There's no way that a line or five rogues with daggers require a similar 25 foot space as other comhatants and arcuably 5 wielders of glaves or two-handed swords might typically need a lot more.
Here are rules adaptations that I'd suggest: Adjust all 5ft grids to 3' (or perhaps 6' if not using physical miniatures or a snap to grid). - the choice of three foot measure is that this fits in with the space typically taken by roman soldiers in a phalanx with a 2ft (or slightly more) being taken up by the shield and with the rest of the space being used for fighting with a thrusting sword or spear. I'd suggest that, while the character remains medium sized, that they have a space requirement of a large creature.
Here's a list of weapons from the ad&d (1e) PHB of weapons with their space required stats (weapon lengths were shown separately):
Axe, Battle 4' Axe, Hand 1' Bardiche 5' Bec de Corbin 6' Bill-Guisarme 2' Bo Stick 3' Club 1'3" Dagger 1' Fauchard 2' Fauchard-Fork 2' Fist or Open Hand 1' Flail, Footman's 6' Flail, Horseman's 4' Fork, Military 1' Glaive 1' Glaive-Guisarme 2' Guisarme 2' Guisarme-Voulge 2' Halberd 5' Hammer, Lucern 5' Hammer 2' Jo Stick 2' Lance (heavy horse) 1' Lance (medium horse) 1' Lance (light horse) 1' Mace, Footman's 4' Mace, Horseman's 2' Morning Star 5' Partisan 3' Pick, Military, Footman's 2' Pike, awl 1' Ranseur 1' Scimitar 2' Spear 1' Spetum 1' Staff, quarter 3' Sword, bastard 4' Sword, broad 4' Sword, long 3' Sword, short 1' Sword, two-handed 6' Trident 1' Voulge 2' I'd argue that a glaive requires more side to side space but perhaps a lot of this is reasonable.
Perhaps creature sizes could be open to DM interpretation to fit.
Every single spell and ability that is currently expressed in increments of 5 would now not line up with a grid unless it happened to have both 5 and 3 as factors
Minis become too small because you've changed the scale from 1" ~ 5' to 1" ~ 3'
All of this for what? To ameliorate the lack of suspension of disbelief you have for some niche edge cases? Edge cases that—rather than modifying the foundational scale of the game—the DM could just adjust for on the fly?
This is one of those cases where the rules aren't meant to directly simulate reality in a 1 to 1 model, but rather the rules approximate combat in a way that is fun and still understandable. Just like how in a turn-based strategy game, when you see the characters fighting, you understand that they're not just standing around taking turns whakcing each other and letting themselves get whacked, and that in the fiction it's an epic, skillful duel.
The rules exist to give you meaningful tactical options, to be easily understood by all, and to still be fun. 5 feet works just fine for that.
I see what you mean about minis but would argue that they are mainly representative. I was looking for a way in which minis might still be consistently used, though it might alternatly be possible to keep a 5' grid but consider that two sword and board fighters could operate in the same area. Several games I've known use tokens anyway so this might not be a great issue. It's not like characters would be forced to occuply a smaller area though I;s argue that rogues with knives and various others could choose to do so.
I'd also say that a spear can be considered as a reach weapon when thtust one-handed and that a staff can also be used at reach when used as a long club which could be used two-handed.
It could just be an optional rule. It could be greatly advantageous with choke points while increasing vulnerabiity to AoE.
AoE is another subject that might ideally be revisited. Many forms of AoE come from sprays or explosions against which shields might be effective, There's certainly an argument that a shield might be a better defence against a fireball than a dexterous within the envelopment attempt to dodge.
The rules already say that characters can move through a space occupied by a non-hostile creature. Usage of things like tokens permitting, I think it could be fine for creatures to remain functional in that shared space if they were armed with suitable weaponry like spears of daggers. Perhaps we could just say that very occupied spaces were less easy to pass through.
I see what you mean about minis but would argue that they are mainly representative. I was looking for a way in which minis might still be consistently used, though it might alternatly be possible to keep a 5' grid but consider that two sword and board fighters could operate in the same area. Several games I've known use tokens anyway so this might not be a great issue. It's not like characters would be forced to occuply a smaller area though I;s argue that rogues with knives and various others could choose to do so.
