Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 tequila_sunrise Dec 09, 2008 17:07:14	I'm writing an rpg and can't decide how to handle small races. It annoys me how Small races in D&D have nearly identical mechanics than medium races, so here are my two options: 1. Hobbits, gnomes & company are small, but not Small sized. They're at the bottom end of the Medium size category and therefore have no special modifiers due to their size. 2. Hobbits, gnomes & company are Small sized, and have modifiers that make them decidedly weak in melee. These modifiers wouldn't be crippling, and each small race would have racial traits that make them good at other things, but playing a small melee character would be obviously sup-optimal even to new players. So as small race lovers, which option would you prefer? If you choose the second, please give me ideas for what other knacks small races might have to make up for their poor melee ability. In other words, what would make you say "wow, hobbits/gnomes/whatever are cool in this game!"? TS
#2 vaalingrade_ashland_02 Dec 09, 2008 17:18:46	Choose 1. For the love of all that is good and holy, choose 1. The instant a race gets named Small, the realism brigade comes in and does things to the race and they're never quite the same (or mechanically feasible across classes) any more. Just kind of... sitting, staring into space... crying softly at night. Anything set up to make them weak in melee punches the guy that wants a halfling non-rogue, non-caster right in the jammies. Don't do that to him.
#3 Darth_Caffeineus Dec 09, 2008 17:52:33	Choose 1. For the love of all that is good and holy, choose 1. The instant a race gets named Small, the realism brigade comes in and does things to the race and they're never quite the same (or mechanically feasible across classes) any more. Just kind of... sitting, staring into space... crying softly at night. Anything set up to make them weak in melee punches the guy that wants a halfling non-rogue, non-caster right in the jammies. Don't do that to him. Amen brother. Shoe-horning certain races into certain classes needs to stay gone. Halflings should be able to hang in meele witht the big boys if they so wish.
#4 manion Dec 09, 2008 17:59:13	Amen brother. Shoe-horning certain races into certain classes needs to stay gone. Halflings should be able to hang in meele witht the big boys if they so wish. All the better for me to kill the little beasts.
#5 syrsuro Dec 09, 2008 18:15:14	So I assume you are tossing option 3 out the window: Smaller races have both advantages and disadvantages in melee. Their advantages are mostly related to defenses (harder to hit, improved mobility when fighting creatures larger than themselves) while their disadvantages are most related to offense (weaker, don't do as much damage). Regardless: I would also still vote for option 1 as the easiest approach to balance is to remove the size based difference. Carl
#6 Grimcleaver Dec 09, 2008 18:17:06	I'd very much like to see the small character thing go away. I like the idea that the smallest PC race is still medium, and that the largest PC race is still medium also. Certainly in 4e it should be that way. That's the way the starting array of stat points are arranged, figuring for a normal sized character. You start messing with that too much and you get either a system that totally falls apart where everything works differently based on size--or a system where it has to pick and choose things to emulate being a non-standard sized race while simultaneously trying to be balanced (and it never works). Just make them smallish Medium creatures. Besides, apparently a 12-year old size is depiction of halfing-types is better than a 2-year old size anyway, right? So go the extra mile and make them medium.
#7 Xeviat-DM Dec 09, 2008 18:53:46	I was perfectly fine with the way small races were handled in 3E (and 3.5). On average they suffered -2 to damage (from -2 strength and from the smaller weapon die size), and they gained +1 AC and +1 attack with Dex based attacks (+0 in melee since their +1 to hit canceled out their -1 to hit from -2 Str). They recieved a further -4 to most opposed strength checks, and a reduction in carrying capacity, but their armor weighed less. They also gained +4 to Hide. While they weren't "the best" at melee, I had plenty of players play Halfling and Gnome melee characters (and not just rogues). One of the beloved characters in our group's history was a Halfling Barbarian. There were also several halfling paladins (they could get better mounts sooner), and a couple of halfling fighters. In 4E, I find the lack of "small modifiers" to be slightly annoying. I'm fine with their strength being the same, because 4E was designed without penalties so that no race was excluded from a class. But, the fact that small races can use the scimitar one-handed, or have no drawback when using off-hand weapons, clearly forces them into one-handed or two-weapon fighting roles; the only weapons they take a damage penalty with are two-handed weapons since they have to use versitile one-handed weapons. Realism is fine in game balance when there is a return in your investment. If you decide to try to be "real", shoot for believability over realism.
