[D&D] Other skills that should be affected by size

[Xaden]

In one campaign I was playing, I was a Druid/Master of Many Forms (a shapeshifting prestige class) and I was just considering what would be the best form for crossing a narrow beam. My first thought was a jungle cat (racial bonus to balance, high Dex) so I checked out the Leopard and found Dex 19 (+4) and +8 on balance checks, there's a mighty +12 for balance. Then I thought some more and looked up the house cat, dex 15 (+2) and +8 on balance, for a total of +10. Then I thought some more, looked up the Balance skill and saw that size didn't matter! So if both critters were trying to get across a 6" wide beam, the Leopard would have an easier time?!

All of a sudden, something didn't fit. The 6" wide beam is a little wider than the width of the typical house cat (or maybe the same width (I've never measured the width of a typical house cat)) but probably a good foot or most likely even more than that SMALLER than the width of a leopard. Then I thought about taking it to even greater extremes, what about a mouse? 1 inch in width? Maybe 2 inches (if it's fat)? He's got an extra 2 inches on either side of him and yet he'd still have a harder time getting getting across that beam than the leopard! That would be like me trying to walk across a bridge that's about 8 feet wide or wider! I shouldn't even need a balance check for that, and likewise the mouse shouldn't even have to make a check for getting across a 6 ince wide beam.

This told me that balance needs to be affected by size. That was a rule too weird for me to just accept. At first I thought, maybe just the size bonus for AC and attacks would do (+1 small, +2 tiny, +4 diminutive, +8 fine), but still the cat would only be equal to the leopard (which didn't seem quite right) and the mouse might then be a little better than the leopard (depending upon what sort of racial bonus you gave mice to balance checks (since they aren't in any Monster book that I've seen you'd have to make up that number, if any)). So I thought maybe the Hide bonus instead, and that made me happier (+4 small, +8 tiny, +12 diminutive, +16 fine). Of course things would work in the other direction as well (it's easier for a 4 foot 6 inch elf to walk across a 6 inch wide beam than a 26 foot tall giant). Ahhhh, goodness was had in my worlds (at least in my opinions).

Then I thought, what else might need this? I think strength checks to break things (or at least force open doors) should have this, or something like this. Compaire a halfling to a 16' tall goint breaking down a door. Okay, I know there's already a strength issue (the halfling probably only has a 16 str at best, while the giant proabably has a 16 at WORST), but I still think something should just be said for mass, it is easier for something with greater mass (and therefore inertia and momentum) to break down a door than something with less mass (provided both can move in similar ways as a halfling and a giant can). Maybe the Hide bonus would be too much, but certainly something like the attack bonus would help represent this.

I also thought that there should be a relative size bonus to intimidate checks, as in relative to what it is you're trying to intimidate. For example, it should be easier for a giant to intimidate a halfling than the other way around (when you have the capacity to fling around that which you're trying to intimidate like a rag-doll, I think that should count for something) and there a +4 for each size category larger, or -4 for each category smaller seemed appropriate.

I also thought something like that would be good for trying to tumble past opponents, only in this case, the smaller you are in comparison to what you're trying to tumble past, the better off you are. A cat should have an easier time trying to "tumble" past a human than a centaur, for example. True enough, there should be some point where you are so big in compairison to your opponent that you should be able to completely safely jump over them, but barring that the bonus should always be in favor to the smaller guy.

So let me know what you think. Good ideas? Bad ideas? Maybe something should be changed a little? Yeah.

[treehouse]

Rather than changing the static bonuses for Balance based on size, just rule that a creature whose profile easily fits across a narrow surface automatically makes the Balance check. This seems less clunky.

For the 'mass effect', keep in mind that most small creatures have Strength penalties and most large creatures have Strength bonuses that abstractly represent this. Even a large creature that would be considered 'frail' is usually much stronger than a comparable sort of medium creature.

[Xaden]

I think you're probably right with the "mass" effect treehouse, the difference in strengths for the different sized creatures is probably enough, but I feel there should be a "gradation" of differences for balance checks (like there is for Hide checks) 'cause I don't like the idea of saying "as a small-sized halfling you have a hard time getting across this narrow beam, but if you dropped one size category you'd have a 100% chance of crossing." I just don't like the "lots of resistance/then none" effect, it just doesn't sit well with me (and, in my opinion, doesn't make a lot of sense in this case). But maybe that's just me.

[LeadPal]

I also thought that there should be a relative size bonus to intimidate checks, as in relative to what it is you're trying to intimidate. For example, it should be easier for a giant to intimidate a halfling than the other way around (when you have the capacity to fling around that which you're trying to intimidate like a rag-doll, I think that should count for something) and there a +4 for each size category larger, or -4 for each category smaller seemed appropriate.Special: You gain a +4 bonus on your Intimidate check for every size category that you are larger than your target. Conversely, you take a –4 penalty on your Intimidate check for every size category that you are smaller than your target.That rule already exists, X.

For the balance skill, why don't you just double/halve the space that counts as a narrow surface once for each size category from medium?


Narrow Surface Balance DC
7-12 inches wide 10
2-6 inches wide 15
Less than 2 inches wide 20

A small halfling could walk across a beam 5 inches wide with a DC of only 15. A gargantuan advanced titan would need a surface more than 8 feet wide to avoid having to make balance checks.

Seems fair.

[Xaden]

Thanks for pointing out the Intimidate thing LeadPal, next time I need to look closer in my PHB (though I don't think they had that rule in 3.0, which might be why I thought of that at some other point). I also like your idea increasing/decreasing the size of what counts as a narrow surface, I would not have thought of that myself. That's a good idea right there, thanks.

