removing size modifier for attack

[Theo R Cwithin]

Is it too unbalancing to remove the size bonus/penalty on the attack roll?

It has always seemed to me somewhat redundant with the AC bonus/penalty, and overly advantageous for smaller creatures. Anyone have experience trying this, or could point me to a discussion of this somewhere? Thanks.

 

[Steinhauser]

The thing is, once this happens, an ogre will have an easier time hitting another ogre than a halfling will have hitting another halfling. (And it has nothing to do with Dexterity.) The size bonus to Attack is supposed to equal and cancel out the size bonus to AC.

 

[Celebrim]

Is it too unbalancing to remove the size bonus/penalty on the attack roll?

Probably not, although big creatures will become even more powerful and consequently spells that increase a creatures size will need to to up a level.

It has always seemed to me somewhat redundant with the AC bonus/penalty, and overly advantageous for smaller creatures.

It's only overly advantageous for smaller creatures if smaller creatures have average or better attributes - which sadly, they usually do.

Side rant here, but is anyone other than me annoyed about the fact that nothing seems to have a lower con than an elf? Small creatures like rats and cockroaches may be extremely hardy, but that's only relative hardiness. They have extremely high fortitudes for creatures there size, but they are still pretty fragile. I get so freakin' annoyed when I see a 'small dog' with a Con of 15. What you really ought to have is something like Con 11 and Endurance as a racial feat. Con 11 is a very high constitution for a small creature. At least dogs are hardy, enduring animals. What's even worse is 'house cat' at Con 10. Even big cats have pretty fragile health, take care to avoid carrion, are prone to disease and toxins, etc. and medium-sized cat is a good candidate for a racial con penalty (offsetting the extremely high speed and strength for its size). A tiny cat ought to have a Con around 4 or 5. A lion should be like Con 12 at most.

Anyway, that's usually the problem with small races being overly advantaged compared to big ones. There are some other issues at play, but usually excessively high attributes are at the heart of them.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

The thing is, once this happens, an ogre will have an easier time hitting another ogre than a halfling will have hitting another halfling. (And it has nothing to do with Dexterity.) The size bonus to Attack is supposed to equal and cancel out the size bonus to AC.

I see, good point. I knew there was a reason for it. And I suppose that ditching the attack bonus for relative AC bonus just gets you the RAW result, but with an extra layer of arithmetic in there. Frex:

halfling (atk+1, AC+1) vs ogre (atk-1, AC-1)

is equivalent to (?)

halfling (AC+2) vs ogre (AC-2)

Probably not, although big creatures will become even more powerful and consequently spells that increase a creatures size will need to to up a level.

It's only overly advantageous for smaller creatures if smaller creatures have average or better attributes - which sadly, they usually do.

Point taken. I guess I'm seeing a bigger problem than is actually there.

Side rant here, but is anyone other than me annoyed about the fact that nothing seems to have a lower con than an elf? Small creatures like rats and cockroaches may be extremely hardy, but that's only relative hardiness. They have extremely high fortitudes for creatures there size, but they are still pretty fragile. I get so freakin' annoyed when I see a 'small dog' with a Con of 15.

Agreed. I don't care how healthy that rat is; if I smack it with a heavy mace, it should splatter.

It seems that CON is trying to double as "health" and "stoutness". A small dog with CON 15 is fine with me, though as you said, that would be a particularly healthy dog, and not an average CON 11 (maybe 12... I mean, look at what dogs eat! ) But that same dog is still relatively easy to hurt, just by virtue of being small. Wound points kind of try to address this by adjusting with a size multiplier (though I prefer a more brutal multiplier than UA's).

 

[Ashtagon]

The size modifiers to AC and attack are meant to directly counteract each other, so that the net result is zero if attacker and defender are the same size.

What bugs me about this is this. Let's suppose I'm a human with a sword. According to RAW, things get progressively easier to hit as they get larger. But really, whether my target is a Large ogre or a Gargantuan dragon, the amount of creature which can potentially be hit by my sword is exactly the same; the target isn't actually any bigger, since most of that extra size isn't a viable target (my sword can't reach the far end of that dragon).