I'd also say that a spear can be considered as a reach weapon when thtust one-handed and that a staff can also be used at reach when used as a long club which could be used two-handed.
It could just be an optional rule. It could be greatly advantageous with choke points while increasing vulnerabiity to AoE.
AoE is another subject that might ideally be revisited. Many forms of AoE come from sprays or explosions against which shields might be effective, There's certainly an argument that a shield might be a better defence against a fireball than a dexterous within the envelopment attempt to dodge.
You're looking for a level of complexity that D&D 5th edition is not intended nor designed to support. You might want to try another edition or system
There's no way that a line or five rogues with daggers require a similar 25 foot space as other comhatants and arcuably 5 wielders of glaves or two-handed swords might typically need a lot more.
[...]
D&D's combat is highly abstracted. A rogue standing there with a dagger might technically need less space, while a Goliath with a battleaxe would need more, but 5 feet is a reasonable approximation for the amount of space a character occupies. And they may well need that space during a round, since they're not standing there in formation. They need to be able to thrust, turn, parry, spin. Even a halfling with a knife will need room to move around.
Earlier editions attempted to address this, but people found it too confusing. The issue you seem to be having is related to assigning a set 5 ft. to every grid. In an earlier edition an attempt was made to offer an option to express everything in grid squares without assigning a measurement to the square. In other words, if you entered a small house, each grid could actually represent 2 ft squares (or whatever size you needed them to be), while outdoors each grid could be 5 ft. Each medium creature occupied one grid square.
The problem with that method is that players would then argue, "but my spell says it affects a 10' radius so I should be able to affect 5 grid radius while indoors" or "how come I can control a 15' diameter outside but inside I can only control a 6' diameter when my arms are the same size." "Why is my fireball bigger outside." Also that 50' rope would suddenly be able to stretch 25 squares instead of 10 - players had a hard time with it. Expressing everything in grid squares (instead of feet, meters, etc.) made it feel too much like a game of checkers (or insert whatever boardgame you wish here).
I still do this, btw, from time to time, and my players have a really hard time of it. If players walk into a 10'x10' hut - which in real life is large enough for an entire group to enter and have a conversation with someone within - I might draw the map as being 4 squares x 4 squares so the tokens/miniatures can fit. I'll still describe it as a 10x10 hut, and I try to explain that we're simply using grid squares instead of actual measurements just so everyone can fit - and invariably someone will try to argue that their spell should therefore cover even more of the room than I'm allowing.
The simple truth is that most people can't wrap their brains around the topic.
As for houseruling a different size for your grid squares - nothing is stopping you, but as others have pointed out this will make measuring distances for spells, AoE, and reach more difficult. Nothing is stopping you from houseruling different weapon traits either - but again, there's a reason 5e simplified those (some would say over-simplified them). You could also play "grid-less". Don't use grids at all, simply measure distances. Most VTTs allow this, and using tape measures on tabletop is always an option - but again, most players start to have a problem with this which is why it is the exception and not the rule.
Did you know that once upon a time each weapon had a different speed, meaning your initiative was determined by what weapon you were using? Did you know that once upon a time each weapon had a different ability to affect different armor types? Those weapon sizes you quote - one guess why those were removed in the editions that followed.
Although more realistic, those rules were dropped in previous editions because most people found it to be too complex. I would ask yourself, is the problem or issue that you're trying to solve better or worse than your solution? Also, if you have so many houserules that your players need to constantly check a notebook to keep track of them - is it really worth all the extra hassle?
In the end, it is your game table, you set the rules (so long as your players are ok with it).
I’ve played other games (earlier editions of D&D plus others) where you had to worry about reach and how close you are depending on the weapon. My groups always abandoned the practice pretty quickly. The effort required did not increase the fun by a proportional amount.
It did have its moments. Like if I have a dagger and you have a glaive, and I can get up close inside your reach, I’m suddenly very dangerous. But in the end, it just wasn’t worth it for us.
