Yet another meter/yard pledge

Has been some time since this cat was skinned. I will not repeat again and again what was explained in dozen of topics in the last months, but I must keep the issue visible because every international player would love a SI unit on the book. Or something easily tradeable, like 1 yard = 1 meter instead of 5 feet = 1.5 meters. 


Some previous topics on the same pledge: 


[<()>]Proud Brazilian. Typos are free bonuses. 

I'll give my continued support for this.
This is a great idea, but it's not a session report, so I'll be moving it to Playtest Packet Discussion.


Thanks!

Monica
The only problem I see with it is with reach weapons, where we don't want to get into being able to hit something that's three yards away but not two yards away, and that's easy enough to ignore.

Thanks for keeping it visible.  Yards/meters are infinitely preferable to five-foot increments, even if it's kind of weird to think people as being ~2 yards tall.
The metagame is not the game.
+1. Just use yards, which is about the same as a meter.

Maybe someone important will read this one day.
+1 for Yards = Meters!

Thanks for not letting this die off. I hope the designers at least TRY it out in a playtest.

Please introduce yourself to the new D&D 5e forums in this very friendly thread started by Pukunui!

 

Make 5e Saving Throws better using Ramzour's Six Ability Save System!

 

Giving classes iconic abilities that don't break the game: Ramzour's Class Defining Ability system.

Rules for a simple non-XP based leveling up system, using the Proficiency Bonus

 

Vote for: yard≈meter    
Having looked into the issue, one of the main differences that might concern the developers is Speed.



Regardless of how one measures them, a hero moves “6 squares per round”.

Currently, these squares are 5-foot squares, and there are six of them per 6-second round. Which in fact is a realistic speed for average human walking speed.

If the “squares” become 3-foot squares, the hero would move 10 squares per round.

As a consequence, the battlemat becomes “smaller”, with architecture taking up more space on the battlemat.



Make the round longer, and make each square 2 yards

An othour way to resolve it is to make the round longer, and also make each “square” equal to 2 yards.

In sum:
• Square: 5 feet → 2 yards
• Round: 6 seconds → 8.64 seconds

Then the hero moves 6 square per round.



Note: If the round is exactly 8.64 seconds, then there are about a 100 rounds per encounter, being the combat including the resting and cleanup afterward. And 100 encounters per day.
• 100 rounds = 1 encounter
• 100 encounters = 1 day



Also, with each square being 2 yards, the battlemat can squeeze in a bit more information.
I'll give my continued support for this.

I also support International Metric Measurement standards.

If metric conversion confusion was good enough to bomb Mars ( www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/11/1110... )  we ought to have a push for bringing D&D to the modern era of measurements with International standards.
I also support International Metric Measurement standards.

If metric conversion confusion was good enough to bomb Mars ( www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/11/1110... )  we ought to have a push for bringing D&D to the modern era of measurements with International standards.


I vehemently oppose using the metric system as the default for D&D.  The metric system stinks.  I refuse to sell out to the French!  Viva la Imperial!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHDF1psvhBc&t=14... 
I'm sorry but for all the stuff we could be discussing this is what your focusing on? who cares whether its feet or yards I say just use w/e works best...most people just convert it to 6 Sqaures anyways...feet makes the coversion easy yards brings in decimals thus feet is better for this situation
Eh, it doesn't matter as long as everything is consistant, one gooble = 5 flurfins= 10 zobknockles

I'm sorry but for all the stuff we could be discussing this is what your focusing on? who cares whether its feet or yards I say just use w/e works best...most people just convert it to 6 Sqaures anyways...feet makes the coversion easy yards brings in decimals thus feet is better for this situation


Not really. 


5 feet = 1.5 meters = 1 square


or


1 yard = 1 meter = 1 square // 2 yard = 2 meters = 1 square


Dividing by 2 is easier than dividing by 5. And for the international players, dividing by 2 is much easier than dividing by 1.5. 

[<()>]Proud Brazilian. Typos are free bonuses. 