#8 Grimcleaver Dec 09, 2008 19:00:51	The huge problem were the halfling barbarians with 12 hitpoints plus con that were better at hitting and harder to hit and typically used normal sized (large for them) weapons. That just didn't make no sense at all. Heh. Unless you played it Grimcleaver.
#9 vaalingrade_ashland_02 Dec 09, 2008 19:09:48	That reminds me: Whatever you choose, kill the small weapons concept in it's crib. Someone still deserves bloodletting for adding that to 3.5 after 3e.
#10 tequila_sunrise Dec 09, 2008 22:41:46	Wow, a unanimous vote for #1! It's interesting to see which responses come from which forums. So I assume you are tossing option 3 out the window: Smaller races have both advantages and disadvantages in melee. Their advantages are mostly related to defenses (harder to hit, improved mobility when fighting creatures larger than themselves) while their disadvantages are most related to offense (weaker, don't do as much damage). #3 would fall under #2. I wouldn't mind a small race that made up for its lack of offensive power by improved defense and/or maneuverability. I was perfectly fine with the way small races were handled in 3E (and 3.5). On average they suffered -2 to damage (from -2 strength and from the smaller weapon die size), and they gained +1 AC and +1 attack with Dex based attacks (+0 in melee since their +1 to hit canceled out their -1 to hit from -2 Str). They recieved a further -4 to most opposed strength checks, and a reduction in carrying capacity, but their armor weighed less. They also gained +4 to Hide. The things that always bugged me about Small characters in 3e were: 1) they had the same reach as Medium characters. What, do they all have monkey arms? Yeah I know it was to maintain balance but it just wasn't consistent. And 2) they got a big bonus to Hide, but not to MS or any of the sensory skills which makes no sense. And the thing that bugged me about the attack/AC mods in all the size categories was that the designers tried to make them seem more realistic by making them expand exponentially away from Medium size, but they did it wrong so it's just inconsistent. So anyway in my RPG, Small creatures have zero effective reach and small bonuses to many skills. And each category has a bonus/penalty that is a flat 1 or 2 difference between the next category. That reminds me: Whatever you choose, kill the small weapons concept in it's crib. Remind me again, what was changed between 3.0 and 3.5? I've seen debates on this topic, but for the life of me I can't remember weapons being different between the two sub-editions. TS
#11 Rustmonster Dec 09, 2008 23:09:24	So anyway in my RPG, Small creatures have zero effective reach and small bonuses to many skills. And each category has a bonus/penalty that is a flat 1 or 2 difference between the next category. ... What? So, in otherwords, they can't be any class that uses a weapon? Or close range attacks? At all? Because if you have to move into your opponrnts space anytime you want to attack, good luck with that. On the subject of reach, the reason Small races get to attack adjacent squares is that your character is not standing smack dab in the middle of their square, jutting their arm out to attack. They are constantly moving around that 5ft square. That's how they dodge. Small creatures are small, but they arn't so tiny that they can't reach across a 2 foot gap. Like most things in D&D combat, it is an abstraction. I assume the reason that Tiny creatures do NOT have reach is that it is harder for them to worry about the entirety of their space at the same time.