[Linklegacy77]

Xaden, most skills that would need a size modifier already have one, in the form of changed ability scores and size penalties or bonuses (such as hide). Those that don't are easily fixed well enough on a case-by-case basis.

[Xaden]

It may be true that some size issues can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but isn't it sometimes better to have a good rule to cover some of these (if not a lot of these) cases? It helps consistency, and if you keep similar sizing rules across the boards, it helps simplicity, while dealing with things in a case-by-case basis could possibly get you into trouble ("But last time you did it like this! Why are you doing it this way now?"). I believe that having good solid rules across the board, that are logical, can help speed play and increase believability. Though people haven't really touched upon some of my other sizing ideas yet (the tumble thing only, basically) I think my Balance issue is a valid one and creating a consistent rule helps credibility of the game (such as saying upfront, half/double the narrow surface definitions for smaller/bigger creautres), this way you avoid doing something weird like having a cat make a DC 15 balance check to get across a 6" wide beam, and then later think, "Well that was maybe a little strange since the enlarged human in the group had the same DC to get across it, yet the cat had plenty of space and the enlarged human didn't." Or having something even weirder happen like having a reduced human having the same DC as an enlarged one (being 3 feet shorter or 6 feet taller (and the size of your feet perportionally transformed) should have a fairly big impact, I'd say, on crossing a narrow beam, moreso than just the +2 dex, or -2 Dex for shrinking or growing due to the appropriate spells). So having some form of logical rules for that helps believability and consistency. I believe that, by-and-large, it improves a game (rather than taking things on a case-by-case basis).

[Xaden]

I would also like to add to the idea of my last post that I think that some (if not many) rules in D&D are either not complete or could be made more cosistent and logical. As I buy more supplements I often find things such as "new ways to use old skills" as stuff like that. Sometimes they are just slightly unusual, but other times they are interesting and dynamic and add a new, logical, and more flavorful way of doing things or using things, and I see no reason why any, if not all of us, couldn't come up with great new logic systems to make D&D more complete, logical and consistent, but to do that, sometimes we have to say, "Hay, this doesn't seem (right/logical/consistent/complete), so let's try and make it so!" Yeah.;) I mean, ain't that part of the reason why this website is here? :worry:

[LeadPal]

/agree. Why use a wonky case-by-case concept when a much better ruling is within grasp?

I don't think that tumble needs a size modifier. Tumbling past someone is about not giving them an opportunity to attack you through tricky acrobatics, which don't necessarily become easier to perform the smaller you are. Imagine the Prince of Persia doing a crazy backflip over three people before they even have a chance to blink, compared to someone swatting at a passing fly.

However, small creatures do have an advantage, in their size modifier to AC. Even if the cat fails its tumble check, the giant is still going to have a hard time hitting the thing with its AoO, because it's so small. If someone were to realize that the prince was flipping over them in time, they might have a good chance of getting their sword in between his ribs (well, except for his dodge bonuses...). But actually hitting a passing fly is pretty tough, even if you take advantage of it buzzing right past you.

[Gralhruk]

Some balance checks would be affected by your size while others would not, which is likely the reason no size modifier was included. For example, being within the area of effect of a grease spell requires a balance check yet I can see no logical reason why a halfling would have an easier time of it than a human. In that situation, I could make a case that larger creatures would actually have an easier time of it depending on how heavy the grease is and how large the area is relative to their size.

[LeadPal]

Which is why I proposed the halving/doubling of areas for big and small creatures, which neatly bypasses such abberant cases.

[Black Plauge]

I'm in favor of rewriting the balance rules so that they reference relative sized spaces when necessary rather than absolute distances.

For instance instead of the table reading as it does, it should read:
Narrow Surface Balance DC
1/5 creature space 10
1/10 creature space 15
1/30 creature space 20

I fairly certain that for Small and Large creatures this is the same as what LeadPal proposed. However, I prefer this phrasing because it also handles all the other sizes in a fairly consistent manner. I.e. A Gargantuan creature, which is 4 times wider than a medium one would need 4 times as much width under this phrasing, rather than 8, which LeadPal's doubling rules implies.

I'd also like to see the elimination of the stepwise nature of the DC, but that would be a bit more complicated to write up. Especially since the current DCs don't follow a linear scale.

[Xaden]

I would just like to mention that I like what has come up, Gralhruk, LeadPal, and Black_Plauge have come up with some good points and I totally overlooked the less obvious uses of the Balance skill, such as grease spells or just something like slick ice, and y'all are right, size shouldn't affect Balance checks in those situations and I suspect that LeadPal already thought of those situation when she first suggested modifying the size of the "narrow surface" relative to the size of the "balancer" therefore side-stepping the wonkyness of a 1/2-ling having an easier time with grease than a giant. Good thinking peoples! And baseing "Narrow Surface" on creature space, a nice and elegant modification to LeadPal's idea. Is this website great for ideas or what?

PS: Maybe I shouldn't be doing this for some reason, but I haven't seen too many threads where people thank others for good ideas. Maybe I've been looking in the wrong threads. But should I not do that? Do people feel it just takes up space or something? Just thought I'd ask (and stop if people don't like it).

[LeadPal]

A Gargantuan creature, which is 4 times wider than a medium oneThat's not true, actually. I forget where its written, exactly (probably under enlarge, or something), but every time you increase in size, your height doubles. Since your weight also increases eight times, logically this implies that you double your size in every dimension. This is the same no matter what your size category usually is. Thus, my doubling rule always holds, no matter what your "space" is. Your system is simpler, but mine has an edge in realism, which I suppose is what the change with the balance system is all about.

(Of course, I houseruled that spacing follows the doubling rule too, so ironically, your system is perfect for me. Thanks, BP! :D )