2 yard = 2 meters = 1 square



I could live with that. I think all my old maps and boxes of Dungeon Tles could survive that conversion.
Eh, it doesn't matter as long as everything is consistant, one gooble = 5 flurfins= 10 zobknockles



This actually gets the point I was trying to make across much better, it doesn't matter what unit of measurement we use becuase were not asctually measuring anything and most people will just covert anything to the equivelant spaces anyway
Eh, it doesn't matter as long as everything is consistant, one gooble = 5 flurfins= 10 zobknockles



This actually gets the point I was trying to make across much better, it doesn't matter what unit of measurement we use becuase were not asctually measuring anything and most people will just covert anything to the equivelant spaces anyway



Agree. 


Now say that for everyone that bashed 4e for putting measurements in "squares".

[<()>]Proud Brazilian. Typos are free bonuses. 

Eh, it doesn't matter as long as everything is consistant, one gooble = 5 flurfins= 10 zobknockles



This actually gets the point I was trying to make across much better, it doesn't matter what unit of measurement we use becuase were not asctually measuring anything and most people will just covert anything to the equivelant spaces anyway



Agree. 


Now say that for everyone that bashed 4e for putting measurements in "squares".




Heh people said alot of dumb things about 4e to bash on it regardless of whether or not it was true or even made sense (ie. Claiming it was based off WoW). I've always equated DnD to games like Final Fantasy Tactics or Tactics Ogre so finally converting feet to squares and having the combat actual utilize the grid more just made sense to me.
I already run my game under yardage, because many other pen and papers already use meters, and honestly the scale of miniatures makes more sense.  Plus, how much space you occupy in combat is not nearly as strange.  If you have roughly two foots width of shoulder, then you will occupy roughly 3 foots width of space in a fighting stance.  It doesn't seem that large, but if you think about a yardstick underneath you, then it seems more reasonable (especially for a dagger user). The big issue some might have for this is weapons such as the two-handed swords and long axes, and the amount of reach there should be.

I am sure there is more that could said on the subject, but I am definitely a fan of yards.
I already run my game under yardage, because many other pen and papers already use meters, and honestly the scale of miniatures makes more sense.  Plus, how much space you occupy in combat is not nearly as strange.  If you have roughly two foots width of shoulder, then you will occupy roughly 3 foots width of space in a fighting stance.  It doesn't seem that large, but if you think about a yardstick underneath you, then it seems more reasonable (especially for a dagger user). The big issue some might have for this is weapons such as the two-handed swords and long axes, and the amount of reach there should be.

I am sure there is more that could said on the subject, but I am definitely a fan of yards.

For crazy big weapons like two-hander swords, it makes sense to *require* reach. In other words, this weapon cant hit adjacent targets. The wielder would need to step back away from the adjacent target to hit them. This is realistic, and for the game seems balanced.

I already run my game under yardage, because many other pen and papers already use meters, and honestly the scale of miniatures makes more sense.  Plus, how much space you occupy in combat is not nearly as strange.  If you have roughly two foots width of shoulder, then you will occupy roughly 3 foots width of space in a fighting stance.  It doesn't seem that large, but if you think about a yardstick underneath you, then it seems more reasonable (especially for a dagger user). The big issue some might have for this is weapons such as the two-handed swords and long axes, and the amount of reach there should be.

I am sure there is more that could said on the subject, but I am definitely a fan of yards.

For crazy big weapons like two-hander swords, it makes sense to *require* reach. In other words, this weapon cant hit adjacent targets. The wielder would need to step back away from the adjacent target to hit them. This is realistic, and for the game seems balanced.





looks like sombody has never heard of halfswording techniques.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnqOMbFDEAI
I already run my game under yardage, because many other pen and papers already use meters, and honestly the scale of miniatures makes more sense.  Plus, how much space you occupy in combat is not nearly as strange.  If you have roughly two foots width of shoulder, then you will occupy roughly 3 foots width of space in a fighting stance.  It doesn't seem that large, but if you think about a yardstick underneath you, then it seems more reasonable (especially for a dagger user). The big issue some might have for this is weapons such as the two-handed swords and long axes, and the amount of reach there should be.

I am sure there is more that could said on the subject, but I am definitely a fan of yards.