#12 JayM Dec 10, 2008 7:55:09	4. Small races have lower strength and can't use big weapons, so building a simple big weapon smash type is ineffective. But a small fighter that depends on evasion, skill and agility should be just as effective as a medium race, sacrificing a bit of offense be gaining in defense. Though it really depends on what you mean by small. There is a big difference between a race that averages 4 feet and one that averages 2 feet. Jay
#13 vaalingrade_ashland_02 Dec 10, 2008 9:49:32	4 is just as bad too. If I want to build a halfling with a mallet in plate, I should be able to, no matter if someone else wants to force me into the dex fighter stereotype.
#14 williamhm75 Dec 10, 2008 10:30:00	4 is just as bad too. If I want to build a halfling with a mallet in plate, I should be able to, no matter if someone else wants to force me into the dex fighter stereotype. Ive seen a halfling Chr based paladin, he was pretty darn scarry. He even had a 16str score and used some str based powers. Scary scary little bugger. The halfling racial power meant that he was even more durable than a normal paladin.
#15 tequila_sunrise Dec 10, 2008 10:44:51	So, in otherwords, they can't be any class that uses a weapon? Or close range attacks? At all? Because if you have to move into your opponrnts space anytime you want to attack, good luck with that. Yeah, this is what I meant in my OP when I said that Small creatures would be decidedly weak in melee. Small creatures can wield weapons of course, but they provoke OAs from larger creatures just like Tiny creatures do. There will be a tumble mechanic though, which will be skewed in favor of Small creatures due to their size and Dex bonuses. Even so, any Small PC race will need to have significant non-brute-melee talents to make up for the fact that larger creatures will be regularly taking pot shots at them. On the subject of reach, the reason Small races get to attack adjacent squares is... ...because it ensures that Small PCs are relatively balanced with Medium PCs. Not because reach is an abstraction; that's just a tangental fact. Yes, reach is an abstraction, but the way the designers handle it is not consistent. Though it really depends on what you mean by small. There is a big difference between a race that averages 4 feet and one that averages 2 feet. Medium is 1.1 to 2 meters in my game; small is .6 to 1 meter. (One meter is roughly three feet.) TS
#16 Rustmonster Dec 10, 2008 13:24:34	Medium is 1.1 to 2 meters in my game; small is .6 to 1 meter. (One meter is roughly three feet.) TS If I recall, Halflings are now 4 feet. Does that mean they are Medium in your game?
#17 williamhm75 Dec 10, 2008 13:35:11	Yeah, this is what I meant in my OP when I said that Small creatures would be decidedly weak in melee. Small creatures can wield weapons of course, but they provoke OAs from larger creatures just like Tiny creatures do. There will be a tumble mechanic though, which will be skewed in favor of Small creatures due to their size and Dex bonuses. Even so, any Small PC race will need to have significant non-brute-melee talents to make up for the fact that larger creatures will be regularly taking pot shots at them. How is this balanced? Why would anyone play a small character with rules like those? Your rules would pidgeon whole every small character into a rogue type or magic type with rules like those. ...because it ensures that Small PCs are relatively balanced with Medium PCs. Not because reach is an abstraction; that's just a tangental fact. Yes, reach is an abstraction, but the way the designers handle it is not consistent. I like the way 4e handles it your rules would be too simulationist.
#18 Rustmonster Dec 10, 2008 13:48:31	Oh, and on the reach thing, if you seriously want to give Small creatures no reach, remember that they have to be in the same square as the enemy to attack (IE, OA). In other words, Small creatures in your game should not play melee classes, unless they really want to get OAed everytime they try to do ANYTHING. Oh, plus they can't MAKE OAs, so any close range Defender is totally and utterly out. And really, giving them a defensive bonus of some sort will likely be a completely empty gesture of appeasement, as they won't be using any sort of tumble. Going into any sort of melee against real races would be suicide. Whatever you want for your game, do it. But I personally would hate for them to add rules like yours, as they basiclly restric Small races from playing large groups of classes or class builds, just for a false sense of "versmilitude" or whatever. If you want to pidgeonhole an entire type of races for your game, go for it.
