113 posts / 0 new

## Pages

sjap
Joined Dec 1969
Hi,

I've been playing since 1982: basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th.

But why can't it be metric too? (next to the inpoerial measurements)

A new edition is an ideal opportunity to implement it.

Of course it shouldn't be an exact port, but an easy conversion could be done.

For instance: (bad example)  the square representing 5 feet translates to about 1,5 meters.. but that's a pain to constantly compute in multiples (if I want to be quick), instead it could rpresent 2 meters-(much easier to multiply/compute). it wouldn't change anything to game mechanics.

Just my two euro cents for the players who live in a metric world.

have at it!

Samrin
Joined Dec 1969
Well, hopefully it won't be measured in anything but squares like 4e. That's all you needed to know. Didn't need to know feet, although technically 1 square = 5 feet. It never came up, because everything was just measured in squares.
sjap
Joined Dec 1969
Well, hopefully it won't be measured in anything but squares like 4e. That's all you needed to know. Didn't need to know feet, although technically 1 square = 5 feet. It never came up, because everything was just measured in squares.

Yes,
but overland travel, for example, is measured in miles, and everything else too.
not just the grid/combat
Gnarl
Joined Dec 2002
1732 Posts
Well, hopefully it won't be measured in anything but squares like 4e. That's all you needed to know. Didn't need to know feet, although technically 1 square = 5 feet. It never came up, because everything was just measured in squares.

I hope not! That means the battle grid is mandatory!
themormegil
Joined Dec 1969
1 square = 1.5 meters = 5 feet. Pretty simple. For those of us (like me) that live in a metric world and want to use metrics, multiples of 1.5 are a pain, true, but it's either that or having bad rules for those using feet. [Edited]
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Ideas for 5E
sjap
Joined Dec 1969
Well, hopefully it won't be measured in anything but squares like 4e. That's all you needed to know. Didn't need to know feet, although technically 1 square = 5 feet. It never came up, because everything was just measured in squares.

I hope not! That means the battle grid is mandatory!

Gnarl
Joined Dec 2002
1732 Posts
Hi,

I've been playing since 1982: basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th.

But why can't it be metric too? (next to the inpoerial measurements)

A new edition is an ideal opportunity to implement it.

Of course it shouldn't be an exact port, but an easy conversion could be done.

For instance: (bad example)  the square representing 5 feet translates to about 1,5 meters.. but that's a pain to constantly compute in multiples (if I want to be quick), instead it could rpresent 2 meters-(much easier to multiply/compute). it wouldn't change anything to game mechanics.

Just my two euro cents for the players who live in a metric world.

have at it!

Ideally the whole game would be converted to metric. [Edited]

Did you know that Canada officially uses the metric system? In Europe, we have 33cl cans of Coke. In Canada they have 355ml (12 ounce) cans of Coke. Canada is metric, sort of...

Translated to D&D, that would be:

Range*: 0.9144 meters per level

I think I’d rather have imperial. You get used to it after a while.

* 1 yard = 0.9144 meters

sjap
Joined Dec 1969
* 1 yard = 0.9144 meters

Yes, that's why it should be an approximation.

1 yard could be 1 meter, there, no problem.
Leekanh
Joined Dec 1969
In translation, we sad europeans convert measurement with the axe, so 1 yard = 1 meter. It's technically incorrect, but the difference is minimal, so no problem arises. Except when they do not do that and we have things like teleport with incrment over 1,6 kilometers ò_ò. Having to measure distance with decimals is a pain.

The real offender though is volume measurement, since the difference between the two systems is more pronunced. Picturing a cubic feet is a bit complex if you are used to meters. The weight too is often an issue, expecially since in translation you can't really round it up like 5 feet/1.5 meter, so we have funny thing like equipment that weights 0,45 kilograms... Ugh!