For crazy big weapons like two-hander swords, it makes sense to *require* reach. In other words, this weapon cant hit adjacent targets. The wielder would need to step back away from the adjacent target to hit them. This is realistic, and for the game seems balanced.





looks like sombody has never heard of halfswording techniques.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnqOMbFDEAI



Umm... I'll admit real-life situations require many different tactics, and there are a plethora of fighting styles with that probably do really odd things...  but if you have to hold your sword by the blade and then swing the hilt at your opponent.... I'd say you are using the wrong weapon, maces are much better blunt weapons and have the advantage of being grippable in an area that won't slice open your hand. I get that if you are using a big sword, and then someone gets in your face, it is a technique that... allows you to continue using your weapon, but I don't know how effective it is. Especially since half that video is grappling and knees to the groin.
I already run my game under yardage, because many other pen and papers already use meters, and honestly the scale of miniatures makes more sense.  Plus, how much space you occupy in combat is not nearly as strange.  If you have roughly two foots width of shoulder, then you will occupy roughly 3 foots width of space in a fighting stance.  It doesn't seem that large, but if you think about a yardstick underneath you, then it seems more reasonable (especially for a dagger user). The big issue some might have for this is weapons such as the two-handed swords and long axes, and the amount of reach there should be.

I am sure there is more that could said on the subject, but I am definitely a fan of yards.

For crazy big weapons like two-hander swords, it makes sense to *require* reach. In other words, this weapon cant hit adjacent targets. The wielder would need to step back away from the adjacent target to hit them. This is realistic, and for the game seems balanced.





looks like sombody has never heard of halfswording techniques.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnqOMbFDEAI



Umm... I'll admit real-life situations require many different tactics, and there are a plethora of fighting styles with that probably do really odd things...  but if you have to hold your sword by the blade and then swing the hilt at your opponent.... I'd say you are using the wrong weapon, maces are much better blunt weapons and have the advantage of being grippable in an area that won't slice open your hand. I get that if you are using a big sword, and then someone gets in your face, it is a technique that... allows you to continue using your weapon, but I don't know how effective it is. Especially since half that video is grappling and knees to the groin.

Yeah, half-swording is fine, but you certainly wont be benefiting from full damage. That d12 slash greatsword becomes a d6 pierce halfsword or a d4 bludgeon club.

I already run my game under yardage, because many other pen and papers already use meters, and honestly the scale of miniatures makes more sense.  Plus, how much space you occupy in combat is not nearly as strange.  If you have roughly two foots width of shoulder, then you will occupy roughly 3 foots width of space in a fighting stance.  It doesn't seem that large, but if you think about a yardstick underneath you, then it seems more reasonable (especially for a dagger user). The big issue some might have for this is weapons such as the two-handed swords and long axes, and the amount of reach there should be.

I am sure there is more that could said on the subject, but I am definitely a fan of yards.

For crazy big weapons like two-hander swords, it makes sense to *require* reach. In other words, this weapon cant hit adjacent targets. The wielder would need to step back away from the adjacent target to hit them. This is realistic, and for the game seems balanced.





looks like sombody has never heard of halfswording techniques.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnqOMbFDEAI



Umm... I'll admit real-life situations require many different tactics, and there are a plethora of fighting styles with that probably do really odd things...  but if you have to hold your sword by the blade and then swing the hilt at your opponent.... I'd say you are using the wrong weapon, maces are much better blunt weapons and have the advantage of being grippable in an area that won't slice open your hand. I get that if you are using a big sword, and then someone gets in your face, it is a technique that... allows you to continue using your weapon, but I don't know how effective it is. Especially since half that video is grappling and knees to the groin.


Half sword techniques are not some crazy oddball or rare thing - they are a legitimate (and much more common than folks think) way to fight with a sword.  Real fighting, not Hollywood fighting.  Also, you're not going to slice your hand open holding a sword this way - it's not a razor blade - and yes, even bare-handed, never mind wearing armor or gloves.




