Size modifiers to things need to go away.

[Psychic Robot]

Why do we need that extra bit of math? If you want big creatures to have lower AC, then give them lower Dex to represent their lack of agility. Size modifiers to attack rolls can be done in a similar way: higher Dex + a light weapon + automatic Weapon Finesse. Likewise, a higher Strength can be used for higher combat maneuver checks instead of a random +4 bonus that makes the game harder to play.

[TheFlatline]

But large creatures don't necessarily have low dex as a rule.

Plus, if you just say "big dudes = low dex" you completely bork them when it comes to touch attacks/ranged touch attacks.

And having played an alchemist in Pathfinder, I can attest that the last thing you actually *want* to do is make ranged touch attacks *easier*.

[hogarth]

Why do we need that extra bit of math? If you want big creatures to have lower AC, then give them lower Dex to represent their lack of agility.

So what do you do when you try to discriminate between hitting a Tiny (Dex 0) object vs. a Huge (Dex 0) object?

[Psychic Robot]

I'd eliminate touch AC, too. For the majority of attacks (including ray attacks), you can just say that AC protects the wearer against harm.

[Ghostwheel]

Another way to potentially do it is to give a bonus (scaling or static) to attacks that were previously touch attacks.

[TheFlatline]

I'd eliminate touch AC, too. For the majority of attacks (including ray attacks), you can just say that AC protects the wearer against harm.

So full plate makes you harder to tackle/knock down?

Sorry, not selling me on the need for this. The alternatives make less sense.

[TheFlatline]

Another way to potentially do it is to give a bonus (scaling or static) to attacks that were previously touch attacks.

In other words, re-implement size modifiers?

[Psychic Robot]

So full plate makes you harder to tackle/knock down?

Sorry, not selling me on the need for this. The alternatives make less sense.

I would probably combine tackling into something like 4e's Strength vs. Fortitude roll, actually.

[CCarter]

Probably the designers doing the size system thought the DEX adjustment alone wasn't enough to represent the difference in hittability, but I'd say it'd be worth it for simplicity.

Trying to make it work with objects - I suppose you end up with really big objects having negative DEX...

Or, there's currently a flat to-hit bonus (I believe its +4) when hitting an object, aside from it having a DEX of zero...presumably implemented since otherwise a normal level-1 PC will have trouble hitting stationary objects, even if the objects have DEX 0. Change that to a size-dependent bonus instead (+4 for a medium object, +6 if large, etc). ?

It might also work better if DEX always gave bonus to attack rolls as well as AC: so that two giants in a fist fight have the same chance of hitting each other as two halflings in a fist fight (same relative size). I think that was another of the attempted aims of the current bonus system.

[TheFlatline]

So full plate makes you harder to tackle/knock down?

Sorry, not selling me on the need for this. The alternatives make less sense.

I would probably combine tackling into something like 4e's Strength vs. Fortitude roll, actually.

So my nimbleness doesn't make me harder to tackle, but a robust immune system does?

Let's not forget that apparently the bigger you are, the less inherently accurate with a bow, or just *throwing a rock* (giants anyone?) you are by changing size modifier to a dex penalty. However, you definately want the pixie to be aiming and firing your ballista, because he's inherently more accurate.

And let's not even get started on the idea that dragons suddenly have no sense of balance because they have an ultra-low dex.

All that aside, in the name of simplifying things you've proposed either removing or fundamentally changing multiple systems to get rid of a die modifier that is almost always already calculated into a monster's stat block, and takes like 4 seconds to calculate otherwise. In it's place, you've completely eliminated touch attacks, changed up a tackle/grapple system to the point of it breaking common sense, and tied what would normally be an agility related defense to how hale and hearty your character is.

In other words, this is quickly turning into a pound of prevention for an ounce of cure.

[Ghostwheel]

Another way to potentially do it is to give a bonus (scaling or static) to attacks that were previously touch attacks.

In other words, re-implement size modifiers?

Nah, something a bit more standardized. Like, 1/2 HD, minimum +4 bonus for touch attacks or something similar across the board without any actual size modifiers that change depending on the size of the attacker/defender.

[wotmaniac]

yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with Flatline on this one.

Hell, I've even gone so far as to add size modifiers to more stuff -- namely, jump checks, climb checks, and falling damage.
it's always perplexed me how they went through the trouble of giving a nod to the cube-square law, but stopped short on that.

[Psychic Robot]

So my nimbleness doesn't make me harder to tackle, but a robust immune system does?

Let's not forget that apparently the bigger you are, the less inherently accurate with a bow, or just *throwing a rock* (giants anyone?) you are by changing size modifier to a dex penalty. However, you definately want the pixie to be aiming and firing your ballista, because he's inherently more accurate.

And let's not even get started on the idea that dragons suddenly have no sense of balance because they have an ultra-low dex.

All that aside, in the name of simplifying things you've proposed either removing or fundamentally changing multiple systems to get rid of a die modifier that is almost always already calculated into a monster's stat block, and takes like 4 seconds to calculate otherwise. In it's place, you've completely eliminated touch attacks, changed up a tackle/grapple system to the point of it breaking common sense, and tied what would normally be an agility related defense to how hale and hearty your character is.

In other words, this is quickly turning into a pound of prevention for an ounce of cure.

I was talking about for a 3e rewrite. I wouldn't play with the current 3e system as-is anyway. Despite Pathfinder's shittiness, I think that it's overall more playable than 3e.