At least a table of conversion at the end of the book with some advices on how to convert on the fly wound be a nice thought!
sjap
Joined Dec 1969
In translation, we sad europeans convert measurement with the axe, so 1 yard = 1 meter. It's technically incorrect, but the difference is minimal, so no problem arises. Except when they do not do that and we have things like teleport with incrment over 1,6 kilometers ò_ò. Having to measure distance with decimals is a pain.

The real offender though is volume measurement, since the difference between the two systems is more pronunced. Picturing a cubic feet is a bit complex if you are used to meters. The weight too is often an issue, expecially since in translation you can't really round it up like 5 feet/1.5 meter, so we have funny thing like equipment that weights 0,45 kilograms... Ugh!

At least a table of conversion at the end of the book with some advices on how to convert on the fly wound be a nice thought!

yes, you're totally correct, (1lb could be rounded up to half kilo),
but cubic measurement can be a pain.
but like you suggest: a table of conversion (well thoghtout and easy to use please!) would be a great improvement!
mellored
Joined Jul 2008
21304 Posts
+1 to metric units.

It actually makes a fair bit more sense to have a 2 meter cube then a 5' cube.
5' is pretty small, and was only chosen for easy math.
6' is closer to "average height" (5'6").  But 6 is hard to multiply.
So 2 meter's would be great, easy to multiply and much closer to average height.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Gunthar
Joined Feb 2005
2126 Posts
You're all looney. The only way to truly capture the feel of D&D is to measure in Acres, Hectares and Cubits. ;)
relo
Joined Dec 1969
You're all looney. The only way to truly capture the feel of D&D is to measure in Acres, Hectares and Cubits. ;)

No just no.
But seriously Metrics are far simplere to work with than that imperial system.
Feed them:
orc_tomorrow
Joined Dec 1969
I've removed content from this thread because Baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Leekanh
Joined Dec 1969

yes, you're totally correct, (1lb could be rounded up to half kilo),
but cubic measurement can be a pain.
but like you suggest: a table of conversion (well thoghtout and easy to use please!) would be a great improvement!

Yeah, in fact in the 4e translation (italian, at least) they rounded lb to half kilograms for equipment. Still, when rules call for more detailed weightings, we are stuck some funny numbers...

You're all looney. The only way to truly capture the feel of D&D is to measure in Acres, Hectares and Cubits.

I propose measures in Dwarwen Cubes, Orcish Stones and Elven Ears (actually used by humans, they are just a bit racist).

Totally fictional and overly complex measurement systems. At least, everyone will be equally confused!
Qmark
Joined Dec 1969
But seriously Metrics are far simplere to work with than that imperial system.

So just substitute them directly.

I don't recall any point in any edition where a "mile" was explicitly defined as 1056 squares.  Thus, a "square" could be a assumed to be a meter, and a "mile" could be assumed to mean a kilometer.  Yes, a Metric World would be roughly two-thirds the size of Imperial World when compared side by-side, but it wouldn't really be very noticable within each world.

themormegil
Joined Dec 1969
Apparently, I was baiting the IS system. O.o
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Ideas for 5E
Gnarl
Joined Dec 2002
1732 Posts
I've removed content from this thread because Baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.

Oh come on, it wasn't baiting, it was sarcasm! It was all in good fun. God I hate how humour does not translate from one language to another.
georgelanning
Joined Dec 1969
I personally like the squares system because I like tactical grid based combat.  For all other measurements abastractions would be sufficient.  For a map I really don't need to know the exact distance between two points for most circumstances, I just need to know how long it takes to get there using the various modes of transportation.  Teleportation should be near infinite in range so any movement via that method should not have a non-combat unit of measurement assigned to it.  Similarly other story relevant values can be measurement neutral, the wineskin has enough capacity for 1 day or the chest can hold 5000 gold pieces, the wagon carries 6 passengers etc.