On the opposite scale, progressively smaller things are harder to hit in melee. This bugs me for a different reason - my sword (or club, or fly swatter) is relatively speaking much bigger than the target, and thus that much harder for him to dodge it.

Personally, my take on it is that size modifiers to AC only apply to missile attacks, and attacker's size has no bearing on the issue.

 

[Steinhauser]

The whole size system is a massive simplification. Damage should really increase exponentially with size - it doesn't, in the interest of game balance. A Huge tyrannosaurus is doing 3d6+13 damage with a bite attack - that's three hits with a short sword from an average fighter. Try doing as much damage, to anything, with a short sword in 3 seconds that a T. rex could in one. Even if you have 18 strength. A Colossal dragon is likewise doing 4d6 damage - 4 short sword hits - with its horse-and-wagon-sized claws.

That said, if damage can be simplified in the interest of balance, so can attack rolls.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Is it too unbalancing to remove the size bonus/penalty on the attack roll?

It has always seemed to me somewhat redundant with the AC bonus/penalty, and overly advantageous for smaller creatures. Anyone have experience trying this, or could point me to a discussion of this somewhere? Thanks.

The only <Medium size that's arguably over-advantaged is Small, but that's a result of the fact that Small has Medium's reach, not with a measly +1 bonus.

Side rant here, but is anyone other than me annoyed about the fact that nothing seems to have a lower con than an elf? Small creatures like rats and cockroaches may be extremely hardy, but that's only relative hardiness. They have extremely high fortitudes for creatures there size, but they are still pretty fragile. I get so freakin' annoyed when I see a 'small dog' with a Con of 15. What you really ought to have is something like Con 11 and Endurance as a racial feat. Con 11 is a very high constitution for a small creature. At least dogs are hardy, enduring animals. What's even worse is 'house cat' at Con 10. Even big cats have pretty fragile health, take care to avoid carrion, are prone to disease and toxins, etc. and medium-sized cat is a good candidate for a racial con penalty (offsetting the extremely high speed and strength for its size). A tiny cat ought to have a Con around 4 or 5. A lion should be like Con 12 at most.

What annoys me is the way that 3e kinda sorta tries to be realistic, but does it in such a patchy half-@ssed way. For example:

1. Small size stealing Medium's space and reach. I know it's because we feel that we just have to have Small PC races, and they just have to be as good at hand-to-hand as anyone else, but come on!

2. These +/- 1, 2, 4, 8 mods were thought up by a mathlete wanna-be. They look all spiffy and sophisticated, but they don't add realism or anything else of value to the game. I'm in favor of +/- 1, 2, 3, 4 myself.

3. I don't have a problem with smaller creatures having, on average, equal Con to larger creatures. PCs aside, smaller creatures usually have less HP and Fort because they have less HD. Of course that means that larger creatures have more Reflex and Will, but game balance and all that...you know the drill. Whatever, D&D just isn't realistic all. Even when it really tries to be.

What bugs me about this is this. Let's suppose I'm a human with a sword. According to RAW, things get progressively easier to hit as they get larger. But really, whether my target is a Large ogre or a Gargantuan dragon, the amount of creature which can potentially be hit by my sword is exactly the same; the target isn't actually any bigger, since most of that extra size isn't a viable target (my sword can't reach the far end of that dragon).

On the opposite scale, progressively smaller things are harder to hit in melee. This bugs me for a different reason - my sword (or club, or fly swatter) is relatively speaking much bigger than the target, and thus that much harder for him to dodge it.

You may be right. I've always rationalized it with 'smaller creatures move faster (faster metabolisms), so if they can get close enough to hit a bigger creature they probably will.' Not a bulletproof theory, but whaddya want? It's D&D!

 

[CAFargo]

Agreed. I don't care how healthy that rat is; if I smack it with a heavy mace, it should splatter.

