Benchmark tables for BL, Damage, Damage Resistance?

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw

And in>cm seems to be "x2.5" (though I only bothered to check that because I added jumping distances to my stat-block template).

Yup - 2.54 which is definitely close enough as 2.5. My group is all metric, and personally I have no need for the incoherent mumbo-jumbo of the imperial system(s), but so much material still references it so we work through mm, to cm, to inches, to feet, to metres/yards to kilometres to miles pretty seamlessly and just take the whichever suits or is easiest (for whatever reason). Once you do it a few times and understand the order of scale it's easy.

Also, a quart (from US gallons) is a litre without the same general tolerance (it's really 0.94l). British gallons are about .8 of a US gallon so it's still roughly close enough (4l).

And if you really care, 1000 millibars (1 bar) is 1000 hectopascals and 14.5psi (call it 15 for a rough but definitely good enough conversion).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw

And in>cm seems to be "x2.5" (though I only bothered to check that because I added jumping distances to my stat-block template).

Yes, and (degrees Fahrenheit - 32) x 5/9 => degrees Celsius.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Farmer

Also, a quart (from US gallons) is a litre without the same general tolerance (it's really 0.94l). British gallons are about .8 of a US gallon so it's still roughly close enough (4l).

Other way round. An Imperial gallon is ~4.54L. It's also 10 pounds of water (and thus an Imperial fluid ounce is an ounce weight of water, unlike the US fluid ounce, which isn't quite).

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Other way round. An Imperial gallon is ~4.54L. It's also 10 pounds of water (and thus an Imperial fluid ounce is an ounce weight of water, unlike the US fluid ounce, which isn't quite).

Sorry, yes, the other way around. The main point being that both, for the purposes of rough conversion, are about 4l.

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Yes, and (degrees Fahrenheit - 32) x 5/9 => degrees Celsius.

Which is further evidence of how annoying Fahrenheit is, with no ballpark simple conversion :-).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Farmer

Which is further evidence of how annoying Fahrenheit is, with no ballpark simple conversion :-).

From my perspective, it's rather how annoying Celsius is. I've spent my entire life hearing temperatures in Fahrenheit; I know intuitively that seventy is comfortable, that one hundred is dangerously hot, that thirty requires heavy clothing, and (from recent experience) that zero is dangerously cold and I should not expose myself to it for more than minutes. But to talk about any of these in Celsius I need to do complicated mental arithmetic to figure out what's a near equivalent.

And for doing actual physics—for talking about "twice as hot" and so on—nothing beats Kelvin. Or Rankine, but Rankine is so rarely used that I have no intuition for it at all.

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by whswhs

From my perspective, it's rather how annoying Celsius is. I've spent my entire life hearing temperatures in Fahrenheit; I know intuitively that seventy is comfortable, that one hundred is dangerously hot, that thirty requires heavy clothing, and (from recent experience) that zero is dangerously cold and I should not expose myself to it for more than minutes. But to talk about any of these in Celsius I need to do complicated mental arithmetic to figure out what's a near equivalent.

Of course, and we do the same with our our experience in Celsius, but at least it's a scale on the same progression as Kelvin (each degree is the same...degree) and we have useful divisions from water freezing to boiling, providing some reasonable basis for some end points. And you can convert to and from them with simple arithmetic (albeit knowing 273.15 as the adjustment).

As far as I know, Rankine is really only required when you're using a Fahrenheit system.

Oh, and experience tells you everything. 100F is a good portion of summer in Sydney, good for a swim and a cold beer, or chilled white wine and seafood, and even more so further north. Dangerously hot? Nah. We hit 122F in Sydney a number of years ago (in parts of it). That was dangerously hot. Things start to become an issue for me above 110F. But then, I find anything under 60F to be cold.

It's all relative :-)

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Yup. Fahrenheit is one of the few systems I can actually grasp, temperature being something I've often payed attention to. (I do still try to understand Celsius.)

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw

Yup. Fahrenheit is one of the few systems I can actually grasp, temperature being something I've often payed attention to. (I do still try to understand Celsius.)

Water freezes at zero and boils at 100. At 50, it's barely survivable for a human and not for an extended period. At 40 it's very hot. At 30 it's hot. At 20-25 it's pleasant for most people. 15 is cool. 10 is cold, 5 is very cold (water starts to freeze at 4). Body temperature is around 37.

[Stormcrow]

For a temperate zone, 100 degrees F is about as hot as it gets, and 0 degrees F is about as cold as it gets. These are not hard limits, but they are useful indicators of human habitability.

Celsius, on the other hand, uses the freezing and boiling points of water as its 0-100 range. The freezing point is useful, but I have no personal use for knowing the boiling point.

So the Celsius scale is not really obviously more useful in daily life. It becomes more useful when working with other metric units, but this only happens in science, not for the average person.