Encumbrance should be an optional module with a good set of common sense restrictions for other cases.   I am not a big fan of calculating exactly when a party loses 1 square of movement due to an extra GP in treasure, this kind of simulationism is best handled by DM fiat or story requirements.  If the party sounds like they are encumbered then they should move slower.  If they have transport be reasonable about what they can haul off or just require multiple trips.  As a DM it is your fault if you let them strip a dungeon down to the bare stones and then expect to be able to sell off every musty old crock coated with the "dust of ages".
Paraxis
Joined Jun 2006
1065 Posts
Just use 2 yards or meters per square.  Does it realy matter, about weight everyone ignores encumbrance anyway and feats of strength are just ability checks.

Overland movement is just handwaved down to it takes you X number of days to go someplace.

Remember this is a public forum where people express their opinions assume there is a “In my humble opinion” in front of every post especially mine.

Things you should check out because they are cool, like bow-ties and fezzes.

https://app.roll20.net/home  Roll20 great free virtual table top so you can play with old friends who are far away.

http://donjon.bin.sh/  Donjon has random treasure, maps, pick pocket results, etc.. for every edition of D&D.

flyinghitcher
Joined Dec 1969

YAY metric, I wish our British DVLA system could change as easy as D&D could.

warrl
Joined Dec 1969
There is one area in 4E rules where you explicitly have to deal in feet: jumping up. Whether trying to jump over an obstacle or trying to reach a high point, the measurement is in feet.

I don't see why the use of "squares" makes the battle grid mandatory to any greater extent than any other unit of measure. In fact I see squares as a great simplification, because tiny changes in position don't matter.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
warrl
Joined Dec 1969
The weight too is often an issue, expecially since in translation you can't really round it up like 5 feet/1.5 meter, so we have funny thing like equipment that weights 0,45 kilograms... Ugh!

yes, you're totally correct, (1lb could be rounded up to half kilo),
but cubic measurement can be a pain.
but like you suggest: a table of conversion (well thoghtout and easy to use please!) would be a great improvement!

Or you make European/Canadian characters 2.2 times stronger than American ones and increase the weight of all their gear to match. Then to do the coversion you cross out the word "pounds" and pencil in "kilograms".

... unrealistic? It's really important that, while you're attacking an undead dragon, the weight of the axe you're using is realistic?

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
Leekanh
Joined Dec 1969
Or you make European/Canadian characters 2.2 times stronger than American ones and increase the weight of all their gear to match. Then to do the coversion you cross out the word "pounds" and pencil in "kilograms".

... unrealistic? It's really important that, while you're attacking an undead dragon, the weight of the axe you're using is realistic?

In general? Not really. But it's a bit unprofessional when a translator (or localizator?) just goes and changes libs with kilograms, feets with half meters and whatever. For one, we could have funny super-fat humans. Also, is not a clever idea, because you can't know if in the future a product comes up and interact in weird ways with this kind of rushed conversions.
A table of conversion is probably a better idea. It does not occupy a lot of space and hey, it's a nice thought.

But anyway, often is not really such a big deal, you really only notice with volume measurement (hard to adapt) and with detailed misuration (for example jump distance). You get a lot of funny numbers...

Also, often you have to play with translated content and content that is not translated at the same time. For example, you have a translated PHB with converted metrics, but maybe you are using magazine content and/or an untranslated book with the original Imperial units. You have to convert the "incriminated" content, and things can slow a bit the game, expecially if the rules are complex.

Again, it's not the end of the world, but ensuring maximum compatibility of the game cannot be a bad thing, can it?

Apparently, I was baiting the IS system. O.o

That's the weirdest moderation intervent that I've seen in my life :D (without offense, sometimes sarcasm does not translate well).
Gunthar
Joined Feb 2005
2126 Posts
Apparently, I was baiting the IS system. O.o

Which is so unforgivable since I'm in the song & dance troupe "Up With Inches!"

crowscape
Joined Dec 1969
Absolutely not. If D&D is forced to deal with two measurement styles, then we run the risk of players losing their orbiters because of bad conversions.
guest1458177341
Joined Dec 1969
Squares for all powers

1 Square = 2m or 5ft (note: You don't need a battle grid to use squares.  If you want to go gridless, you're being abstract anyway, and thus you can neglect most things that involve squares).

They definitely should think about using metric units for most measurements, but I think establishing that 1 DnD lb = 0.5 dnd Kilos, and 1 dnd gallon = 4 dnd liters is good.
ixidorrs
Joined Dec 1969
But Dungeons and Dragons comes from the ol' US of A! We wont' take your commie measurements!

But really, it would be a more flat and easy system.
curiousdragon
Joined Dec 1969
-1 for Metric

There is a reason we have 12 inches to 1 foot, and 5280 feet in a mile. 360 degrees in a circle. 60 seconds per minute. 60 minutes per hour. 24 hours in a day. 12 months in a year. Its called factors. There are many more factors in 1056 (number of 5' squares in a mile) than 1000. Same with 12 vs 10.

The problem isn't using metric vs british. The problem is we use base ten--due to our biological make-up (fingers on the hand). Base twelve is a superior base and would solve both of these issues.
zerozobbb
Joined Dec 1969
Absolutely not. If D&D is forced to deal with two measurement styles, then we run the risk of players losing their orbiters because of bad conversions.

So it makes sense to stick with a system used inconsistently, in only two countries (mostly), which is riddled with arbitrary constants and conversion factors, right?

Seriously, much though I like Imperial myself, I think Metric (SI, specifically) is the way to go.

Z.
Qmark
Joined Dec 1969
There is a reason we have 12 inches to 1 foot, and 5280 feet in a mile. 360 degrees in a circle. 60 seconds per minute. 60 minutes per hour. 24 hours in a day. 12 months in a year. Its called factors. There are many more factors in 1056 (number of 5' squares in a mile) than 1000. Same with 12 vs

Before the dawn of practical digital calculators, fractions actually mattered.
Everything is decimalized now.
CarlT
Joined Dec 1969
I'd prefer (despite being American and thinking in feet, etc) that they change the squares to 3.3'/ 1 meter - without changing the game mechanics.

A s
maller square feel more 'natural' - since it just makes sense that more than two people can walk abreast down a 10' halway.    - And would appeal to us old timers who recall that three could walk abreast in a 10' hallway in AD&D.   And jumping 3 foot squares would be the same mechanically - and yet the actual distances involved wouldn't feel quite so ludicrous.

Carl
heblmedic
Joined Dec 1969
Though you might see metric in translated versions, I doubt you will in any english copy. Being as the in the U.S. relatively few people use the metric system, the base rules will be printed in the "imperial" system (side note curiousdragon, the imperial system is the british system, thats why it's called imperial. Britan uses the metric system like all of europe, and the metric system, if I remember right, originated in France, not the U.K.). Anyone getting an english copy in Canada/Europe will probably get one in the "imperial" system because running a different print run for a relatively minor change like that makes little financial sense. I believe that a conversion guide could and should be printed as an appendix. Though not as convenient, I believe this is more likely than WotC (and by extension Hasbro) spending more money on additional print runs to make a relatively minor change.
zerozobbb
Joined Dec 1969
I'd prefer (despite being American and thinking in feet, etc) that they change the squares to 3.3'/ 1 meter - without changing the game mechanics.

A s
maller square feel more 'natural' - since it just makes sense that more than two people can walk abreast down a 10' halway.    - And would appeal to us old timers who recall that three could walk abreast in a 10' hallway in AD&D.   And jumping 3 foot squares would be the same mechanically - and yet the actual distances involved wouldn't feel quite so ludicrous.

Awesome plan. 3'4" / 1m squares make a lot more sense. The large size of D&Ds squares has always bugged me. Funnily enough, switching to metric squares would give a more realistic medieval feel - by bringing the architecutre down to size.