As far as creature size, they have a game balance function. While they’re larger, so they threaten and control a bigger area, they’re also easier to target. More melee characters can be adjacent to them, ranged characters have an easier time finding a clear shot without cover, and casters only need to catch one part of them in an AoE. So I wouldn’t meddle with size too much.
The cut and thrust of my argument is that cutting actions can take more space (often horizontally and lacking in confined spaces) while thusting and spear positioning actions can take less.
I think that the thing that broke me was the polearm master feat which would allow weapons that could extend to the extent of the fabled 10' pole and be spun, even by a dwarf height character, with no safe space provided to characters on either side. Nor do think that spell casters may necessarily need to occupy separate 5' squares, when considering that their somatic components just require the use of one hand and that they may be casting spells with purely verhal or limited material components,
A rogue standing there with a dagger might technically need less space, while a Goliath with a battleaxe would need more, but 5 feet is a reasonable approximation for the amount of space a character occupies. And they may well need that space during a round, since they're not standing there in formation. They need to be able to thrust, turn, parry, spin. Even a halfling with a knife will need room to move around.
Thank you, this provides a great contextualised idea for a rogue facing an opponent. But with two rogues chasing a merchant down that alley that will soon open up into a major street, I think that the two rogues would effectively use the small space available. These are flexible operatives who can make good use of any small gap afforded. It's a bit like big cats, They might take up space when circling each other, but they could all jump onto the back of a fleeing or cornered wildebeast.
Piercing weapons have long been supreme in history, we're talking spears, pikes..., arrows and bolts here. Soldiers with bows and crossbows may occupy any space available but if space is limited (such as with a doorway from a corridor) is if a volley with density was desireed, they can pack in.
In siege battles, soldiers have been historically known to pack the ramparts. A 5e tower placed on top of an elephant may accomodate four characters but, in most conceptions, it hasn't been a literal 10' by 10' tower placed on top of that poor beast.
I have relatively rarely known players to develop sword and board/weapon and shield characters in 5e even though these builds proliferated in history. It was standard among the armoured Romans and Greeks and was even more popular among peoples who, often for reasons of local climate, opted to fight unencumbered and unarmoured. Tribal warriors could be canny and precision based attackers. Carrying a shield may add a little to weight but may not significantly add to noise.
In fantasy the "ranger" named Strider may have travelled light with just a sword, but even with all his elven training Aragorn still took up a shield when facing the confines and choke points of Helm's Deep. Similarly armies like those of the Romans were even more dependent on shields and close formations when cleaing out towns.
It may make sense for warriors within small groups and on an open field to fight with perhaps with one arm free for balance with just one dedicated weapon, but when going into close confines, thrusting weapons with shield protection would rule.
I think it would make sense to permit a pair of gladus and shield type combatants to occupy a single square and I don't see that this would raise issue. In a more open setting, and even though I wouldn't expect a party to have many warriors, I wouldn't allow four such warrior to occupy two adjacent squares.
Question: If a player was to take two characters instead of one, at what lower propotion of experience should those characters have in comparison to the single characters of other players. Especially in a world of magic and sorcery I can imagine that pairings (or groupings) of warriors might work together to watch each other's backs and I'm sure that magicians and sorcerers might well want to associate with people like this. I mean, If you want to have a tank facility, why not have it with double shielding..?
The cut and thrust of my argument is that cutting actions can take more space (often horizontally and lacking in confined spaces) while thusting and spear positioning actions can take less.
This is a level of granularity that 5e doesn't remotely attempt to approach, and trying to bodge it into the game will just cause issues. You would have better luck with a system/edition designed for this level of (imo) pedantic detail.
This is a level of granularity that 5e doesn't remotely attempt to approach, .
That's utter BS. D&D has historically added: more classes; subclasses; subraces with even humans having variants; backgrounds, rules that, in certain conditions, characters can move through occupied spaces; rules for squeeziing through spaces; rules on reach and utterly noc-sensical rules that characters can swing a pike; short rest rules, death save rules, passive checks and group checks, legandary resistances, inspiration, ritual casting,
trying to bodge it into the game will just cause issues.