Umm... I'll admit real-life situations require many different tactics, and there are a plethora of fighting styles with that probably do really odd things...  but if you have to hold your sword by the blade and then swing the hilt at your opponent.... I'd say you are using the wrong weapon, maces are much better blunt weapons and have the advantage of being grippable in an area that won't slice open your hand. I get that if you are using a big sword, and then someone gets in your face, it is a technique that... allows you to continue using your weapon, but I don't know how effective it is. Especially since half that video is grappling and knees to the groin.


Half sword techniques are not some crazy oddball or rare thing - they are a legitimate (and much more common than folks think) way to fight with a sword.  Real fighting, not Hollywood fighting.  Also, you're not going to slice your hand open holding a sword this way - it's not a razor blade - and yes, even bare-handed, never mind wearing armor or gloves.



If it is sharp enough to cut the guy being attacked I would think it is sharp enough to cut you hand, flesh is flesh after all. Also, I'm not sure I would trust my grip on the blade of a sword, especially if I was wearing metal gloves which would have little traction.

But honestly, I think my main point stands. Legitimate tactic or not, it is not as effective as swinging a weapon by it's hilt as it was designed to be swung. I'm not an expert in real-life fighting, I could be completely wrong, but it seems like you would be more effective dropping your weapon and attacking your opponent with those metal encased fists than swinging a sword hilt by the blade of the sword.
International squares (like in 4E), please!




Umm... I'll admit real-life situations require many different tactics, and there are a plethora of fighting styles with that probably do really odd things...  but if you have to hold your sword by the blade and then swing the hilt at your opponent.... I'd say you are using the wrong weapon, maces are much better blunt weapons and have the advantage of being grippable in an area that won't slice open your hand. I get that if you are using a big sword, and then someone gets in your face, it is a technique that... allows you to continue using your weapon, but I don't know how effective it is. Especially since half that video is grappling and knees to the groin.


Half sword techniques are not some crazy oddball or rare thing - they are a legitimate (and much more common than folks think) way to fight with a sword.  Real fighting, not Hollywood fighting.  Also, you're not going to slice your hand open holding a sword this way - it's not a razor blade - and yes, even bare-handed, never mind wearing armor or gloves.



If it is sharp enough to cut the guy being attacked I would think it is sharp enough to cut you hand, flesh is flesh after all. Also, I'm not sure I would trust my grip on the blade of a sword, especially if I was wearing metal gloves which would have little traction.

But honestly, I think my main point stands. Legitimate tactic or not, it is not as effective as swinging a weapon by it's hilt as it was designed to be swung. I'm not an expert in real-life fighting, I could be completely wrong, but it seems like you would be more effective dropping your weapon and attacking your opponent with those metal encased fists than swinging a sword hilt by the blade of the sword.


Well, full disclaimer, I'm not an expert either, but I guess you could say I'm a bit of an enthusiast in the subject.

It's not the sharp edge that cuts with a weapon, it's the lever-action, weight of the weapon and strength of the steel (or metal) that's doing most of the cutting - of course, the strength behind the swing counts for something as well.  A sword edge is a bit like a dull knife, sure you can cut with it, but it'll take some effort.  It's the same as with an ax, it's not very sharp either, you can grip the ax head and not cut yourself, but it'll still take down a tree (and in combat, crush bone, destroy flesh and puncture plate armor better than a swung sword blade will).

As for your main point, it depends on what you mean by effective.  If you want to cleave someone in two, then no, it's not as effective obviously, but if you just want to cause enough damage to take someone out of a fight, that hilt (swung with that lever action) will crush a skull and therefore easily take someone out of a fight.  In fact, some sword hilts were given spiked ends for using the sword this way to penetrate armor like a pick.  Imagine getting hit by a hammer with it's end slightly sharpened instead of flattened and with an additional 1' on the handle, multiplying the force of the attacker's swing...

Yeah, it'll break bones, tear through flesh and just generally mess up your day. ;)
+1 for Yards = Meters! for me too. . . I like both so I'd just use yards, but I like it more than 5' squares.
He who should not speak...
why should halfswording do any less damage? that is a level of detail that isn't needed in DND.

if you want an example of why that is a bad idea, look at Rifts.


and cheosmancer, you are missing the point of that overhand swing, the guy wasn't trying to go for the kill (although he wouldn't mind if he did get the kill from that attack i suppose), rather he was trying to use the shape of his hilt to hook his opponents weapon and disarm him.