Z.
Azzy1974
Joined Dec 2011
1467 Posts
The imperial measurements need to be put down... I would like a metric system adoption or at the very least making use of yards, not fricken foot. People can work quite faster and more accurate if you don't have to divide/multiply all the stuff by 12.

As a patriotic American, I say....

Yes, please! Thet's get rid of that stupid, cobbled together Imperial ststem once and for all and be eternally done with it.

Apparently, I was baiting the IS system. O.o

The problem isn't using metric vs british. The problem is we use base ten--due to our biological make-up (fingers on the hand). Base twelve is a superior base and would solve both of these issues.

Bah! Base 60 is superior! Go Sumerians!

I want justice for the voice that can't be heard

Vindication for every suffering and hurt

Let retribution hold dominion over earth

--Nemesis, VNV Nation

Gnarl
Joined Dec 2002
1732 Posts
-1 for Metric

There is a reason we have 12 inches to 1 foot, and 5280 feet in a mile. 360 degrees in a circle. 60 seconds per minute. 60 minutes per hour. 24 hours in a day. 12 months in a year. Its called factors. There are many more factors in 1056 (number of 5' squares in a mile) than 1000. Same with 12 vs 10.

The problem isn't using metric vs british. The problem is we use base ten--due to our biological make-up (fingers on the hand). Base twelve is a superior base and would solve both of these issues.

Euh no, we use base 10 because of this. 10x10=100. 12x12=144. 10x10x10=1000. 12x12x12= I can't do it without a calculator. Everybody knows how to divide by 10. Nobody knows how to divide by 12. I'm sure everybody here knows how much 10x10x10x10x10x10 [put any number of 10s] x 10 is.

I love buying food in the US! Net Weight: 12 Oz. Since you seem to know a little bit about physics, doesn't it shock you to have a weight expressed as a volume?

My favorite is cooking though. Cups, quart, pints, tsp, pounds, oz. Factors are 2 here, not 12. Or was it 4? I had to google it all the time. And if you're unfortunate to be using a non US/Canadian recipe, you're basically looking up the volumic mass of flour.

I'm surprised you don't have 12 pennies in a dollar .

I used to have fun in the US asking my friends questions like how many cups ni a gallon. How many Oz in a quart. Or how many pounds in an Oz (that's a vicious one). The truth is, nobody I asked ever knew how to convert all of these.

P.S: this isn't baiting. I'm just pointing out how inhomogeneous the imperial system is.
warrl
Joined Dec 1969
Euh no, we use base 10 because of this. 10x10=100. 12x12=144. 10x10x10=1000. 12x12x12= I can't do it without a calculator. Everybody knows how to divide by 10. Nobody knows how to divide by 12. I'm sure everybody here knows how much 10x10x10x10x10x10 [put any number of 10s] x 10 is.

Nope. We use base 10 because of the number of fingers.

The catch is, EVERYONE who uses place-significant numbers would describe THEIR OWN system as base 10. That's because 10 is the smallest positive integer that requires two digits - a zero in the units place and a 1 in the place of next larger significance - as well as the number of one-digit integers (including zero). If we used (what we call) base 6 we'd count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10. If we used (what we call) base 12 we'd count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, 10.

And either way 10*10 would be 100. 10*10*10 would be 1000. 10x10x10x10x10x10 [put any number of 10s] x 10 would be a 1 followed by the  number of 0s in the expression. The total weight of 100 grains of barleycorn would vary depending on which system of numbering we're using (because the meaning of "100" would be different) but the arithmetic would work just fine.

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
WibbleNZ
Joined Dec 1969
If we actually used base twelve, 'twelve' would be written "10", 10x10=100 would still be correct (though mean something different), and all that multiplication and division awesomeness would work exactly the same. Twelve is merely difficult because we grow up using ten.
curiousdragon
Joined Dec 1969
If we actually used base twelve, 'twelve' would be written "10", 10x10=100 would still be correct (though mean something different), and all that multiplication and division awesomeness would work exactly the same. Twelve is merely difficult because we grow up using ten.

