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

[Sunseeker]

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.)

Only 4e described things in squares by default. 3e had a conversion chart, but everything was default described in feet. The grid is here to stay, without it the tactical side of D&D can't exist, and that's a pretty big draw for new and old players. I don't personally care what the default method of distance is described in, just as long as there is a clear conversion both ways.

----------

I think size categories are sorta a give and take, some larger creatures should be faster, some smaller creatures should be slower. I don't think size should determine speed, dexterity or strength, those should be evaluated on a creature-by creature basis. Having blanket statements that "tiny=faster" and "large=slower" just really don't represent how living things actually work. Some large things are fast, some small things are slow, see: anaconda vs sloth.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't dig the tiny=dextrous and faster and larger=stronger and slower.

Size should affect Size.

The relative area of your targets (Attack)
Your area relative to those that target you (AC)
The size of your weapons
Your ability to Hide behind and inside of things
Your ability to Intimidate others
Your ability to grappling


Down a size from Medium:
+1 to attack rolls
+1 to AC
+2 to ability checks to when being stealthy
-1 to weapon size
-2 to ability checks to Intimidate others using physical abilities
-2 to ability checks to make and escape physical grapples
0.5 x carrying capacity


Up a size from medium:
-1 to attack rolls
-1 to AC
-2 to ability checks to when being stealthy
+1 to weapon size
+2 to ability checks to Intimidate others using physical abilities
+2 to ability checks to make and escape physical grapples
2.0 x carrying capacity

 

[ren1999]

I hear "get rid of the grid and squares" all the time. But I think that is impossible. The original designers created this game from war gaming grids. Furthermore, if we want to roll out video games based on 5E we're going to have to have some very strict grid and combat rules. For tabletop players and DM's, they are free to ignore any rules they want. But to make 5E really popular, we've got to cover most situations with rules, core mechanical rules, optional modular rules -- while at the same time telling gamers they can replace these rules with their own house rules.

It is always a mistake to assume that the players of your game will be able to play without rules or make rules up. That is a big problem with many modules. Give them rules and allow them to replace the rules with their own.

 

[trancejeremy]

Firstly, I have to agree with those that don't want grids. Despite the origins of the game (though most early war games used rulers, not grids) using miniatures wasn't common in the early days, except for marching order.

Secondly, I think size shouldn't matter.

Due to how the laws of physics work, very small and very large creatures existing, much less fighting, is impossible.

If you handwave away the laws that would allow for their existance, you still need to then handwave away the laws of Newtonian physics, because mass is so important in how much energy is delivered in a blow, and how much energy is taken by a blow.

I mean, it's one thing for 100 lb (and yes, I know that's weight, not mass) people to fight 300 lb people. That's borderline possible, if the 100 lb person is incredibly physically developed like Bruce Lee.

But once you go beyond that, 50 lb creatures like Halfings and 400+ lb creatures like Ogres and Trolls and Giants (not to mention quadruped monsters), well, it would like that cartoon Godzilla vs Bambi.

So if you handwave away that stuff (and things like gender differences, whereas in reality, there are big difference, thus separate sports), why go through great lengths and complications that provide nothing more than a veneer of "realism"?

 

[Tallifer]

I tried to play a hobbit in Pathfinder. The smaller weapon dice sucked, and when the dungeon master made all the weapons available in the town only human-sized, the -2 penalty to wield a weapon designed for larger creatures sucked even worse. I learned quickly that hobbits are best played in the Fourth Edition, unless I just want to stick to playing a caster or a pickpocket.

 

[steeldragons]

I hear "get rid of the grid and squares" all the time. But I think that is impossible. The original designers created this game from war gaming grids.

Far from it. And wargaming origins or no...D&D is not a wargame. Hasn't been for...long time or even, really, ever. "Based off of", the idea/premise? Yes. Of course, there were measurements of distance for movements, range, areas of effect, etc. And dungeon/module maps had grids on them to easily be able to conduct the abstraction of combat and people moving all over the place...if people wanted or [felt they] "needed" them. But it is hardly "impossible" to play D&D without a grid.

Furthermore, if we want to roll out video games based on 5E we're going to have to have some very strict grid and combat rules. For tabletop players and DM's, they are free to ignore any rules they want.

And they can be easily programmed into a computer game as necessary, I would imagine. What is or is not applicable for a video game vs. the table top game is really, completely moot. Apples and oranges.

But to make 5E really popular, we've got to cover most situations with rules, core mechanical rules, optional modular rules -- while at the same time telling gamers they can replace these rules with their own house rules.

And thus the tradition of "you're doing it badwrongnotfun" lives on, even unto the end of days. This, "to make 5E really popular, we've got to cover most situations with rules" is an entirely mistaken, and historically proven false, assumption. Albeit a very popular one among a certain subculture of the playing population.

It is always a mistake to assume that the players of your game will be able to play without rules or make rules up. That is a big problem with many modules. Give them rules and allow them to replace the rules with their own.

Is it "always"? Really. And yet I have never found it to be the case.

