crunchy rules” and 5e go about as well together as pepperoni pizza and grape jelly, or sardines and hot fudge. 🤢
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting