I would be inclined to make 1lb = 0.5kg and convert all distances such that 5' = 1m.
Provided you don't have people playing from different systems, it would work fine. Plus it seems more reasonable for a human to take up 1m x 1m instead of 5' x 5'.
The only thing I wouldn't convert like this is creature heights - playing a 5ft tall elf and suddenly finding you're 1m tall (just over 3ft) is a little off!
Some things that DDB provides are extra services not provided by 5e rules but also not prevented by 5e rules such as this forum, searchable indices on information, digital dice, a VTT on the roadmap, screen-reader capabilities, and more.
Should an embedded measurement converter be considered such an optional accessibility/inclusive service thingy - doesn't change the rules but makes things easier for some people to play? I would see it as the same level of extra service as DDB providing digital dice.
Of course, here's the rub: There are lots of things - like a lot of lots of lots - that would need their values flagged for conversion on top of providing conversion options that would integrate into every part of the interface that has measurements. The sources alone would make that first part a daunting task. The oodles of modules that make everything work together make it even more daunting.
Since simulated dice is all over the Internet (even at Wizards), I would be surprised if a common D&D-focused metric converter isn't out there somewhere already, too.
So, it's a "would be nice to have but far more complicated that it seems on the surface and would be quite far down the roadmap if it ever makes it there" thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Some things that DDB provides are extra services not provided by 5e rules but also not prevented by 5e rules such as this forum, searchable indices on information, digital dice, a VTT on the roadmap, screen-reader capabilities, and more.
Should an embedded measurement converter be considered such an optional accessibility/inclusive service thingy - doesn't change the rules but makes things easier for some people to play? I would see it as the same level of extra service as DDB providing digital dice.
Of course, here's the rub: There are lots of things - like a lot of lots of lots - that would need their values flagged for conversion on top of providing conversion options that would integrate into every part of the interface that has measurements. The sources alone would make that first part a daunting task. The oodles of modules that make everything work together make it even more daunting.
Since simulated dice is all over the Internet (even at Wizards), I would be surprised if a common D&D-focused metric converter isn't out there somewhere already, too.
So, it's a "would be nice to have but far more complicated that it seems on the surface and would be quite far down the roadmap if it ever makes it there" thing.
It's important to note that providing an embedded conversion tool (tools such as these actually already exist as extensions if you're interested) would have one unintended (and undesirable) consequence; very ugly values. 5 ft. (the most common unit length) is 1.524 meters; everything would be displayed as very ugly amounts:
A longbow would have a range of 45.72m/182.88m
Fireball would have a range of 45.72m and fill a sphere of radius 6.096m
Aura of devotion would have an initial radius of 3.048m
Now, you may ask "Why not just round the conversions to a neat value?" Well that would have a non-trivial rules effect which is not a decision that D&D Beyond can make. WotC would have to decide if and how imperial values would be converted and rounded for D&D, not DDB.
This isn't even touching on what you mentioned about the sheer scope of doing such a thing.
I am a staunch metric user, but for D&D it's imperial all the time; as I like to say "Fantasy units for a fantasy game". The trick is having useful frames of reference; a car is X ft. long, a single story is Y ft. high, a single carriageway road is Z ft. wide. These are things I use even when playing games that use metric; I've had to provide real world references for the height of mechs in Lancer for example. So ultimately units become someway ancillary once you have a frame of reference.
Edit: I didn't even think about weight or temperature.....
There's the point that WotC doesn't decide the layout of the sheet for this site and doesn't decide the screen reader functionality. Let's not forget that the War Mammoth of MtG 5e uses meters.
Someone is saying that the French version is using metric. (Person is saying that their book says 9 meters and not 15 30 feet.) I don't have that version. So, I don't know.
If it's true, then it seems to me that DDB would better serve a greater community by having the same metric conversions that were used in the metric sources with a way of setting a metric/imperial standard/requirement when creating characters and using them in campaigns.
An imperial-measured character couldn't really translate into a metric-measured campaign very well and the player would need to create a metric-measured character to play a metric-measured campaign. This would go the other way as well - a metric-measured character wouldn't be allowed in an imperial-measured campaign.
I already mentioned that it would be a huge undertaking.
I don't use metric. Nobody here where I live and work knows the conversions beyond 100C=boiling and 0C=freezing. I would gain nothing by a metric conversion, but as usual, this isn't about me.
EDIT: Gah. 15 =/= 30. I don't know where I got 15 from. The person specifically says 30.🤦🏻♂️
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
my thinking is that, D&D (thus D&DBeyond) can avoid all numbers when describing weight and temperature, and use natural english instead. Thus, "freezing" and "boiling", without numbers.
For weight, I would rather stick with "Tiny", "Small", etcetera, without any numbers, ever. So "Medium" weight is roughly the weight range of an adult human.
Medium weight can subdivide into "lightweight", "middleweight", and "heavyweight", where middleweight is the weight of an average human. Heavyweight is moreorless identical to "powerful build".
I see little need to pull out a calculator during gameplay.
The only tricky thing is simplifying length and distances in a way that is natural english, and also friendly for both metric and US.
In this case, thinking in terms of "10 feet" seems D&D-enough, and is equivalent to 3 meters, and the concept of "reach".
Also, where a ceiling might be 8 to 12 feet high, the 3-meter 10-feet is a useful approximation for a building story. Likewise the width of many corridors.
Close-quarter combat corresponds roughly to the distance of a single "move" and to the distance of a thrown weapon.
3-feet, 10-feet, and 30-feet (aka 1-meter, 3-meters, and 10-meters), are the only distances that the game needs to worry about.
I wish all weapon ranges and spell ranges similarly simplified. • A weapon throw (whether dagger, axe, or stone) can handwaive as moreorless upto 30 feet or 10 meters. • A bow shot (whether longbow, shortbow, or crossbow) can handwaive as moreorless upto 1000 feet or 300 meters.
Beyond this is at a disadvantage.
Meanwhile, • 100 feet or 30 meters
is somewhere in between.
Spell ranges should use these standard references as well: • 1 meter (≈ touch) • 3 meter (reach) • 10 meter (close) • 30 meter • 100 meter (city block) • 300 meter (bowshot)
So, for example, a Fireball might be 10-meter blast at 30 meters away.
Similarly, the timelength of a day divided by 100 is about 15 minutes. I would be happy if "15 minutes" is the standard (metric) unit of time for a short rest, most rituals, and a rough estimate for various skill checks.
Some things that DDB provides are extra services not provided by 5e rules but also not prevented by 5e rules such as this forum, searchable indices on information, digital dice, a VTT on the roadmap, screen-reader capabilities, and more.
Should an embedded measurement converter be considered such an optional accessibility/inclusive service thingy - doesn't change the rules but makes things easier for some people to play? I would see it as the same level of extra service as DDB providing digital dice.
Of course, here's the rub: There are lots of things - like a lot of lots of lots - that would need their values flagged for conversion on top of providing conversion options that would integrate into every part of the interface that has measurements. The sources alone would make that first part a daunting task. The oodles of modules that make everything work together make it even more daunting.
Since simulated dice is all over the Internet (even at Wizards), I would be surprised if a common D&D-focused metric converter isn't out there somewhere already, too.
So, it's a "would be nice to have but far more complicated that it seems on the surface and would be quite far down the roadmap if it ever makes it there" thing.
It's important to note that providing an embedded conversion tool (tools such as these actually already exist as extensions if you're interested) would have one unintended (and undesirable) consequence; very ugly values. 5 ft. (the most common unit length) is 1.524 meters; everything would be displayed as very ugly amounts:
A longbow would have a range of 45.72m/182.88m
Fireball would have a range of 45.72m and fill a sphere of radius 6.096m
Aura of devotion would have an initial radius of 3.048m
Now, you may ask "Why not just round the conversions to a neat value?" Well that would have a non-trivial rules effect which is not a decision that D&D Beyond can make. WotC would have to decide if and how imperial values would be converted and rounded for D&D, not DDB.
This isn't even touching on what you mentioned about the sheer scope of doing such a thing.
I am a staunch metric user, but for D&D it's imperial all the time; as I like to say "Fantasy units for a fantasy game". The trick is having useful frames of reference; a car is X ft. long, a single story is Y ft. high, a single carriageway road is Z ft. wide. These are things I use even when playing games that use metric; I've had to provide real world references for the height of mechs in Lancer for example. So ultimately units become someway ancillary once you have a frame of reference.
Edit: I didn't even think about weight or temperature.....
I think WotC already did that, by partnering with GF9 who were responsible for localization. They were supposed to do German, Spanish, Polish, Spanish, Italian etc.
Like I said, in my PHB the conversion rate is 5 feet = 1.5 meter. It's oficially printed and all that.
My book is in Polish. Someone has a German or French copy to compare?
I would be inclined to make 1lb = 0.5kg and convert all distances such that 5' = 1m.
Provided you don't have people playing from different systems, it would work fine. Plus it seems more reasonable for a human to take up 1m x 1m instead of 5' x 5'.
The only thing I wouldn't convert like this is creature heights - playing a 5ft tall elf and suddenly finding you're 1m tall (just over 3ft) is a little off!
It's not that PCs "take up" 5' x 5'. This is the area they control in combat. They can reach anyone in the next 5'. They can prevent someone from entering their 5' x 5' if they don't want them to. But friendly creatures can pass, although they have to slow down to avoid running into you while you're moving around and backswinging your weapon, paying attention to your enemy. I believe they can also occupy the same space, but you fight at disadvantage (at least the rules say this about being in a space smaller than 5' x 5' x 5').
For two people to occupy the same 1m x 1m seems harder. It would be extreme difficult terrain and would take most of your movement to "excuse me, pardon me, coming through" your way past. And forget fighting while you're both in this close embrace.
Just as a point. There were some people pointing out the simple math it takes to convert the units in your head, which is all good. The problem however is the instinctual idea of how heavy an object is, or how far a distance is. I mean sure I can easily do a "3 ft is roughly 1 meter" converstion when I need to, but in terms of how I casually percieve the world, imperial units have no instinctive reference point for me.
While it doesn't stop me from playing the game in any sense, the lack of units of measurement that I can easily understand does take away from the experience for me. I cant really visualise a world described in pounds and feet you know. As OP said, we may as well be measuring things in bananas.
I can imagine the problem is even greater for a dm having to make rulings on the fly.
I agree that visualising things in D&D becomes more difficult. I am of the generation in the UK which was brought up with both: Imperial units were regularly used, but I was taught everything in school in metric units. As my father was an engineer, used to using metric, and I have followed an educational and career path in engineering and science, I tend to think in metric for most things (the only real exception being a preference for miles of km). Using imperial systems normally requires a conversion in my head to be able to visualise it.
I think it would be good for WoTC to publish a standardised metric system for DnD. 5' = 1.5m is a good conversion to use, as is 1lb = 0.5kg. They are easy and close enough, particularly if you just run a metric campaign. It doesn't matter if it's a little short/long/light/heavy if everyone is using the same. Standardised conversions would need to be added for all the other units, too: ounces/gallons*/miles: Again, if everyone is using the same, they don't have to be exact.
* Gallons is already confusing, as they never specify which gallon. As it was developed in the US, I guess it's the US gallon, but most Brits would read it as an imperial gallon. It makes quite a big difference, though, as an imperial gallon is over 20% more than a US gallon.
As someone frow well outside the anglosphere Imperial system is alien to me, but I admit it fits better with a fantasy word. Metric system is based on the size of planet Earth and in the settings set on planets of different sizes and planes that arre not planets at all it makes no sense. The again using "feet" in a setting where goliath, human, dwarf and gnome feet would be very different makes only slightly more sense than meters.
Imperial measurements certainly feel more olde-worlde than metric, but if we are talking about different planets/worlds/universes then there is no reason to think their foot/mile/pound etc would be the same as ours. Nowadays, the metre is defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second", but we can't even be certain of the speed of light in the game world (I don't think it is defined canonically anywhere).
I think the only reason to use any particular units within the game is to allow players to visualise what is happening using a system they are familiar with. If players are not familiar with imperial measurements, they may as well define distance in blargs and weight in krumps... They have just as much meaning and are just as helpful as feet and pounds to that player.
I would be inclined to make 1lb = 0.5kg and convert all distances such that 5' = 1m.
Provided you don't have people playing from different systems, it would work fine. Plus it seems more reasonable for a human to take up 1m x 1m instead of 5' x 5'.
The only thing I wouldn't convert like this is creature heights - playing a 5ft tall elf and suddenly finding you're 1m tall (just over 3ft) is a little off!
It's not that PCs "take up" 5' x 5'. This is the area they control in combat. They can reach anyone in the next 5'. They can prevent someone from entering their 5' x 5' if they don't want them to. But friendly creatures can pass, although they have to slow down to avoid running into you while you're moving around and backswinging your weapon, paying attention to your enemy. I believe they can also occupy the same space, but you fight at disadvantage (at least the rules say this about being in a space smaller than 5' x 5' x 5').
For two people to occupy the same 1m x 1m seems harder. It would be extreme difficult terrain and would take most of your movement to "excuse me, pardon me, coming through" your way past. And forget fighting while you're both in this close embrace.
Yeah, if adapting to 1-meter or 1-yard squares, I would assume Medium creatures dont occupy the same square unless literally embracing or back-to-back. This not too different from the way game plays now, so not really a change.
A benefit of 1-meter squares is more verisimilitude for weaponry. For example, a spear will be able to reach beyond the 1-meter melee range, but not quite reach the 3-meter reach. So choosing a spear over a sword will have interesting mechanical consequences. Even the quarterstaff will be interesting because of its extension beyond the 1-meter melee range.
If D&D Beyond implements metric units (which I would use myself), I feel it should avoid "ugly numbers". Instead of simply rounding off calculations, rethink each aspect of the game, and create a new standard for metric users.
5 feet, being about 1.5 m should instead become a new 1 meter standard.
But 10 feet, should be a 3 meter standard.
And 30 feet should be a 10 meter standard.
The faster speed of a wood elf can be 11 meters, or 10+ meters.
There is an opportunity to simplify weapon distances and spell distances, for metric users: 10, 30, 100, 300, and 1000 m standards.
If D&D Beyond implements metric units (which I would use myself), I feel it should avoid "ugly numbers". Instead of simply rounding off calculations, rethink each aspect of the game, and create a new standard for metric users.
5 feet, being about 1.5 m should instead become a new 1 meter standard.
But 10 feet, should be a 3 meter standard.
And 30 feet should be a 10 meter standard.
The faster speed of a wood elf can be 11 meters, or 10+ meters.
There is an opportunity to simplify weapon distances and spell distances, for metric users: 10, 30, 100, 300, and 1000 m standards.
This would be even more ugly, in my mind, and could affect balance. The scaling is off. For a wood elf, your example gives them only a 10% increase in speed, whereas in the original they would get 17%. A halfling could either be calculated as 30-5ft => 10-1m => 9m, or 10+10+5ft => 3 + 3 + 1m => 7m. This would leave them at either 10% or 30% below "normal", both way off from the 17% (and that's ignoring the fact that 2 different ways to calculate it yield 2 different results, yuck!). There are so many things which just seem horrific with this.
If you want to do away with fractional distances, you could just make 5ft = 2m. Then 30ft = 12m, 25ft = 10m etc. It just moves from (pretty much) everything being multiples of 5 to being in multiples of 2, it's still just about close enough, and it doesn't present scaling and balance issues.
If D&D Beyond implements metric units (which I would use myself), I feel it should avoid "ugly numbers". Instead of simply rounding off calculations, rethink each aspect of the game, and create a new standard for metric users.
5 feet, being about 1.5 m should instead become a new 1 meter standard.
But 10 feet, should be a 3 meter standard.
And 30 feet should be a 10 meter standard.
The faster speed of a wood elf can be 11 meters, or 10+ meters.
There is an opportunity to simplify weapon distances and spell distances, for metric users: 10, 30, 100, 300, and 1000 m standards.
This would be even more ugly, in my mind, and could affect balance. The scaling is off. For a wood elf, your example gives them only a 10% increase in speed, whereas in the original they would get 17%. A halfling could either be calculated as 30-5ft => 10-1m => 9m, or 10+10+5ft => 3 + 3 + 1m => 7m. This would leave them at either 10% or 30% below "normal", both way off from the 17% (and that's ignoring the fact that 2 different ways to calculate it yield 2 different results, yuck!). There are so many things which just seem horrific with this.
If you want to do away with fractional distances, you could just make 5ft = 2m. Then 30ft = 12m, 25ft = 10m etc. It just moves from (pretty much) everything being multiples of 5 to being in multiples of 2, it's still just about close enough, and it doesn't present scaling and balance issues.
Regarding the wood elf:
• 9 m ≈ 29.53 ft ≈ 30 ft • 10 m ≈ 32.81 ft ≈ 30 ft or 35 ft • 11 m ≈ 36.09 ft ≈ 35 ft • 12 m ≈ 39.37 ft ≈ 40 ft
I prefer Speed 10 meters to be the standard for Speed 30 feet. Friendly number 10.
Meanwhile, regarding wood elf Speed 35 feet, it corresponds close enough to Speed 11 meters.
Notice, if you divide Wood Elf Speed 35 by 5 and then multiply by 2, the result would be Speed 14 meters, which is 45.93 feet or Speed 46 feet, which is notably faster than Speed 35 feet.
Notice, if you divide Wood Elf Speed 35 by 5 and then multiply by 2, the result would be Speed 14 meters, which is 45.93 feet or Speed 46 feet, which is notably faster than Speed 35 feet.
But everything is scaled by the same amount. In terms of balance, it is how the distances relate to each other which is more important that the actual distances. Even if you doubled, tripled or quadrupled every distance/speed in the game rules, everything would still work exactly the same way.
If you take 5ft=2m, a human has a speed of 12m and a wood elf 14m. These equate to approx 39.3ft and 45.9ft, which gives the Wood Elf the same 17% advantage over a human that 30ft/35ft does. The distances to enemies, size of buildings, widths of chasms etc would all be scaled by the same amount and the balance maintained.
Your system doesn't maintain that scaling, though, which will create imbalances. The Wood Elf gets less of an advantage from its speed increase, the halfling either less or more of a disadvantage (depending on how you calculate it) from its reduced speed. This changes the balance between the races (and classes, feats, mosters etc). Whether this is by enough to matter, I'm not sure, but it would certainly be something you would have to put a decent amount of effort into playtesting and research across the whole game to find out. You would probably have to buff some creatures/abilities/etc and nerf others. It doesn't seem worth it when there are much simpler ways.
Notice, if you divide Wood Elf Speed 35 by 5 and then multiply by 2, the result would be Speed 14 meters, which is 45.93 feet or Speed 46 feet, which is notably faster than Speed 35 feet.
But everything is scaled by the same amount. In terms of balance, it is how the distances relate to each other which is more important that the actual distances. Even if you doubled, tripled or quadrupled every distance/speed in the game rules, everything would still work exactly the same way.
If you take 5ft=2m, a human has a speed of 12m and a wood elf 14m. These equate to approx 39.3ft and 45.9ft, which gives the Wood Elf the same 17% advantage over a human that 30ft/35ft does. The distances to enemies, size of buildings, widths of chasms etc would all be scaled by the same amount and the balance maintained.
Your system doesn't maintain that scaling, though, which will create imbalances. The Wood Elf gets less of an advantage from its speed increase, the halfling either less or more of a disadvantage (depending on how you calculate it) from its reduced speed. This changes the balance between the races (and classes, feats, mosters etc). Whether this is by enough to matter, I'm not sure, but it would certainly be something you would have to put a decent amount of effort into playtesting and research across the whole game to find out. You would probably have to buff some creatures/abilities/etc and nerf others. It doesn't seem worth it when there are much simpler ways.
I can live with a standard Speed 12, with wood elf Speed 14.
But also, I am more interested in theater of mind style, and avoiding number calculators altogether.
So, I am more interested in thinking in terms of scale of magnitude.
So, melee range is 1 meter, and things can refer to less than a meter or more than meter, without needing specific numbers.
Meanwhile, 10 meters is an important conceptual space relating to a standard move, or distance thrown, or close-quarter combat area. And 10 meters is one magnitude larger than 1 meter. Things can refer to being less than 10 or more than 10 without needing specific numbers.
As mentioned, I find the sequence, 1, 3, 10, 30, 100, 300, to be optimal, maximizing conceptual utility but minimizing complexity.
The weight could be localized with no impact, but the distance would be 20ish% off if they tried to convert it to the nearest meter for movement.
I lived in England for a bit, and it's not that complex to compare meters to yards, and yards are 3 feet. Approximately 1.6 meters a grid for movement, or one short person.
Functional weight in the game is based more on size than mass, so weight doesn't impact the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorLet's keep things on topic; specifically a request for metric units in D&D.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
I would be inclined to make 1lb = 0.5kg and convert all distances such that 5' = 1m.
Provided you don't have people playing from different systems, it would work fine. Plus it seems more reasonable for a human to take up 1m x 1m instead of 5' x 5'.
The only thing I wouldn't convert like this is creature heights - playing a 5ft tall elf and suddenly finding you're 1m tall (just over 3ft) is a little off!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread - latest release; the Harvest Sprite, a playable Jack-o-Lantern Race!
Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: The Promethean Scientist (Dr Frankenstein) Artificer Subclass!!
I also dabble in art on here (my art thread)
Warning: All opinion here.
Some things that DDB provides are extra services not provided by 5e rules but also not prevented by 5e rules such as this forum, searchable indices on information, digital dice, a VTT on the roadmap, screen-reader capabilities, and more.
Should an embedded measurement converter be considered such an optional accessibility/inclusive service thingy - doesn't change the rules but makes things easier for some people to play? I would see it as the same level of extra service as DDB providing digital dice.
Of course, here's the rub: There are lots of things - like a lot of lots of lots - that would need their values flagged for conversion on top of providing conversion options that would integrate into every part of the interface that has measurements. The sources alone would make that first part a daunting task. The oodles of modules that make everything work together make it even more daunting.
Since simulated dice is all over the Internet (even at Wizards), I would be surprised if a common D&D-focused metric converter isn't out there somewhere already, too.
So, it's a "would be nice to have but far more complicated that it seems on the surface and would be quite far down the roadmap if it ever makes it there" thing.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorIt's important to note that providing an embedded conversion tool (tools such as these actually already exist as extensions if you're interested) would have one unintended (and undesirable) consequence; very ugly values. 5 ft. (the most common unit length) is 1.524 meters; everything would be displayed as very ugly amounts:
Now, you may ask "Why not just round the conversions to a neat value?" Well that would have a non-trivial rules effect which is not a decision that D&D Beyond can make. WotC would have to decide if and how imperial values would be converted and rounded for D&D, not DDB.
This isn't even touching on what you mentioned about the sheer scope of doing such a thing.
I am a staunch metric user, but for D&D it's imperial all the time; as I like to say "Fantasy units for a fantasy game". The trick is having useful frames of reference; a car is X ft. long, a single story is Y ft. high, a single carriageway road is Z ft. wide. These are things I use even when playing games that use metric; I've had to provide real world references for the height of mechs in Lancer for example. So ultimately units become someway ancillary once you have a frame of reference.
Edit: I didn't even think about weight or temperature.....
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
There's the point that WotC doesn't decide the layout of the sheet for this site and doesn't decide the screen reader functionality. Let's not forget that the War Mammoth of MtG 5e uses meters.
Someone is saying that the French version is using metric. (Person is saying that their book says 9 meters and not
1530 feet.) I don't have that version. So, I don't know.If it's true, then it seems to me that DDB would better serve a greater community by having the same metric conversions that were used in the metric sources with a way of setting a metric/imperial standard/requirement when creating characters and using them in campaigns.
An imperial-measured character couldn't really translate into a metric-measured campaign very well and the player would need to create a metric-measured character to play a metric-measured campaign. This would go the other way as well - a metric-measured character wouldn't be allowed in an imperial-measured campaign.
I already mentioned that it would be a huge undertaking.
I don't use metric. Nobody here where I live and work knows the conversions beyond 100C=boiling and 0C=freezing. I would gain nothing by a metric conversion, but as usual, this isn't about me.
EDIT: Gah. 15 =/= 30. I don't know where I got 15 from. The person specifically says 30.🤦🏻♂️
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
With regard to implementing the metric system,
my thinking is that, D&D (thus D&DBeyond) can avoid all numbers when describing weight and temperature, and use natural english instead. Thus, "freezing" and "boiling", without numbers.
For weight, I would rather stick with "Tiny", "Small", etcetera, without any numbers, ever. So "Medium" weight is roughly the weight range of an adult human.
Medium weight can subdivide into "lightweight", "middleweight", and "heavyweight", where middleweight is the weight of an average human. Heavyweight is moreorless identical to "powerful build".
I see little need to pull out a calculator during gameplay.
The only tricky thing is simplifying length and distances in a way that is natural english, and also friendly for both metric and US.
In this case, thinking in terms of "10 feet" seems D&D-enough, and is equivalent to 3 meters, and the concept of "reach".
Also, where a ceiling might be 8 to 12 feet high, the 3-meter 10-feet is a useful approximation for a building story. Likewise the width of many corridors.
Close-quarter combat corresponds roughly to the distance of a single "move" and to the distance of a thrown weapon.
3-feet, 10-feet, and 30-feet (aka 1-meter, 3-meters, and 10-meters), are the only distances that the game needs to worry about.
I wish all weapon ranges and spell ranges similarly simplified.
• A weapon throw (whether dagger, axe, or stone) can handwaive as moreorless upto 30 feet or 10 meters.
• A bow shot (whether longbow, shortbow, or crossbow) can handwaive as moreorless upto 1000 feet or 300 meters.
Beyond this is at a disadvantage.
Meanwhile,
• 100 feet or 30 meters
is somewhere in between.
Spell ranges should use these standard references as well:
• 1 meter (≈ touch)
• 3 meter (reach)
• 10 meter (close)
• 30 meter
• 100 meter (city block)
• 300 meter (bowshot)
So, for example, a Fireball might be 10-meter blast at 30 meters away.
Similarly, the timelength of a day divided by 100 is about 15 minutes. I would be happy if "15 minutes" is the standard (metric) unit of time for a short rest, most rituals, and a rough estimate for various skill checks.
he / him
By the way, I frequently refer to the sequence: 1, 3, 10, 30, 100, 300, 1000, etcetera.
This is because it is the base 10 curve of magnitude.
Consider the curve: 1, 10, 100, 1000, ...
This is: 10^0, 10^1, 10^2, 10^3, ...
The midpoint on the curve between 10^0 and 10^1, is 10^0.5, which is, 3.1622776601683793319988935444327, rounding off to 3.
Thus these numbers on the curve of magnitude are useful: approximately 1, 3, 10, 30, 100, 300, 1000, ...
he / him
I think WotC already did that, by partnering with GF9 who were responsible for localization. They were supposed to do German, Spanish, Polish, Spanish, Italian etc.
Like I said, in my PHB the conversion rate is 5 feet = 1.5 meter. It's oficially printed and all that.
My book is in Polish. Someone has a German or French copy to compare?
It's not that PCs "take up" 5' x 5'. This is the area they control in combat. They can reach anyone in the next 5'. They can prevent someone from entering their 5' x 5' if they don't want them to. But friendly creatures can pass, although they have to slow down to avoid running into you while you're moving around and backswinging your weapon, paying attention to your enemy. I believe they can also occupy the same space, but you fight at disadvantage (at least the rules say this about being in a space smaller than 5' x 5' x 5').
For two people to occupy the same 1m x 1m seems harder. It would be extreme difficult terrain and would take most of your movement to "excuse me, pardon me, coming through" your way past. And forget fighting while you're both in this close embrace.
Just as a point. There were some people pointing out the simple math it takes to convert the units in your head, which is all good. The problem however is the instinctual idea of how heavy an object is, or how far a distance is. I mean sure I can easily do a "3 ft is roughly 1 meter" converstion when I need to, but in terms of how I casually percieve the world, imperial units have no instinctive reference point for me.
While it doesn't stop me from playing the game in any sense, the lack of units of measurement that I can easily understand does take away from the experience for me. I cant really visualise a world described in pounds and feet you know. As OP said, we may as well be measuring things in bananas.
I can imagine the problem is even greater for a dm having to make rulings on the fly.
I agree that visualising things in D&D becomes more difficult. I am of the generation in the UK which was brought up with both: Imperial units were regularly used, but I was taught everything in school in metric units. As my father was an engineer, used to using metric, and I have followed an educational and career path in engineering and science, I tend to think in metric for most things (the only real exception being a preference for miles of km). Using imperial systems normally requires a conversion in my head to be able to visualise it.
I think it would be good for WoTC to publish a standardised metric system for DnD. 5' = 1.5m is a good conversion to use, as is 1lb = 0.5kg. They are easy and close enough, particularly if you just run a metric campaign. It doesn't matter if it's a little short/long/light/heavy if everyone is using the same. Standardised conversions would need to be added for all the other units, too: ounces/gallons*/miles: Again, if everyone is using the same, they don't have to be exact.
* Gallons is already confusing, as they never specify which gallon. As it was developed in the US, I guess it's the US gallon, but most Brits would read it as an imperial gallon. It makes quite a big difference, though, as an imperial gallon is over 20% more than a US gallon.
As someone frow well outside the anglosphere Imperial system is alien to me, but I admit it fits better with a fantasy word. Metric system is based on the size of planet Earth and in the settings set on planets of different sizes and planes that arre not planets at all it makes no sense. The again using "feet" in a setting where goliath, human, dwarf and gnome feet would be very different makes only slightly more sense than meters.
Imperial measurements certainly feel more olde-worlde than metric, but if we are talking about different planets/worlds/universes then there is no reason to think their foot/mile/pound etc would be the same as ours. Nowadays, the metre is defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second", but we can't even be certain of the speed of light in the game world (I don't think it is defined canonically anywhere).
I think the only reason to use any particular units within the game is to allow players to visualise what is happening using a system they are familiar with. If players are not familiar with imperial measurements, they may as well define distance in blargs and weight in krumps... They have just as much meaning and are just as helpful as feet and pounds to that player.
Yeah, if adapting to 1-meter or 1-yard squares, I would assume Medium creatures dont occupy the same square unless literally embracing or back-to-back. This not too different from the way game plays now, so not really a change.
