D&D 5E Size Matters Rules Purposal for 5E

[ren1999]

Proposal that is..

Size of Creatures in Squares
Fine Space 1/5th of a square Reach 1/5
Diminutive Space 2/5 Reach 2/5
Tiny Space 3/5 Reach 3/5 (roughly half a game encounter square)
Small Space 2/5 Reach 2/5
Medium Space 1 Reach 1
Large Space 2 Reach 2
Huge Space 3 Reach 3
Gargantuan Space 4 Reach 4
Colossal Space 5 Reach 5

The rules are optional below but it makes sense that smaller creatures should be harder to hit and larger creatures have more strength such as the strength needed to bash open a door.

Size Bonuses and Penalties Modular Option
Fine str-4, dex+4
Diminutive str-3, dex+3
Tiny str-2, dex+2
Small str-1, dex+1
Medium dex+0 str+0
Large dex-1 str+1
Huge dex-2 str+2
Gargantuan dex-3 str+3
Colossal dex-4 str+4

A tiny creature with speed 6 can move about 1 square per round.
A Colossal creature with speed 6 can move 30 squares per round.

Keep in mind that most monster designers probably already factored in the dexterity or armor class bonuses for smaller creatures and strength bonuses for giants, etc.. These ability bonuses and penalties are for designing your own monsters.

Other considerations were greater hit points for larger monsters, but monster designers have already factored that in a lot of Bestiaries and Monster Manuals.

Greater hit point damage already seems to be factored in as well. Larger weapons do 1d12.. etc..

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have to admit, that I saw the thread title and laughed.

Seriously though, I would like the base game to not be so connected to a grid. I would be happy to see all measurements in squares die in a fire.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Size doesn't matter and speed is not always related to it


Ok what I want is speed in ft or meters and I want each creature looked at on it's own.

Mighty mite is size tiny with 25 str and a move of 50ft.
Walruses man is size medium with a 16str and 20ft move.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I think that size should matter, but not as much as it did in 3x..and more than it does in 4e.

My preference is to have a 1 point penalty or bonus to hit for each size between the opponents, and some kind of penalty/bonus to damage for each size difference between the opponents.

That way Tiny creatures don't have a huge AC when fighting against themselves and the giant isn't bothered as much when a human sized longsword is shoved into his shin.

Not sure how to do the damage penalty/bonus tho. A flat resistance doesn't seem to be appropriate.

 

[dkyle]

I think that size should matter, but not as much as it did in 3x..and more than it does in 4e.

My preference is to have a 1 point penalty or bonus to hit for each size between the opponents, and some kind of penalty/bonus to damage for each size difference between the opponents.

That way Tiny creatures don't have a huge AC when fighting against themselves and the giant isn't bothered as much when a human sized longsword is shoved into his shin.

In 3.5, Tiny creatures get exactly as much of a to-hit bonus as they do AC bonus, so Tiny vs. Tiny has exactly the same chance to hit as if they became Gargantuan. Does it really matter if the AC is a higher number?

Similarly, have an HP bonus for larger size, with an equivalent damage bonus, and you'll get the same effect with a Giant. Where Giant vs. Giant is effectively the same as Human vs. Human, but Human vs. Giant has the Human doing less damage, comparatively.

This approach has the benefit of not needing to recalculate size penalties/bonuses at the table. They're just part of the stat blocks.


As to the OP: Fifths of a square? Yikes. For the sake of simplicity, keep it to halves, quarters, eighths. Each size category lower than small being able to fit twice as many into a square is a good, intuitive rule. Small should be kept at 1 per square, 1 square reach, to avoid overly complicating a core PC race.

 

[Hautamaki]

I always felt like the rules under-rated the effect of size. I mean the difference in human terms between 155 lbs and 170 lbs is enough to have weight classes for combat sports in order to ensure equity between combatants. What's the difference between 155 lbs and 500 lbs going to look like? Or 1500 lbs? Or 15,000? Likewise it's very difficult to imagine a little humanoid the size of a 15 lb rhesus monkey as a credible threat to a normal sized human equipped with weapons and armor.

I mean obviously we're talking about a fantasy world here with magical powers and whatnot. But it still strains verisimilitude that even a heroic human can withstand a single blow from a 15 foot tall 4000+ lb Frost Giant. Or that a blow from even a heroic human has a decent chance of hurting such a creature.

In my own homebrew campaign settings, creatures of large or huge size are already epic level challenges in their own right. A single ogre of the most basic type equipped with nothing but a loin cloth and a tree branch and encountered fast asleep and drunk should be a 3rd level solo encounter. Only the mightiest of heroes would think of taking something like that on in a fair fight. And then you have trolls, giants, etc, even larger and more dangerous and intelligent creatures... even encountered singly these things are the stuff of nightmares for 10th level and above adventurers.

I think that these sorts of large creatures should have every advantage and no disadvantages, except to being hit by ranged attacks. Just because something is larger doesn't make it easier to slash with a sword. You have to take its massive reach into account, providing it has limbs of course I guess. It doesn't apply to things with no appendages, but anything with any sort of a reach is going to use that to keep things with shorter reaches at bay very effectively, giving it a massive parry bonus to its AC and making it much much harder to hit than if it were the same size or smaller. Now if we're talking about fine things, like the size of a house fly, yes that's harder to hit than a medium creature with a club, but if something is large enough to actually be easily seen and followed by the eye and it has no reach to keep you at bay, like a rabbit or rat or something, then it's fairly trivial to just squash it with your boot if nothing else.

And the same goes for a titan targeting a human.

