Level Up (A5E) Strength − Size matters

[Charlaquin]

One way to differentiate between Small and Medium characters might be to use the optional Tumble and Overrun bonus actions from the DMG. Creatures already have advantage on the Athletics check to Overrun if they’re larger than the target and disadvantage if they’re smaller. Reverse that for the Acrobatics check for Tumble and you’ve got a nice, symmetrical set of size-based advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Cadence]

I do agree with a lot of this, which is one reason why myself and others have gone to using 3d6 or 2d10 or something similar to remove the swinginess from ability checks.

And so that got me trying to avoid work. If you got two d12's and modified them to be:
0 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 9 10
then the sum would still go from 1 to 20.

The probabilities for the numbers would also be symmetric and the mean would still be 10.5.
1 or 20 each 1/144
2 or 19 each 2/144
3 or 18 each 3/144
4 or 17 each 4/144
5 or 16 each 6/144
6 or 15 each 9/144
7 or 14 each 10/144
8 or 13 each 11/144
9 or 12 each 12/144
10 or 11 each 14/144

 

[DND_Reborn]

And so that got me trying to avoid work. If you got two d12's and modified them to be:
0 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 9 10
then the sum would still go from 1 to 20.

The numbers rolled out of 144 would be
1 or 20 each 1/144
2 or 19 each 2/144
3 or 18 each 3/144
4 or 17 each 4/144
5 or 16 each 6/144
6 or 15 each 9/144
7 or 14 each 10/144
8 or 13 each 11/144
9 or 12 each 12/144
10 or 11 each 14/144

Actually we toyed with an exploding system using d12, but it would be from 0-10 and a "+" which meant to explode the die.
I've tried so many options for this stuff at this point it is crazy.

Personally, I like systems were the die roll can be 0 total, which is why one of my favorites is still 4d6-4 (range of 0-20), which is much easier than people think if you just treat "6" as "0".

 

[Minigiant]

I will say, in I loved playing Small characters in 3.5 because +1 AC and +1 on attack rolls was well worth the smaller weapon damage dice to me. It was pretty obnoxious having to use different weights for all my small-sized equipment, but tracking carry weight is always obnoxious.

Oh, I agree completely small creatures (especially PC races) should have gotten more, but that is because I would like to see them penalized more as well. Other games have small creatures gaining a +1 or +2 AC bonus for example, because, frankly, they are smaller targets and thus harder to hit.

You should see our houserules for halflings and gnomes, we basically combined nearly all of the subraces traits into the main races, so you get lots of stuff. But, you are making up for lack of things elsewhere.

I am up for making the weight penalties for Smaller size a smidge more for a flat shield sized (+2) bonus to AC for each level down. Large creatures with thick skin, plates, or scales would have their natural armor cancelled out by their size.

You know something simple but meaningful.

Hitting pixie warriors with a longsword should be a frustrating exercise.

 

[Cadence]

Actually we toyed with an exploding system using d12, but it would be from 0-10 and a "+" which meant to explode the die.
I've tried so many options for this stuff at this point it is crazy.

Personally, I like systems were the die roll can be 0 total, which is why one of my favorites is still 4d6-4 (range of 0-20), which is much easier than people think if you just treat "6" as "0".

Is it making the extreme events very rare, ease of adding, symmetry, availability of d6, or something else that makes 4d6-4 preferable to d10+d12-2 ?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Personally, I like systems were the die roll can be 0 total, which is why one of my favorites is still 4d6-4 (range of 0-20), which is much easier than people think if you just treat "6" as "0".

Wait ... what? Treat 6s as 0s?

That's .... I mean, that's unAmerican! Pretty sure it's against the Constitution or something. You would deprive people, you would deprive .... the CHILDREN of their rights to see those sweet, sweet sixes come up?

What else would you do? Ban the yelling of "Yahtzee?" Tell people that if they roll "all 6s" for their ability rolls, they have to play a Bard?

You ... you monster!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Hitting pixie warriors with a longsword should be a frustrating exercise.

Hitting quicklings is a frustrating exercise.

But I understand what you mean and I agree. I think, especially once you start getting to larger creatures, hitting smaller ones should be harder. shrug

 

[DND_Reborn]

Is it making the extreme events very rare, ease of adding, symmetry, availability of d6, or something else that makes 4d6-4 preferable to d10+d12-2 ?

A combination of factors, but mostly getting a more complete bell curve.

4d6-4 (top) vs. d10+d12-2 (bottom)

Now, I haven't looked at d10+d12-2, so it might be close enough. I've tried more thinks like d12+d8, which looks like the bottom graph.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Wait ... what? Treat 6s as 0s?

That's .... I mean, that's unAmerican! Pretty sure it's against the Constitution or something. You would deprive people, you would deprive .... the CHILDREN of their rights to see those sweet, sweet sixes come up?

What else would you do? Ban the yelling of "Yahtzee?" Tell people that if they roll "all 6s" for their ability rolls, they have to play a Bard?

You ... you monster!

Yes! YES!! MWHAHAHAHA!!!

The idea was actually to use d6s with 0-5 on them (they exist, FYI), but in testing it the easiest thing to do was discard any 6 that came up and add the rest. Obviously it works out the same, despite the psychological trauma.

FWIW, we eventually went with 2d10, one can explode if you roll a 10. It works "well enough" and is pretty simple.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yes! YES!! MWHAHAHAHA!!!

Is this the start of a great character ....

Or the mark of the beast @dnd4vr ?

I'm not saying .... but I'm not not saying, either.