A benefit of 1-meter squares is more verisimilitude for weaponry. For example, a spear will be able to reach beyond the 1-meter melee range, but not quite reach the 3-meter reach. So choosing a spear over a sword will have interesting mechanical consequences. Even the quarterstaff will be interesting because of its extension beyond the 1-meter melee range.
he / him
If D&D Beyond implements metric units (which I would use myself), I feel it should avoid "ugly numbers". Instead of simply rounding off calculations, rethink each aspect of the game, and create a new standard for metric users.
5 feet, being about 1.5 m should instead become a new 1 meter standard.
But 10 feet, should be a 3 meter standard.
And 30 feet should be a 10 meter standard.
The faster speed of a wood elf can be 11 meters, or 10+ meters.
There is an opportunity to simplify weapon distances and spell distances, for metric users: 10, 30, 100, 300, and 1000 m standards.
he / him
This would be even more ugly, in my mind, and could affect balance. The scaling is off. For a wood elf, your example gives them only a 10% increase in speed, whereas in the original they would get 17%. A halfling could either be calculated as 30-5ft => 10-1m => 9m, or 10+10+5ft => 3 + 3 + 1m => 7m. This would leave them at either 10% or 30% below "normal", both way off from the 17% (and that's ignoring the fact that 2 different ways to calculate it yield 2 different results, yuck!). There are so many things which just seem horrific with this.
If you want to do away with fractional distances, you could just make 5ft = 2m. Then 30ft = 12m, 25ft = 10m etc. It just moves from (pretty much) everything being multiples of 5 to being in multiples of 2, it's still just about close enough, and it doesn't present scaling and balance issues.
Regarding the wood elf:
• 9 m ≈ 29.53 ft ≈ 30 ft
• 10 m ≈ 32.81 ft ≈ 30 ft or 35 ft
• 11 m ≈ 36.09 ft ≈ 35 ft
• 12 m ≈ 39.37 ft ≈ 40 ft
I prefer Speed 10 meters to be the standard for Speed 30 feet. Friendly number 10.
Meanwhile, regarding wood elf Speed 35 feet, it corresponds close enough to Speed 11 meters.
Notice, if you divide Wood Elf Speed 35 by 5 and then multiply by 2, the result would be Speed 14 meters, which is 45.93 feet or Speed 46 feet, which is notably faster than Speed 35 feet.
he / him
But everything is scaled by the same amount. In terms of balance, it is how the distances relate to each other which is more important that the actual distances. Even if you doubled, tripled or quadrupled every distance/speed in the game rules, everything would still work exactly the same way.
If you take 5ft=2m, a human has a speed of 12m and a wood elf 14m. These equate to approx 39.3ft and 45.9ft, which gives the Wood Elf the same 17% advantage over a human that 30ft/35ft does. The distances to enemies, size of buildings, widths of chasms etc would all be scaled by the same amount and the balance maintained.
Your system doesn't maintain that scaling, though, which will create imbalances. The Wood Elf gets less of an advantage from its speed increase, the halfling either less or more of a disadvantage (depending on how you calculate it) from its reduced speed. This changes the balance between the races (and classes, feats, mosters etc). Whether this is by enough to matter, I'm not sure, but it would certainly be something you would have to put a decent amount of effort into playtesting and research across the whole game to find out. You would probably have to buff some creatures/abilities/etc and nerf others. It doesn't seem worth it when there are much simpler ways.
I can live with a standard Speed 12, with wood elf Speed 14.
But also, I am more interested in theater of mind style, and avoiding number calculators altogether.
So, I am more interested in thinking in terms of scale of magnitude.
So, melee range is 1 meter, and things can refer to less than a meter or more than meter, without needing specific numbers.
Meanwhile, 10 meters is an important conceptual space relating to a standard move, or distance thrown, or close-quarter combat area. And 10 meters is one magnitude larger than 1 meter. Things can refer to being less than 10 or more than 10 without needing specific numbers.
As mentioned, I find the sequence, 1, 3, 10, 30, 100, 300, to be optimal, maximizing conceptual utility but minimizing complexity.
he / him
The weight could be localized with no impact, but the distance would be 20ish% off if they tried to convert it to the nearest meter for movement.
I lived in England for a bit, and it's not that complex to compare meters to yards, and yards are 3 feet. Approximately 1.6 meters a grid for movement, or one short person.
Functional weight in the game is based more on size than mass, so weight doesn't impact the game.