[Vnonymous]

The size penalties to attack have mystified me - Under the rules I have 0 chance of squashing a cockroach or a mosquito, when reality has demonstrated that the opposite is true.

[wotmaniac]

attack penalties are supposed to represent relative perspective; i.e., a particular creature/object is gonna seem smaller to a storm giant than it is to a pixie.

as to being able to squash a bug .... go ahead and try to swing full-out with a baseball bat. hint: you're probably gonna miss.
however, if you are very careful and deliberate, you're probably gonna hit it (unless it's flying, then it's a crap shoot). in essence, you're "sneaking up on it" -- consider it your "surprise round" (basically, by moving slowly, the bug doesn't realize that it's in an encounter until it's too late).

I know that it may seem like a bit of a stretch; but it is what it is.

[erik]

I think that is a bat related problem. Gimme a fly swatter and I have no problems. Likewise if someone swung a bat at me and i noticed they would probably miss because I would get the hell away from them.

[Shazbot79]

yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with Flatline on this one.

Hell, I've even gone so far as to add size modifiers to more stuff -- namely, jump checks, climb checks, and falling damage.
it's always perplexed me how they went through the trouble of giving a nod to the cube-square law, but stopped short on that.

It would be easier to tie jumping and such to movement rate. Larger creatures tend to have a higher movement rate anyway, due to having a longer stride.

[erik]

Jump is already influenced by movement, but that's small potatoes.

Since it is easiest to compare humanoid shaped creatures, let us consider giants.

Giants from Large (about double human size) have 40' move... which is not at all impressive considering that comes out to a +4 to Jump... giving about +5' to a long jump and +1' to a high jump. That's balls.

Giants with Huge (about triple human size) size have 50' move. So +8 Jump, about +10' to a long jump and +2' to a high jump. Woo.

Their stride alone should exceed that, because they are friggin big.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Bigger things just don't jump that impressively. Something to do with their weight vs. the strength of what they're made of. I can easily imagine an imaginary creature for which that would not be true, but that's not a good reason to give size bonuses to jumping in the general case.

What I do think should change is the tendency to make bigger creatures stronger and hardier and then give them extra damage, lifting capacity, and hit points for being big.

[Josh_Kablack]

Well the real problem in 3.x is that the size modifiers are so high that they very rapidly push things off the RNG, with Hide getting crazy for stuff smaller than medium and anything Huge or bigger auto-pwning grapples. This problem is exacerbated by size changes resulting in ability score modifiers which add to the same things that the size modifiers do. Not only do you get +8 to Hide from being Tiny, but you also get +4 to Dex, which gives you a total +10 to Hide compared to a medium character. Not only do you get +8 to Grapple / Trip / Bull Rush for being Huge, but you also get a +16 to Str, for a total of +16 to those rolls compared to a medium character.

So either you accept sizing pushing critters off the RNG and autowinning / autolosing or you need to bring out some sort of nerf bat here.

My own preferred bandaid of a nerf is to make feats/items/abilities which ignore size modifiers available to PCs. On the plus side this approach doesn't require much of a rewrite and it gets the whole table shouting "Shadow of the Collosus" everytime the newguy's warblade jumps onto a crazy big monster and tries to wrestle it down. On the downside, it's still a hotfix, so characters without such abilities get still get bwnded and some rules confusion and suspension of disbelief situations occur.

If you are willing to do actual rewrites, you can reduce the modifiers, either by reducing them across the board and/or by slimming the number of size categories. But doing either requires recalculating modifiers for most of the entries in Monster Manual. If you take this so far as to reduce all size modifiers to zero, then at least the recalculations are easy - so the only thing you have to worry about is suspension of disbelief issues in that all stationary targets are exactly as difficult to hit with touch attacks and it becomes as easy to bull rush a typical Ogre as it is to bull rush a Gnome Barbarian.

[JigokuBosatsu]

as to being able to squash a bug .... go ahead and try to swing full-out with a baseball bat. hint: you're probably gonna miss.

Clearly someone has never played Fallout 3.

[tzor]

I (having been through the nightmare of being a Lankhmar DM where the notion of humans turning rat sized ... and not the dire rat size of later editions was a common fantasy plot in Leiber's world) think we need to work on and improve size modifiers, not eliminate them.

D&D doesn't do scaling well, but at least it gave an honest try. 3+E suffered from quantum mechanical effects as you reduced the size, (the "quantum" was the 5' square grid ... tiny combat is hopelessly fubared with the RAW) and produced some odd results. Logic would insist that combat between two tiny creatues should look the same as combat between two medium creatures or even two giant creatures, but that is not the case.

So the ideal scaling should be able to take a character and scale him up or down accordingly. Tiny me should be able to fight giant me with a minimum amount of mathematical pain in the process.

[TheFlatline]

I don't believe size modifiers are perfect, but simply saying "they need to change/go away" isn't enough. If your eventual solution introduces far more complexity than the current size modifier rules do, then you've failed at your intent to streamline things.

So far I haven't seen anyone suggest a solution that doesn't result in a far more complicated game than keeping the rules in.

[BearsAreBrown]

Each monster needs to be individually written anyways so they're safe to remove. Avoids stupid things like giants being bad at throwing andsmall sized wizards being less scary then a huge commoner.

[icyshadowlord]

Each monster needs to be individually written anyways so they're safe to remove. Avoids stupid things like giants being bad at throwing andsmall sized wizards being less scary then a huge commoner.

Do you think any DM would have the patience to do ALL OF THAT?