Is the SIZE modifier more trouble than it's worth?

[MerricB]

Size, as we understand it, gives modifiers to
* Hide checks
* Attack rolls
* Armour class
* Grappling checks

It was a pretty neat innovation of 3e. However, six years in, is it a failed innovation?

My feeling is that it is a problematic modifier. It creates a hidden modifier to rolls that causes problems when making accurate stat blocks, and the effects of size are actually doubling up on the ability scores in any case.

Certainly, the Grapple check modifier is of such a magnitude to make being grabbed by a large creature (often of high strength in any case) no contest at all, and ends up making some monsters much tougher than they should be.

I'd like to see it gone altogether. I don't think what it adds is significant enough for it to stay. The more important feature of size - that being reach and base size- should remain, of course.

Cheers!

 

[frankthedm]

Certainly, the Grapple check modifier is of such a magnitude to make being grabbed by a large creature (often of high strength in any case) no contest at all,

as it should be. I think the size mod needs to applied more. Strenght checks deserve it in general [as I believe the 3E playtest document did.]

 

[Emongnome]

It hasn't been any problems in our group. Some special attacks like tripping and bull rush really need a size modifier. Just doesn't make sense that a halfling monk could trip a huge red dragon no matter how many feats he had. The bonus (or penalty) to attack rolls and AC seem rather elegant and seems to make good sense. I would maybe take it out in a rules-lite D&D, but not as is.

 

[caudor]

My feeling is that it is a problematic modifier.

It's not often I disagree with you; but in this case, I really like how the size modifiers work. Granted, this might make large creatures seem a bit overpowered--but imagine if you were a little halfling standing before a Hill Gaint. It make sense that the giant would not have much trouble grappling the halfling (provided the giant is able to catch him in the first place).

Nevertheless, it may be something worth taking a closer look out for the next edition.

 

[MerricB]

It's not often I disagree with you; but in this case, I really like how the size modifiers work. Granted, this might make large creatures seem a bit overpowered--but imagine if you were a little halfling standing before a Hill Gaint. It make sense that the giant would not have much trouble grappling the halfling (provided the giant is able to catch him in the first place).

However, doesn't the fact that the hill giant has a +14 bonus to Strength compared to the halfling's -2 modifier to Strength already give a rather large swing towards the giant?

Cheers!

 

[zoroaster100]

I have to disagree. I like the size modifier a lot and have no problem remembering it when building stat blocks or calculating attack rolls, grapple checks, AC or skill checks. I think very large monsters should be hard for small or medium creatures to grapple. Otherwise you get ridiculous outcomes like a halfling outgrappling a dinosaur.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I think the mods to grapple, trip, etc. probably need to stay. They could lose the mods to attack and AC and it probably wouldn't affect much. Big stuff usually has a high enough BAB that it doesn't really matter, and they play enough games with AC (eg adding really high natural armor bonuses) to offset the size penalty it would probably be just as easy to skip it.

 

[RangerWickett]

I recently worked on a variant d20 ruleset that tweaked the size modifier, which led to a sweeping revision.

Basically, size doesn't affect your attack bonus or AC, but instead modifies the damage you deal and the damage you can ignore.

Being larger makes you harder to hurt (since your vulnerable organs are behind more flesh, and smaller creatures have a hard time reaching your vulnerables). So you get a size modifier (ranging from -16 for fine to +16 for colossal) that influences your damage reduction. If you're human in plate armor, you get DR 10. If you're a halfling in plate armor, you get DR 6. A diminutive creature gets no benefit from plate armor (you can't have negative DR).

On the other hand, large creatures get DR 4 naturally, and DR 14 if they have full plate.

To balance this, you also apply your size modifier to your weapon damage. When you hit with an attack, the amount of damage you deal is equal to your weapon damage modifier + your size modifier + the margin you beat your foe's Defense by.

A human longsword has a damage bonus of +6, so if you attack a guy with Defense 10 and roll a 15, you'll do 6 (damage) + 0 (size) + 5 (margin) = 11 damage. A halfling does the same attack, and he'll do 6 (damage) - 4 (size) + 5 (margin) = 7 damage. A large creature would do 15 damage.

Let's toss in all the rules together, and give our target full plate.

Human attacks with longsword against human in full plate (Defense 10, DR 10). Rolls a 15, deals 11 damage, then subtracts DR and nets only 1 damage. If a halfling attacked this guy and got a 15, he'd deal no damage, and if a giant attacked him, he'd deal 5 damage.

If the target is a halfling in full plate, though, the halfling ends up dealing 5 damage to him, so size modifiers tend to cancel out.


The system was point-based, so you could go the 'big size' route to deal lots of damage, whereas others might go the 'nimble warrior' route to get a high defense and attack bonus. If you're big, when you hit, you'll deal a lot of damage, but you're not guaranteed a high attack bonus.

Does anyone else think it's a little odd that in D&D, a dragon has a massive attack bonus because it has so many hit dice? Don't you wish it was possible for people to dodge out of the way of dragon attacks? Sure, if you get hit by a massive lizard, you're toast, but if you're fast enough you should be able to dodge. However, because of the way D&D is set up, attack bonuses rise much faster than AC, so at high levels people seldom miss on their first attack.

 

[coyote6]

Nah, I definitely like the size modifiers.

Now, specific parts of it -- like the modifier for grapple checks -- could be changed. E.g, halve the size modifier for grapple checks. (The gigantic -20 penalty for grappling without being inconvenienced [losing Dex bonus & the like] should also be cut way down; it should probably be based on relative sizes -- big -10 to -20 for equal size, reduced by a lot for each category of difference. Otherwise, Kong can't hold onto a halfling, let alone an adventurous person, without needing both hands and all his attention.)

Or, hey, overhaul grappling entirely.

Does anyone else think it's a little odd that in D&D, a dragon has a massive attack bonus because it has so many hit dice? Don't you wish it was possible for people to dodge out of the way of dragon attacks? Sure, if you get hit by a massive lizard, you're toast, but if you're fast enough you should be able to dodge. However, because of the way D&D is set up, attack bonuses rise much faster than AC, so at high levels people seldom miss on their first attack.

That occasionally bugs me. But it's part of D&D; if I want something different, I play something different.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Does anyone else think it's a little odd that in D&D, a dragon has a massive attack bonus because it has so many hit dice? Don't you wish it was possible for people to dodge out of the way of dragon attacks? Sure, if you get hit by a massive lizard, you're toast, but if you're fast enough you should be able to dodge. However, because of the way D&D is set up, attack bonuses rise much faster than AC, so at high levels people seldom miss on their first attack.

I actually mind this more with giants. Giants should not be uber-accurate killing machines -- they should be brutes that focus on strength at the complete expense of finesse. A reasonably dodgy character should be able to easily avoid their attacks, unless one of them gets lucky, and then it'll hurt. A lot.