Longswords are the swiss army knife of weapons, they are offensive and defencive, and every single bit of that sword is used for combat by a seasoned fighter.

cuts were rarely used against knights because the armour they are wearing is near imutable, instead knights needed a way to disarm their opponent and hopefully knock them on the ground.

also consider that a knight in that kind of armour is rich, his opponent doesn't want to kill him, he wants to capture him for the ransom.

actual sword cuts were used with longswords against the common rabble that didn't have armour, and in this case longswords had great reach, but also consider that in DND there can be at any one time a maximum of 10 feet between each opponent (as the rules for spacing has each opponent owning a 5 by 5 foot square) and 10 feet is about the range of a longsword when you factore in the movement a combatent makes when he is swinging it (they would usually step into a kill swing to cross distance at a good speed and add extra force to the strike).
I assume you're using "longsword" the way people who actually fight with (replicas of) them do, not the way D&D does, especially when you talk about a 10-foot range. In this context (where familiarity with D&D can be assumed, but familiarity with real fighting can't), you might want to be clear that that's closer to what D&D calls a "bastard sword" or even a "two-handed sword".
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
I see no reason why 5e could not move to a 3 foot or 1 meter square... This really seems like a very easy change if you are publishing all new rules/books anyway.
As one of those non-Americans on whose behalf the original poster claims to be speaking, I prefer that D&D stick to feet and miles. Why? Precisely because they feel archaic to me, while still being familiar enough to relate to. Meters feel right for a modern or sci-fi game, but Imperial measures are perfect for D&D, and that's because, not in spite, of their outdated feel.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
As one of those non-Americans on whose behalf the original poster claims to be speaking, I prefer that D&D stick to feet and miles. Why? Precisely because they feel archaic to me, while still being familiar enough to relate to. Meters feel right for a modern or sci-fi game, but Imperial measures are perfect for D&D, and that's because, not in spite, of their outdated feel.



My sentiments exactly.  The Imperial System is what was used in the era that is being copied here (Medieval Europe).  Keep the Imperial System for fantasy games.  Use Metric for more modern and futuristic games.  If you can't use the Imperial System, then simply house rule the squares system.
However, the yard is a unit of measurement that was in Medieval Europe, often being attributed to Kings of England, around the Tenth Century AD/CE, this would satisfy your need for imperial measurements and those who want a simple metric conversion.  Also, in the late dark ages/medieval era the measurements were far from exact and often used all manners of relatable human analogues ranging from feet, to hands, to paces, so on and so forth.  You never hear about arguments for things being put in leagues instead of miles.
Instead of focusing on grid size, lets focus on standard combat distances.

Melee: 3 feet (1 meter)
Close: 30 feet (10 meters) = 1 move action!
Short Range: 300 feet (100 meters) = bow
Long Range: 3000 feet (1000 meters)

If D&D uses the above ranges for most official measurements, then both American and International can play easily and convert measurements easily.

  

Searching thru the new spells, the distances of most spells are 50 or 100 feet:

3' (×2)
5' (×7)
10' (×12)
15' (×2)
20' (×7)
25' (×4) 
30' (×3)
50' (×30)
60'
100' (×14)
120' (×4)
200'
300' (×3)
400'
1000'


 
Now probably, most of the time, I wont be using a gridded map anyway. So maybe, it doesnt matter how big the grid “square” is. What matters is what the standard distances are.

Now notice, the STANDARD SPEED of heroes is 30 feet per round. This is the distances that will happen every round for the entirety of the D&D game. Every gamer is familiar with 30-foot unit of moving distance.

In fact, this standard unit of distance of 30 feet is equivalent to 10 meters or 10 yards. This base unit of “speed 10 m” is already friendly for metric players.



So all we need to do use the base 30 feet for all standard gaming measurements.

Is the target of the spell within one round of movement? (In other words, can the target typically attack the mage in the targets next turn?) Or is the target more than two moves away? (In other words, will the target typically need to run to reach the mage on the next turn?)