 

[JamesonCourage]

In 3.5, Tiny creatures get exactly as much of a to-hit bonus as they do AC bonus, so Tiny vs. Tiny has exactly the same chance to hit as if they became Gargantuan. Does it really matter if the AC is a higher number?

Similarly, have an HP bonus for larger size, with an equivalent damage bonus, and you'll get the same effect with a Giant. Where Giant vs. Giant is effectively the same as Human vs. Human, but Human vs. Giant has the Human doing less damage, comparatively.

I agree with you on AC and attack, but the HP/damage boost gets trickier. If you gain +2 HP/damage per size, then you're looking at a large creature getting +2 HP, and +2 to damage, and his large opponent getting the same. This is only balanced as far as one hit is concerned. After that, I don't keep getting the same +2 to HP (it's been 'used up' by the +2 damage you got), and my opponent keeps getting the +2 to damage. So, large opponents would wear each other down faster than medium opponents would, and slower than huge creatures would.

It'd be better to give +2 damage / +2 damage reduction, as this would apply to every hit, and would cancel each other out. Whether this is preferable (giraffes have good damage reduction!), I don't know. People probably won't attack giraffes often, but I imagine some things wouldn't have much in the way of DR (giant birds, maybe?). Just my thoughts. As always, play what you like

 

[howandwhy99]

I think there's a top and bottom size challenge with human defining the norm. It's not that a lot of small organisms cannot engage in mass and become a challenge, or that a beyond colossal-sized creature can be weakened and become beatable, it's more that there really is a top and bottom range by Size for the scope of the game.

Diseases and poisons and other elements can handler smaller stuff, even to the point of "pure elements" for example.

Measurements are flexible then. Feet or meters is fine. I really think this should be common language useful. A Square isn't a measurement, but a grid for easily demonstrating spatial positioning and movement. It's just like a map key, the scale is going to change and that flexibility is a good thing.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm really hoping they get rid of the battle grid altogether in the next edition. One of the things that has always irked me about the last two editions has been how everything, from spells to monsters to combat moves, has been described in terms of "squares."

I don't want a graph-paper game world. Sometimes my maps are 1 square = 5 feet, sure...but sometimes they are 1 square = 10 feet, or 100 yards. Most often I use hex paper. If they salvage anything at all from previous editions, I hope this is one gem that they grab first: lose the grid.

But as far as your size categories go, I have no problem with them (so long as I don't have to mentally multiply everything by five, each time I reference it in the game.)

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I got to have 2 hours or so of quiet musing while driving half-way across the state this morning... and I thought of a solution to making size matter...but had to stretch into other aspects of the game to make it work without causing problems.

As mentioned before, in 3e size mattered too much {see enlarged Goliath with Monkey Grip...} and in 4e size matters too little {see.. ummm.. ?}

A solution puts size in its place, at least from my personal perspective and desire, but takes the following changes to make work:

1 remove any stat alteration for size, to include AC/defences, but excluding speed.

2 In combat, if you are larger than your foe you gain a penalty to hit of 1 per size difference and a bonus to damage of 2 per size difference.
If you are smaller than your foe, the opposite applies.. bonus to hit and penalty to damage. This penalty cannot reduce the damage below 1.

3 feats like 'Giant Killer' grant a bonus to damage of +4 against enemies at least two sizes bigger than you

.. now to fix the weapon problem. Larger sized weapons don't deal more damage, and smaller sized weapons don't deal less damage. Instead weapons are divorced from the damage expression and become vehicles for weapon traits. Damage is based on the character and how the weapon is weilded.

Light weapons {one handed, can be used in the off-hand} deal a base 1D6. traits can adjust this up to 1D8 if the weapon is restricted in use somehow or down to 1D4 if a special ability is useful. For example, shuriken are thrown and concealable, so they would deal 1D4.

Medium weapons {one handed} deal a base 1D8. Again traits can alter this to 1D10 or down to 1D6. For example, Versatile would allow a sword to be used as a D8 one handed or a D10 two handed.

Heavy weapons {two handed} would deal a base 1D10. Alterable up to 1D12 or down to 1D8.. or in some cases even 1D6. For example, a Mancatcher with Reach 2 and on a hit, the target is grabbed might deal 1D6.

Traits could be lots of things... damaged, brittle {obsideon swords!}, masterwork, poisened, wounding, etc. Most traits would be tied to the weapon. Magical enhancements could easily be traits.

If the weapon is bigger, it increases in 'weight' for each size category. For instance a Ogre drops his Large mace that deals 1D8 and Fred the Faboulous picks it up to swing it. One size difference turns the weapon the Ogre was using as a medium weapon into a heavy weapon in Fred's hands, dealing 1D10. Had the Ogre dropped a claymore, Fred would not be able to weild it at all.
If the weapon is at least 2 sizes bigger or smaller, it also gains the 'unweildy' trait that gives a -2 penalty to hit due to the incompatabilty of the hilt/grips.

A Giants short-sword in this method could be used as a two handed weapon, without the 3x problem of dealing more damage because its 'bigger'.


This same scale effect could apply to damaging spells as well, with spells coming in various sizes. After all, 'Fire Bolt' is basically a Tiny Fireball





Regarding movement, I think it would be cleanest to just apply a 1 point adjustment to land Speed for every size difference from medium, and then have 'fast' and 'slow' traits that adjust by up to 2 points. This would emulate the Cloud Giants mighty strides.
Fly speeds would not neccessarily fit into this paradigm.

well, enough random rambling... off to enjoy the evening!