Correct.

And you could divide "10" by 2, 3, 4 and 6.

You would also need two additional symbols to represent the tenth and eleventh number.

An interesting advantage in base twelve:

In base ten you know a number is divisible by 3 if you sum the digits and the sum is divisible by 3.
In base twelve you know a number is divisible by 3 if the last digit is divisible by 3

CarlT
Joined Dec 1969
-1 for Metric

There is a reason we have 12 inches to 1 foot, and 5280 feet in a mile. 360 degrees in a circle. 60 seconds per minute. 60 minutes per hour. 24 hours in a day. 12 months in a year. Its called factors. There are many more factors in 1056 (number of 5' squares in a mile) than 1000. Same with 12 vs 10.

The problem isn't using metric vs british. The problem is we use base ten--due to our biological make-up (fingers on the hand). Base twelve is a superior base and would solve both of these issues.

Euh no, we use base 10 because of this. 10x10=100. 12x12=144. 10x10x10=1000. 12x12x12= I can't do it without a calculator. Everybody knows how to divide by 10. Nobody knows how to divide by 12. I'm sure everybody here knows how much 10x10x10x10x10x10 [put any number of 10s] x 10 is.

I love buying food in the US! Net Weight: 12 Oz. Since you seem to know a little bit about physics, doesn't it shock you to have a weight expressed as a volume?

My favorite is cooking though. Cups, quart, pints, tsp, pounds, oz. Factors are 2 here, not 12. Or was it 4? I had to google it all the time. And if you're unfortunate to be using a non US/Canadian recipe, you're basically looking up the volumic mass of flour.

I'm surprised you don't have 12 pennies in a dollar .

I used to have fun in the US asking my friends questions like how many cups ni a gallon. How many Oz in a quart. Or how many pounds in an Oz (that's a vicious one). The truth is, nobody I asked ever knew how to convert all of these.

P.S: this isn't baiting. I'm just pointing out how inhomogeneous the imperial system is.

At least we gave up the rod, chain and link.  For the most part (portages are still measured in rods for some reason - or were the last time I hauled a canoe anywhere).

And, no - it doesn't bother me to measure volume in ounces.  But that's in part because I know that an ounce (volume) of water weighs 1 ounce (weight).

Reminds me a lot of Traveller which defined the ton as a unit of volume, that being the displacement of 1 ton of fuel.  Thus you have the ton (technically the dton - or displacement ton - now) as a measure of volume as well as weight.

And for cooking, it's 3 tsp = 1 tbl; 2 tbl = 1 oz; 8 oz = 1 cup; 2 cups = 1 pint (American); 2 pints = 1 quart; 4 quarts = 1 gallon.  Never mind hogsheads, and above - no one uses them - aside from gamers and brewers.

On the other hand - ages ago when I used to work as a Pastry Chef  for a French restaurant (upper-state New York) we actually measured all of our non-liquid ingredients (butter, flour, etc.) in grams.  No volume measurements in any system.  It was our opinion that the only way to 'do it right' was to be accurate and that meant weight to the gram.

Carl

zerozobbb
Joined Dec 1969
Dozenal arithmetic is fascinating. But it als has no chance of being selected as the basis for 5e, and doesn't form the basis for a system of weights and measures used by almost all scientists and the vast majority of other people.

And it's not like imperial is all base 12 anyway - there are 16 ounces in a pound, and 14 pounds in a stone.

As for 12 cents to the dime - it's my impression that the dime (French for 'tenth' or 'tithe') was an attempt at a decimal shilling - where 12 pennies = 1 shilling, and 20 shillings = 1 pound. Pieces of eight, mind you...

...but OD&D saddled us with weights and measures that were all olde-worlde, and currency that was decimal, and made no sense.

Z.