#19 tequila_sunrise Dec 10, 2008 15:58:27	If I recall, Halflings are now 4 feet. Does that mean they are Medium in your game? Okay you realize I'm not just writing a heavily house ruled version of D&D, but a completely different game, right? If I end up choosing #1, the smallest of PC races will be just above 1 meter tall so that they fit within the Medium category. If I choose #2, they could be anything from .6 meter to 1 meter tall. How is this balanced? Why would anyone play a small character with rules like those? Your rules would pidgeon whole every small character into a rogue type or magic type with rules like those. I feel like I'm repeating this way too often, but yes, pidgeon holing Small races into non-brute roles is a valid option that I'm considering. Some players don't mind sucking at melee. Obviously you do, and your opinion is noted. Whatever you want for your game, do it. But I personally would hate for them to add rules like yours, as they basiclly restric Small races from playing large groups of classes or class builds, just for a false sense of "versmilitude" or whatever. If you want to pidgeonhole an entire type of races for your game, go for it. Again, this isn't about what I want, it's about what players want. I want players who like little races to have fun playing my little races, so your opinion is noted. TS
#20 JayM Dec 10, 2008 16:20:52	4 is just as bad too. If I want to build a halfling with a mallet in plate, I should be able to, no matter if someone else wants to force me into the dex fighter stereotype. Lets take it a step further. Imagine a game that lets you play as a pixy. 1 foot tall. Are you really trying to say that a game should allow pixies to be just as strong as humans, that they can wield the same weapons humans can? Of course, given the raw magic involved, there is no reason logically or mechanically why you couldn't. But if your going to make every race equally good at everything, why have races at all? Jay
#21 vaalingrade_ashland_02 Dec 10, 2008 16:26:26	That's actually the current philosophy: All races can be equally good at all classes, and get a few nice things to make them really good at the stereotype. In theory, they shouldn't get punched in the face for wanting to play off stereotype, though the small rules still do this a little. Not as bad as yours do that.
#22 manion Dec 10, 2008 16:30:06	I think it'd be neat for segregation. I like how the Tiefling fighter has no bonus to Fighter stats, but does have a unique fighter PP. I think it'd be cool for a Halfling fighter to not generally hit as hard (or maybe not as hard as often), but to have a "below the belt" feat or ability that makes some of his hits hurt just that much worse.
#23 vaalingrade_ashland_02 Dec 10, 2008 16:42:01	There's a difference between teiflings not having anything that makes them better fighters and halflings having a crippling disadvantage shoudl they choose to be fighters.
#24 manion Dec 10, 2008 16:43:51	There's a difference between teiflings not having anything that makes them better fighters and halflings having a crippling disadvantage shoudl they choose to be fighters. Funny, I don't recall ever saying I was in support of a crippling disadvantage for Halfling fighters. I must have mistyped something if I said that.
#25 williamhm75 Dec 10, 2008 16:44:09	There's a difference between teiflings not having anything that makes them better fighters and halflings having a crippling disadvantage shoudl they choose to be fighters. Agreed no race should be forced into a certain role. Any game that punishes a race for making a certain choice is a very bad game.
#26 Grimcleaver Dec 10, 2008 17:10:09	So maybe I'm misunderstanding what the OP's been asking for? Is it that you want to know what people think of the size rules, or what we like in terms of look and feel when we play a small character and the stars line up perfectly? If you're asking the former, then yeah...it's pretty much the same thing you've been hearing a lot. The rules for small characters end up just feeling arbitrary and weird--because to not make them arbitrary and weird would require a massive shakedown of how PCs are made. Trying to reflect how the world would work as a three foot tall person would require pumping in a lot of simulationism into the game for no other benefit than having a lot of simulationism--and at the end of the day, the race in question would be pretty disadvantaged for it (lower stats, lower hp, shorter reach, smaller weapons, less carrying capacity, slower speed, etc). On the other hand, if you're asking what I as a guy who likes playing hobbit and gnome type characters likes about playing them? That's a different question indeed. I like the nimbleness of it--the idea of scrabbling around the feet of the big badguy, hiding in the shadows, sitting up on the counter kicking my feet. That's the appeal. It's about being clever and fun, swift and unseen. If you're looking at designing a race along those lines, I'd suggest maybe going for a power or two to emulate some emergency shifting and ninja smokebomb disappearing tricks, maybe a power that lets you occupy the same space as an enemy (or ally) and clamber around on them like Shadow of the Collosus. At least, that's the sort of thing that would make a little race fun for me.