It seems helpful for all players to base combat measurements on the speed distance.   



The following table simplifies the variations of measurements to the following standard measurements:


Melee (Hand-to-Hand)
3 feet
Within this distance:
• hand-to-hand
• most melee weapons

(1 meter)  
(instead of 3', 5')

Extended Melee (Polearm)
10 feet
Within this distance:
• most polearms
• effective reach of Huge humanoid

(3 meters)
(instead of 10', 15')

Close (Throw)
30 feet
Within this distance:
• 1 move action
• close-quarters combat
• also called very short range
• effective range of most throwing weapons

(10 meters)
(instead of 15', 20', 25', 30')

Extended Close (Spell Range)
100 feet
Within this distance:
• 3 move actions
• beyond close combat
• extreme limit of most throwing weapons 
• effective range of most Wizard spells

(30 meters)
(instead of 50', 60', 100', 120')

Short Range (Bow)
300 feet
Within this distance:
• Speed per minute
• effective range of most bows, composite bows, and crossbows

(100 meters)
(instead of 200', 300', 400')

Extended Short Range
1000 feet
Within this distance:
• extreme limit of most bows

(300 meters)

Long Range
3000 feet
Within this distance:
• range of modern long-range rifles

(1000 meters or 1 km)




In sum:

Melee: 3 feet (1 meter)
Close: 30 feet (10 meters) = 1 move action!
Short Range: 300 feet (100 meters) = bow range
Long Range: 3000 feet (1000 meters)
 
International squares (like in 4E), please!



Eh, 4e or not 4e, grid or ToTM, it's simpler for everyone to say "1 yard = 1 meter = 1 square = 1 hex". No conversion necessary for those who want to use metric, imperial, squares, or hexes*, just "range:6" or "range:30" or whatever no matter what you're using.










*Or tesselating escher-like drawings if you decide to play "Dungeons Are Dragons" instead.

Bump. Please, check it again. 

[<()>]Proud Brazilian. Typos are free bonuses. 

2 yard = 2 meters = 1 square Cool
This. Yards to everyone!
[<o>]
I like the idea of using semi-fantasy units:
"finger" = 0.5 in = 1 cm
"thumb" = 1 in = 2.5 cm
"hand" = 4 in  = 10 cm
"foot" = 1 ft = 30 cm
"arm" = 3 ft = 1 m
"pace" = 5 ft = 1.5 m
"flight" = 120 paces = 600 ft = 200 m (distance you can shoot a longbow, or hustle in one minute)
"mile" = 1000 paces = 5000 ft = 1.5 km
"league" = 3000 paces = 3 miles = 5 km (distance you can walk in an hour)

It gets you away from the English/metric problem, but the shorter units are still familiar enough to work with.
Probably already suggested, but it doesn't break things that much to say 5 feet = 1 meter for AoE, does it? You can pretend that instead of Feet (30 cm), D&D means Span (20 cm).

Personally, I like the Imperial measures. I grew up on metric, but I found it quaint and interesting to have to use feet and miles, even if I had to convert in my head. So I second sticking with Imperical/Biblical units. 
 

Probably already suggested, but it doesn't break things that much to say 5 feet = 1 meter for AoE, does it?


Personally? I don't care much. I got used to use squares for everything, and always write the square-size after everything, like: Speed 30ft/9m (6 squares). 


The problem stated here is that local publishers will use normal math and convert 5ft to 1.5m. There is nothing we can do to change that, this is pure conversion. Locally changing it to 1m or 2m will mostly bring the purists' rage because "they messed up the original math". Changing the base unit to yard will mostly ensure that local publishers will convert it to 1m, since they are almost the same.


I understand that WotC don't want to publish in metric because US units are on imperial, but they are a huge entertainment group. They have licenses to sell overseas, and everyone else in the world uses metric. They can throw us a bone doing some math that don't get everything hard enough once converted to metric. And going to define how many squares is on 27 meters is not as easy as defining how many squares are on 120 ft. 

[<()>]Proud Brazilian. Typos are free bonuses.