Size bonus to AC - drop it?

[Kerrick]

I've been going through the monsters, converting them to Project Phoenix stats.... back when I began, I realized that monster ACs and attack bonuses assume they're pitted against a Medium PC. Obviously, not all PCs are Medium, and not all things that a monster attacks will be Medium either - you've got familiars, animal companions, summoned monters, etc. So I came up with a handy little table whereby you can cross-reference your size (or and the target's size, or vice-versa (if you're the DM).

My question is this: Do you think it would be too hard for the players to remember their attack/grapple/AC bonuses vs. various monsters? I mean, the DM can say at the beginning of an encounter "Okay, this thing's Large [or Small, or Huge, or whatever]" and the players can make the adjustment themselves. I can then eliminate size bonus from monster AC entries entirely. I've already changed the special size bonus for grapple checks to be the same as the AC bonus (because it was hideously broken before), so all you have to remember when fighting a given opponent is one number.

For example: You've got a human (Medium) and a halfling (Small) fighting an ogre (Large). Instead of applying a -1 size bonus to the ogre's AC and attacks, you apply a +1 bonus to the human's attack roll and a +2 to the halfling's. For grapple checks, the human suffers a -1, and the halfling -2.

When you list the ogre's statblock, his "BAB/Grapple" entry would read "+3/+8" (BAB + Strength only) instead of "+3/+12".

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

You're just shifting the problem around, IMO.

Instead of every one having their size modifier to AC and attack (which is, IMO, the simplest way to do it, because the bonus is static), each player will have to remember that it has an attack modifier that varies from opponent to opponent, AND the DM will have to also remember that it has a variable attack modifier depending on the size of the members of the party (and their cohorts, familiars, summons, animal companions, etc.)

AR

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

My question is this: Do you think it would be too hard for the players to remember their attack/grapple/AC bonuses vs. various monsters?

I think it would be incredibly annoying to do that. Btw, why would you want to do this? Does it have something to do with this Phoenix Project?

Now if you wanted to make size bonuses to attack and AC consistent, I'd be all for that. (A flat +/-1 per size category, rather than an exponential progression.)

TS

 

[Arkhandus]

Yeah, this change would only complicate matters during play, making for more calculations on everyone's turns, slowing down combat. The size modifiers to AC and attacks and such already handle this as efficiently as possible. If one giant attacks another giant, frex, his size penalty on attack rolls is already balanced out by the AC penalty of the other giant from size, so it's not like big creatures are really less accurate than smaller ones. The smaller ones just have a proportionately larger area to attack on big targets.

Also: what you say is broken about the size modifiers to grapple checks and such is really just a more realistic approach than a +1/-1 per size category. It really would be harder to escape the grip of a bear than it would be to escape the grip of a little kid, regardless of the strength difference, because that bear is so much heavier, its grasping limbs are so much heavier, and it's so much harder to stop that mass.

Like trying to remove cinder blocks from your shoulder instead of a small wooden box. Now imagine those cinder blocks have TWO-INCH CLAWS and are attached to a big ol' angry BEAR trying to BITE YOUR FACE OFF AND TEAR OPEN YOUR GUTS WITH ITS OTHER CLAWS. And you'll see just how much more difficult it is to try escaping a grapple with a bear in D&D than it is to escape a grapple with a small and angry monkey. You're probably strong enough to just fling the monkey's small amount of mass away from your body, but the bear? You ain't pushin' no freakin' 500-pound? bear away from you.


That said, while the RAW strikes a reasonable balance between realism and game style for grappling modifiers, it is certainly antiheroic to just get grabbed by a dragon or giant and then slowly crushed to death by its far superior grappling bonuses. So from a gamist perspective I don't have any problem with lowering the grapple modifiers.

 

[Runestar]

The original rule simply allowed you to work those modifiers into your existing stats and leave them as they were forevermore. What's not to like?

 

[Kerrick]

I think it would be incredibly annoying to do that. Btw, why would you want to do this? Does it have something to do with this Phoenix Project?

Project Phoenix, and yes. PP is a massive overhaul of the 3.5 system. I'm only contemplating the idea of changing size bonuses right now - that's why I wanted to get feedback on it first. I had some of the same misgivings as were posted here, so I wanted to see if others would agree.

Yeah, this change would only complicate matters during play, making for more calculations on everyone's turns, slowing down combat. The size modifiers to AC and attacks and such already handle this as efficiently as possible. If one giant attacks another giant, frex, his size penalty on attack rolls is already balanced out by the AC penalty of the other giant from size,
so it's not like big creatures are really less accurate than smaller ones. The smaller ones just have a proportionately larger area to attack on big targets.