#27 tequila_sunrise Dec 10, 2008 18:50:28	On the other hand, if you're asking what I as a guy who likes playing hobbit and gnome type characters likes about playing them? That's a different question indeed. I like the nimbleness of it--the idea of scrabbling around the feet of the big badguy, hiding in the shadows, sitting up on the counter kicking my feet. That's the appeal. It's about being clever and fun, swift and unseen. If you're looking at designing a race along those lines, I'd suggest maybe going for a power or two to emulate some emergency shifting and ninja smokebomb disappearing tricks, maybe a power that lets you occupy the same space as an enemy (or ally) and clamber around on them like Shadow of the Collosus. At least, that's the sort of thing that would make a little race fun for me. Yes! This is what I'm looking for; opinions from little PC lovers about what makes them fun. My size rules are already set, and will not change. I only described them briefly to give everyone an idea of just how much they handicap Small creatures in melee, and how much difference is between option 1 and option 2. I'll take your comments as further support for option 1. TS
#28 Grimcleaver Dec 10, 2008 19:20:58	Glad to be of help. ...and good to see you around here! Its been a while!
#29 JayM Dec 11, 2008 9:40:44	That's actually the current philosophy: All races can be equally good at all classes, and get a few nice things to make them really good at the stereotype. In theory, they shouldn't get punched in the face for wanting to play off stereotype, though the small rules still do this a little. Not as bad as yours do that. That is just a question of how the rules describe things. The 4E rules say every race can work as a ranger but elves get a unique bonus that makes then superior. If they had said that elves get no bonus but every other race takes a -2 to hit when playing a ranger it would have the same impact on the game. The difference is purely one of psychology. And I'm not suggesting crippling Halfling fighters. I'm not suggesting something on the 3.5 scale, where the compounded effect of small weapons and low strength in a system where melee attacks depend purely on those two things make small race fighters very weak. But I would like something a touch more then the current 4e system where races can be hard to tell apart. Getting on to the other question, of why play halfling? I've played two halfling wizards. One used magic to compensate for his height complex and had lots of enlarge/reduce type spells. The other had a riding dog for a familiar and lived out of the saddle, in addition to the typical combat magic, he had spells that enhanced his familiar. I've also played the typical curious, evasive and generally noncombat rogue halfling. As a DM, I've seen two types that play halfings. The first are hobbit fans, they play a lot of the curious, erratic non-combat rogues. The second are 4e players going for mechanical advantage with rogues. What I want to see in a halfling is a race that favors evasion over brute force. Bonuses to dexterity and abilities to enhance stealth and evasion. Jay
#30 tequila_sunrise Dec 11, 2008 10:19:53	Glad to be of help. ...and good to see you around here! Its been a while! Thanks! That is just a question of how the rules describe things. The 4E rules say every race can work as a ranger but elves get a unique bonus that makes then superior. If they had said that elves get no bonus but every other race takes a -2 to hit when playing a ranger it would have the same impact on the game. The difference is purely one of psychology. Quoted for Truth. TS
#31 vaalingrade_ashland_02 Dec 11, 2008 15:08:49	Except for the fact that every race isn't getting beaten with the 'you suck at melee' stick, just the shorties.
