Altair_the_Vexed
2007-07-30, 04:06 PM
I was thinking - I rarely see 5 foot wide corridors, stairways, etc. Rooms aren't divided into 5 foot sections. It's easy to get several people into a room 8 foot by 8. Fights in pubs take place in confined areas. I propose a house rule!
When characters in d20 get into spaces that are too small for their full space size, they're squeezed. The PHB (pg 148) applies a -4 to AC and -4 to hit, and hampers movement.
Would it be reasonable to alter this in the light of the type and size of weapons being deployed..? I understand the lack of movement implied in the penalty to AC, so we'll just leave that as is. But - surely a big weapon would be way harder to use than a dagger? Similarly an unarmed strike would be easier to use than a long sword. (I've heard Wing Chun Kung Fu called the Kung Fu for fighting in phone booths...:smallwink: )
Maybe we could reduce the attack penalty based on weapon size - thus:
Unarmed attacks and grapple touch attacks are at no penalty.
Weapons considered light for your size are used at a -2 penalty.
Weapons considered one handed for your size are used at -4.
Weapons considered two handed for your size are used at -8.
Now - what about being inside someone's reach? In the pub fight, the scuffle on the stairway, or the castle corridor fight, it's predictable for someone to get fight up close during combat without it being a grapple. You try hitting the guy next to you on the tube train with a battle axe, see how much of a penalty that is :smallbiggrin: . (Actually, don't. I'm sure your local police force will take a dim view of such high-jinks.)
Anyway... I think characters should be able to stand on the intersections of the 5 foot squares, threatening the adjacent intersections. It's the easiest way I can see to get a finer grid without breaking too many of the established d20 rules.
Essentially, the intersections become the centres of new, imaginary 5 foot squares. Along with those intersections, they'll also threaten the four squares they are in contact with - and in the same way, a character standing in a square with threaten the adjacent squares and the four intersections at the corners of the square he's standing in. (Have a look at DMG 308 for the templates, they might help visualise this idea.)
What will this mean for combat? It's harder to hit an opponent who is sweating right in your face with a great axe than it is to stab him with a dagger, or knee him in the gut.
So - Can we (should we) apply the same house rule for squeezed fighters if your target is inside your reach?
What do you wonderful rule lawyers think? I'm open to suggestions (other than "Oh, WotC did something like this, it's in Book #327" - as helpful as that is, I don't want to buy a whole new book to solve a teeny issue like this. :smalltongue: )
When characters in d20 get into spaces that are too small for their full space size, they're squeezed. The PHB (pg 148) applies a -4 to AC and -4 to hit, and hampers movement.
Would it be reasonable to alter this in the light of the type and size of weapons being deployed..? I understand the lack of movement implied in the penalty to AC, so we'll just leave that as is. But - surely a big weapon would be way harder to use than a dagger? Similarly an unarmed strike would be easier to use than a long sword. (I've heard Wing Chun Kung Fu called the Kung Fu for fighting in phone booths...:smallwink: )
Maybe we could reduce the attack penalty based on weapon size - thus:
Unarmed attacks and grapple touch attacks are at no penalty.
Weapons considered light for your size are used at a -2 penalty.
Weapons considered one handed for your size are used at -4.
Weapons considered two handed for your size are used at -8.
Now - what about being inside someone's reach? In the pub fight, the scuffle on the stairway, or the castle corridor fight, it's predictable for someone to get fight up close during combat without it being a grapple. You try hitting the guy next to you on the tube train with a battle axe, see how much of a penalty that is :smallbiggrin: . (Actually, don't. I'm sure your local police force will take a dim view of such high-jinks.)
Anyway... I think characters should be able to stand on the intersections of the 5 foot squares, threatening the adjacent intersections. It's the easiest way I can see to get a finer grid without breaking too many of the established d20 rules.
Essentially, the intersections become the centres of new, imaginary 5 foot squares. Along with those intersections, they'll also threaten the four squares they are in contact with - and in the same way, a character standing in a square with threaten the adjacent squares and the four intersections at the corners of the square he's standing in. (Have a look at DMG 308 for the templates, they might help visualise this idea.)
What will this mean for combat? It's harder to hit an opponent who is sweating right in your face with a great axe than it is to stab him with a dagger, or knee him in the gut.
So - Can we (should we) apply the same house rule for squeezed fighters if your target is inside your reach?
What do you wonderful rule lawyers think? I'm open to suggestions (other than "Oh, WotC did something like this, it's in Book #327" - as helpful as that is, I don't want to buy a whole new book to solve a teeny issue like this. :smalltongue: )