I'm not saying you're wrong, because I'm fairly sure you're right, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this. All I'm seeing are two penalties, which add together to make a larger penalty. If it were a penalty and a bonus, then yeah - they'd balance out, but I'm not seeing how a giant (-1 attack) attacking another giant (-1 AC) balances out.

Also: what you say is broken about the size modifiers to grapple checks and such is really just a more realistic approach than a +1/-1 per size category. It really would be harder to escape the grip of a bear than it would be to escape the grip of a little kid, regardless of the strength difference, because that bear is so much heavier, its grasping limbs are so much heavier, and it's so much harder to stop that mass.

Well yeah - that's why larger monsters have a higher grapple modifier. All I want to do is reduce the modifier to be the same as the size mod (well, the inverse of the size modifier - sorry, I made a mistake when I wrote that), instead of a flat +4/category. So, Large creatures have a +1 bonus, Huge is +2, etc.

 

[Nimloth]

I'm not saying you're wrong, because I'm fairly sure you're right, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this. All I'm seeing are two penalties, which add together to make a larger penalty. If it were a penalty and a bonus, then yeah - they'd balance out, but I'm not seeing how a giant (-1 attack) attacking another giant (-1 AC) balances out.

A -1 to hit means you hit LESS often. A -1 to ac means you are hit MORE often. Balanced out.

What is Project Phoenix? Is it a personal project or are you part of a group? Does it have a website? Why do a massive overhaul of the 3.5 system? Basically, when you overhaul or houserule a system enough, you stop playing that system and start playing a unique homebrew. I might suggest looking at Pathfinder, they're doing an overhaul of 3.5 that so far looks pretty good.

 

[Tilenas]

Okay there's a bunch of issues here:

1) Lowering special size modifier is a good idea. Why? Because fighting monsters two size categories different from you will inevitably lead to one side head locking the other. Which would surely be a realistic thing (cf. the bear situation, above), but just *blows*.
Keep in mind that you can't get rid of it in this manner, as large creatures receive a bonus rather than a penalty, so instead of having -1/+4 they'd have -1/+1, or whatever.

2a) Let's clarify the point of the size modifier. I had a hard time grasping the concept myself when I first heard it, so I understand why some consider it nonsensical. But see it like that:
A large PC is fighting a large monster. Because they're large, both suffer a -1 size penalty on both BA and AC. Let's say before that adjustment, they had an AB of +0 and an AC of 10. Include the size modifier and you get AB -1 and AC 9 for each. They hit each other on a roll of 10 and higher, just like two medium sized characters with no size modifier would. It evens out.
It also works with different size categories:
Now the large PC is fighting a huge monster. The latter receives a size penalty of -2 to BA and AC, i.e. it has a harder time hitting the smaller target it faces, while the PC will hit it more often because it is simply easier to hit. While this may seem a paradox because bigger monsters are usually harder to defeat and all, that problem is accounted for by higher Str-scores, more HD and so on, not by the size modifier.

2b) To dispel the contrary opinion: It can't be a bonus and a penalty, because that would mean that (if AC were lowered and BA increased as you grow bigger) bigger creatures would hit each other more than smaller creatures. Again, they have more HP and that seems to even it out. But HP is a totally different subject (same as their higher damage output due to Str). It's all about the size of your opponent *in relation to yours*.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

I'm not saying you're wrong, because I'm fairly sure you're right, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this. All I'm seeing are two penalties, which add together to make a larger penalty. If it were a penalty and a bonus, then yeah - they'd balance out, but I'm not seeing how a giant (-1 attack) attacking another giant (-1 AC) balances out.

Take 2 basic (medium) commoners: AC 10, Attack bonus +0.
Commoner A needs a 10 to hit Commoner B.

Make those two commoners Large: AC 9 (10-1), Attack bonus -1 (0-1).
Commoner A still needs a 10 to hit Commoner B.

AR

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Project Phoenix, and yes. PP is a massive overhaul of the 3.5 system. I'm only contemplating the idea of changing size bonuses right now - that's why I wanted to get feedback on it first. I had some of the same misgivings as were posted here, so I wanted to see if others would agree.

Ah, I see. I'd say that your misgivings are well-founded. If you're going to change size modifiers, I suggest doing away with the +/- 1/2/4/8 scheme -- because it just doesn't make sense and it serves no purpose. A simple +/- 1 or 2 per category would be better.

TS