#32 Einlanzer Dec 17, 2008 12:03:14	My 2 cents: At first i wasn't the biggest fan of the "small" rules in 4e. I thought it was silly to suggest that a halfing could compete in melee with a dragonborn. I liked the 2nd/3rd rules of bonus to hit, minus to damage, etc. In particular, I don't like them not having reduced carrying capacity and using medium weapons. However, Im' sure you realize that most of the combat rules in D&D are an abstraction. The best example of this is that even though you roll a single attack in a round, it's not meant to imply that you're swinging your weapon only once in that round, but rather the die rolls represent the result of a short skirmish between the opponents. If it helps, think of it like this. The strength bonus is partially indicative of your ability to control a heavier weapon, not just your ability to power through someone's defenses. In short, a halfling IS facing a penalty to doing damge to the target, but receiving a bonus to hitting them. This occurs "behind the scenes" of the numbers that you roll on the die. Because they balance each other out, there's no reason to clog the rules with those modifiers. However, because I'm not a min/maxer and favor a sliver of realism in my games, I house rule small weapons and armor into my game and reduce their HP gain/level by 1. In exchange, they gain a racial +2 to AC, reflex, and attack rolls. I don't give them a strength penalty (stat or modifier) so that they won't feel pigeonholed into dex builds over strength builds (there's some degree of overlap anyway).
#33 tequila_sunrise Dec 17, 2008 12:49:33	However, Im' sure you realize that most of the combat rules in D&D are an abstraction. Yes they are. But unless Large and Huge creature stats are abstracted so that they have the same space and reach as Medium creatures, Small creatures need to have shorter reach and a smaller space than Medium creatures. TS
#34 wyld_mutation Dec 17, 2008 13:26:51	I vote for using the rtules for small characters as included in 4e. Yes it's a set of restrictions... But they get amazing racial traits and powers to offset that anyway.
#35 Einlanzer Dec 17, 2008 13:34:06	Yes they are. But unless Large and Huge creature stats are abstracted so that they have the same space and reach as Medium creatures, Small creatures need to have shorter reach and a smaller space than Medium creatures. TS That's true to some extent, but you must be mindful of the actual scale. Apart from praticality issues, medium size covers a range of about 4'5" to about 7 - 8 ft tall. Therefore, even though technically "medium" size, don't you think the difference between the size of a dwarf and a dragonborn is greater than the difference between a dwarf and a halfling? I feel pretty confident it is. I understand what you're saying, but I think you might be visualizing the scale to be more exaggerated than it actually is. A tiny character in 4e (2-3/4 ft) actually DOES have a 0 range, which is appropriate. However, having a halfing have considerably smaller range than a dwarf seems very nitpicky and would also necessitate a difference betweeen smaller medium an larger medium creatures and in the end you're creating a ruleset that gives very little bang for a lot of buck. In all honesty, it would be far more logical to make it so that Tiny = small and make current small characters medium. that would scale and flow better anyway. I actually think it was their intention in 4e to make "small" more like a "small medium". I think the only reason they kept small as the designation of halflings and gnomes is due to the changes to the strength stat making it less objective and more relative (if halfings were medium size, they'd probably have to be given a strength penalty, but in 4e strength is assumed to be relative to size, so objectively speaking a halfling with 14 strength is weaker than a human with 14 strength, but relative to game mechanics they are the same). However, do as you please, I have no right to judge because i'm prone to writing impractical houserules for personal preferences as well =P
#36 tequila_sunrise Dec 17, 2008 17:12:07	Okay first, I'd like to redirect everyone to the first sentence of my OP. When I say "I'm writing an rpg" I don't mean I'm writing a bunch of house rules for D&D; I'm writing a whole new game. I think a lot of readers are skipping that sentence. Yes, I know this is a D&D forum and no, I don't care. If you're too in love with D&D to discuss ideas outside the game, you don't have to comment on this thread. That's true to some extent, but you must be mindful of the actual scale. Apart from praticality issues, medium size covers a range of about 4'5" to about 7 - 8 ft tall. Therefore, even though technically "medium" size, don't you think the difference between the size of a dwarf