OR...give them optional rules to include that do not require one to make up rules or ignore them, because the game is playable with a core system without requiring detailed rules (which then mandate willful ignoring or changing and houseruling).

Make your game, through the options, as detailed and fiddly as you want and leave others to do differently...not "make it as fiddly as I feel necessary" thereby forcing other people to have to ignore/change/make up stuff...and incur the wrath and reputation of "badwrongnotfun" criers, and rules-lawyers, everywhere.

The former is inclusive. The latter is exclusive. "This is what the system allows" vs. "This is what the system dictates." We should be avoiding any conception that is, inherently, exclusive. Telling me "here's the rules, take 'em out if you want" is not "allowing" me anything...it's forcing/telling me to get the game I want, I must change it...Instead of giving us a simple core and inviting people to add to it...not change/ignore it, add to it.

--SD

 

[CleverNickName]

The grid is here to stay, without it the tactical side of D&D can't exist, and that's a pretty big draw for new and old players.

Sadly, I think you are right. Still, it would be nice to be able to play D&D without a giant table or flat surface, a $30-60 battle mat, a stack of wet erase pens, dozens of counters and/or tokens, and countless pewter or plastic figurines. If they could reduce the game's ingrained dependency on grids altogether and make them optional (rewrite the rules for flanking and the Mobility feat, for example, so that one doesn't have to draw a diagram or use a mat to apply them fairly, but could do so if they desired), it would be an even bigger draw for new and old players.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

Sadly, I think you are right. Still, it would be nice to be able to play D&D without a giant table or flat surface, a $30-60 battle mat, a stack of wet erase pens, dozens of counters and/or tokens, and countless pewter or plastic figurines. If they could reduce the game's ingrained dependency on grids altogether and make them optional (rewrite the rules for flanking and the Mobility feat, for example, so that one doesn't have to draw a diagram or use a mat to apply them fairly, but could do so if they desired), it would be an even bigger draw for new and old players.

You can play 3e with nothing more than a large whiteboard, a set of markers, and a ruler if you want to do it "theater of the mind"-style; I run my weekly college game that way. AD&D doesn't even require that much, though having the whiteboard is still convenient.

Of course, I do enjoy having all the minis and fancy maps and such, which is why for my home group I build Lego dungeons and give each player a minifigure that they can use to represent their PCs, swappable equipment and all, but that sort of thing isn't required to run the game, and it's not an additional cost because I already have enough Legos to build Undermountain and the Tomb of Horrors together.

 

[the Jester]

I hear "get rid of the grid and squares" all the time. But I think that is impossible. The original designers created this game from war gaming grids.

...and no version of D&D even came close to requiring a grid until 3e (unless you count the Combat and Tactics optional book at the end of 2e).

Furthermore, if we want to roll out video games based on 5E we're going to have to have some very strict grid and combat rules.

First of all, nothing about D&D the tabletop roleplaying game should be written with video game conversion in mind. Or board game conversion. Or miniature game conversion, or card game conversion, etc. It should be written with crafting a kick-ass tabletop roleplaying game in mind.

Secondly, AFAIK, no computer game based on D&D has ever actually used the full D&D ruleset and not added things to make the "computer game" part of the equation work better.

For tabletop players and DM's, they are free to ignore any rules they want. But to make 5E really popular, we've got to cover most situations with rules, core mechanical rules, optional modular rules -- while at the same time telling gamers they can replace these rules with their own house rules.

It is always a mistake to assume that the players of your game will be able to play without rules or make rules up. That is a big problem with many modules. Give them rules and allow them to replace the rules with their own.

So do you think we need hard-coded rules for things like pregnancy rates, farming yields and getting drunk?

We most definitely do not need rules for everything. The question really is where to draw the line. While the grid and squares are a welcome part of the game for some gamers, they are an unwelcome element for many others. I think it's easier to have a rules module that is optional for these things- as they have announced is the plan- without couching much of the game in terms that require it ("square" as a measurement needs to line up against the wall with "power" and wait for the bullets, IMHO).

 

[JamesonCourage]

You can play 3e with nothing more than a large whiteboard, a set of markers, and a ruler if you want to do it "theater of the mind"-style; I run my weekly college game that way.

I ran a 3.5 game with no maps, no minis, no whiteboard, etc. We plugged in about 2,000 hours over a couple years, too. The players went from level 2 to 27ish. We didn't need those things to play the game. I bet I could play 4e with no map, minis, whiteboard, etc., too. Pure imagination.

It'd be harder, though. Just like 3.5 is undoubtedly harder than prior editions as well. I've never found the grid "mandatory" in the sense that people make it out to be. I think 3.0 was designed with it in mind, and that 4e really capitalized on it (streamlining the assumption of a prior edition). I like 3.0 in that it's easier to not use minis, but something designed without the grid in mind would be nice.

Luckily, it looks like they're doing just that. The grid seems to be core in that it will be included in the base book, but as a module. That means that the assumption isn't for a grid. That's good, in my opinion. We'll see how it turns out, but I do like that the grid is not the assumption of play. As always, play what you like