It seems that CON is trying to double as "health" and "stoutness". A small dog with CON 15 is fine with me, though as you said, that would be a particularly healthy dog, and not an average CON 11 (maybe 12... I mean, look at what dogs eat! ) But that same dog is still relatively easy to hurt, just by virtue of being small. Wound points kind of try to address this by adjusting with a size multiplier (though I prefer a more brutal multiplier than UA's).

I personally think that the con score ignores the size, and rather attempts to judge a creature's personal internal systems. For example, I think con 15 for a small dog is actually too small for a small dog...a dog will roll around in just about anything like dirt and will eat carrion in the wild.

If your problem is that the creatures are so small that they should go "splatter" when hit with a heavy mace, the DMG has rules for massive damage based on size. Still, I think that a rat could probably avoid going splatter from a mace hit due to its ability to DODGE hits!

Also, if you get rid of the attack penalty, creatures of equal size will have a harder or easier time hitting each other based on size, which wouldn't make since. The AC bonus and attack bonus are designed so that two small creatures and two large creatures would gain no penalty or advantage over each other, but a small creature could probably avoid a large creature pretty well.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

The whole size system is a massive simplification.

Absolutely, of course! A lot of d20's "problems" arise from trying to cram exponential (or log or continuous or asymmetric or bell curve or whatever) functions into a linear box. With a 'size' of exactly 1 to 20, no less!

Still it just feels like size modifiers in combat are an incomplete or poorly thought-out simplification. It seems strange to me that the smallness advantage is split between attack and defense, when it would be simpler to keep the bonus all on one side or the other and make relative size the issue. Judging from what people have pointed out in this thread, the fact that it is split seems specifically intended to make sure it evens out when two like-size opponents are facing off. IMHO, that's messy... but I might be saying it just because it makes it hard to tinker with

Personally, my take on it is that size modifiers to AC only apply to missile attacks, and attacker's size has no bearing on the issue.

Now this is interesting. It certainly simplifies things, to just drop the modifiers in melee. I rather like it! Have you used this in play?

I might still give larger creatures a slight disadvantage in melee, perhaps just a straight "the bigger size category creature take a -1 size penalty to AC" and just leave it at that. It's easy, and works as well for dragons vs men, as for cats vs mice (with little swords and plumed hats, of course).

Grappling's still an issue, but that's another topic.

What annoys me is the way that 3e kinda sorta tries to be realistic, but does it in such a patchy half-@ssed way.

Sums it up nicely! And yet, every couple years, when I think about it, I open the can of worms again and start picking through the mess Though in all fairness, they did get a few of the simpler things right. Like Jump checks.

Fortunately there's people out there who've already done a lot of grunt work and made houserules available as a (well appreciated!) starting point for the less adept DMs out there, like me! (@TS, I know you've made yours available. Thanks to you, and all the others who have done so!)

 

[Celebrim]

And yet, every couple years, when I think about it, I open the can of worms again and start picking through the mess

There are literally hundreds of 'bugs' I'd like to squash in the 3.x 'code', but I've never been tempted to really try to make 3.X realistic. I might want to remove any unnecessary unrealism that I think hinders play, but for most of the unrealism my opinion is 'good enough for a game, and perhaps better than good'.

The reason for this is that I've left AD&D over its lack of realism before, and I went from AD&D to GURPS, and after getting frustrated with GURPS, went to GULLIVER.

For those of you that don't know GULLIVER, it's this. GULLIVER is an amazing peice of work and it taught be alot about working with rules to achieve some goal. But what it also taught me is that realism is not the answer. Realism isn't necessarily 'overrated', but its not the whole peice of the puzzle.

Though in all fairness, they did get a few of the simpler things right. Like Jump checks.

I hope you are being facitious. Jump is the most hideously complicated skill, and I've never ever seen a good solution for it within the d20 framework. I'd pay $5 for a pdf for just the 'perfect' fix for the jump. I've wracked my brain again and again and I can't figure out how to solve the jump problem as anything but a special case.

Fortunately there's people out there who've already done a lot of grunt work and made houserules available as a (well appreciated!) starting point for the less adept DMs out there, like me! (@TS, I know you've made yours available. Thanks to you, and all the others who have done so!)[/QUOTE]