and a dragonborn is greater than the difference between a dwarf and a halfling? I feel pretty confident it is. 4e has no size guidelines that I'm aware of, which is just as well because I have my own guidelines. The specific height/length guidelines don't matter. All that matters is that Small size is half Medium size; Large size is double Medium size; each category on either end of the spectrum is half or double the size of the previous category. To maintain mechanical consistency, each category must have half or double the space/reach of the previous category. It's that simple. Does it create oddball situations where two creatures separated by mere centimeters of height are more mechanically different than two creatures separated by entire meters of height? Of course, but I have to draw the line somewhere if I want a consistent rules set. TS
#37 Einlanzer Dec 18, 2008 8:52:22	I thought that it was about your own game system, it just seemed like the conversation was more focused on d&d. Anywho, that makes logical sense, but it does seem like it'll gimp small characters some. Have you playtested it? If you want to use those rules and it doesn't create too much of a schism then do it. I'm an immersive player and not a min/maxer, so i don't have problems with rules that seem to push races into certain classes, as long as other classes aren't restricted outright and any class choice is playable. Afterall in real life a halfling would have to work harder to be a great fighter and would never be the best, but that's part of the reason that a halfling fighter is usually a really likable character.
#38 tequila_sunrise Dec 18, 2008 11:24:57	I thought that it was about your own game system, it just seemed like the conversation was more focused on d&d. The first comment of my last post wasn't directed at you. Unfortunately, WotC forum goers have a tendency to be single-minded. Anywho, that makes logical sense, but it does seem like it'll gimp small characters some. Have you playtested it? If you want to use those rules and it doesn't create too much of a schism then do it. I'm an immersive player and not a min/maxer, so i don't have problems with rules that seem to push races into certain classes, as long as other classes aren't restricted outright and any class choice is playable. Afterall in real life a halfling would have to work harder to be a great fighter and would never be the best, but that's part of the reason that a halfling fighter is usually a really likable character. I named my Small race brownies. (No, not the chocolate treat; brownies are mythological creatures of the wee folk variety.) I currently have brownies set up like this: most other creatures get OAs against them due to being larger, but brownies get two feats for free. These two feats are designed for smaller PCs to take advantage of larger opponents. So basically if a brownie can get past his larger opponent's defenses, the tables turn because his opponent can't effectively defend himself. Which means brownies should focus on Dex and be aggressive in melee, which I think makes sense. Haven't play tested anything yet. If it turns out that brownies are too good or two bad with these rules, I'll just bump them up to Medium size and be done with it. TS
#39 Einlanzer Dec 18, 2008 14:39:58	Hah, yeah I could see that going either way depending on the specifics of the feats you're talking about. You could try out a couple of things. Actually, let us know how it goes because the truth is I'm interested in creating working rules for playing a tiny character in D&D that would be along the same lines.
#40 nightwalker450 Dec 18, 2008 15:20:07	How plentiful do you plan on small creatures being? If you think they are going to be a major point of your game, why not go the other way about fixing things? Each square is 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet. Thus a medium fills a 2x2(x2) space, and has a reach of 2. And if you're using 4th Threatening reach, you can make default be 2 squares (or 1 square for small). Now you have a game based for little people. :D
#41 tequila_sunrise Dec 18, 2008 20:08:47	Hah, yeah I could see that going either way depending on the specifics of the feats you're talking about. You could try out a couple of things. Actually, let us know how it goes because the truth is I'm interested in creating working rules for playing a tiny character in D&D that would be along the same lines. Will do. How plentiful do you plan on small creatures being? If you think they are going to be a major point of your game, why not go the other way about fixing things? Each square is 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet. Thus a medium fills a 2x2(x2) space, and has a reach of 2. I'm using meters and hexes, but that's effectively what I've done. TS