What issues? I I'd just say that if players wanted to they could make a case for why characters could remain active while sharing the same space. What reason can you come up with why two spellcasters, either or both of whom could be gnomes or other small or slight creatures, couldn't share a space and say cast spells with verbal components? (The somatic components only require one hand). Are you trying to evoke some kind of bad breath bullshit granularity?
You would have better luck with a system/edition designed for this level of (imo) pedantic detail.
What game? Please give suggestions and your reasons why you think that they would be more suitable. 5e can operate with a grid system, and it is one that can easily be adapted in the moderate ways I've suggested.
My idea is simple. Players, should they wish to, can make a case and a DM can make a decision.
It is very common to see “but this would make sense in the real world” arguments against D&D’s rules. The response is invariably some variation on “D&D is not designed for realism; it is a game designed for interchangeability, with a core element of gameplay design being mechanics that are easy to access, so complexity comes from encounter design not the system itself.”
You keep ignoring that point and making long “but realism” arguments with historical examples I am sure nearly everyone on this thread already knows. That is not an actual counter-argument to the points raised by others - it is doubling down on your initial argument that was already effectively countered with “the developers know it is not the most realistic; they found gameplay more compelling than realism.”
Let us, for example take your argument about shields. There are legitimate gameplay complaints to make about tanking in 5e - 4e, for example, went out of its way to make taunts and tanking viable from a mechanical perspective in a way 5e does not. You are not, however, making an argument of “better mechanical taunts would improve gameplay by adding a new dynamic to combat” but the argument of “historically shields were important.”
The former is a discussion on D&D; the latter is an argument about trying to make D&D something it intentionally is not - a realistic simulation.
“D&D is not designed for realism; it is a game designed for interchangeability, with a core element of gameplay design being mechanics that are easy to access, so complexity comes from encounter design not the system itself.”
A lot of realism is considered. Rapiers are considered to have finesse. Axes, not so much.
' if not using physical miniatures or a snap to grid).
If there are game practicalities that work against the ideas mentioned then they should also be considered, If systems such as using tokens are in operation maybe realities could fit in more readily,
There are legitimate gameplay complaints to make about tanking in 5e - 4e, for example, went out of its way to make taunts and tanking viable from a mechanical perspective in a way 5e does not.
I'm with you on this, Taunting can be, well, taunting. I'm in a TOR 2e game at the moment with an armoured khazd (dwarf) in Khazad Dum (Moria) and taunting via RP can be a fun and creative addition to the game.
There's no way that a line or five rogues with daggers require a similar 25 foot space as other comhatants and arcuably 5 wielders of glaves or two-handed swords might typically need a lot more.
Here are rules adaptations that I'd suggest:
Adjust all 5ft grids to 3' (or perhaps 6' if not using physical miniatures or a snap to grid).
- the choice of three foot measure is that this fits in with the space typically taken by roman soldiers in a phalanx with a 2ft (or slightly more) being taken up by the shield and with the rest of the space being used for fighting with a thrusting sword or spear.
I'd suggest that, while the character remains medium sized, that they have a space requirement of a large creature.
Here's a list of weapons from the ad&d (1e) PHB of weapons with their space required stats (weapon lengths were shown separately):
Axe, Battle 4' Axe, Hand 1' Bardiche 5' Bec de Corbin 6' Bill-Guisarme 2' Bo Stick 3' Club 1'3" Dagger 1' Fauchard 2' Fauchard-Fork 2' Fist or Open Hand 1' Flail, Footman's 6' Flail, Horseman's 4' Fork, Military 1' Glaive 1' Glaive-Guisarme 2' Guisarme 2' Guisarme-Voulge 2' Halberd 5' Hammer, Lucern 5' Hammer 2' Jo Stick 2' Lance (heavy horse) 1' Lance (medium horse) 1' Lance (light horse) 1' Mace, Footman's 4' Mace, Horseman's 2' Morning Star 5' Partisan 3' Pick, Military, Footman's 2' Pike, awl 1' Ranseur 1' Scimitar 2' Spear 1' Spetum 1' Staff, quarter 3' Sword, bastard 4' Sword, broad 4' Sword, long 3' Sword, short 1' Sword, two-handed 6' Trident 1' Voulge 2'
I'd argue that a glaive requires more side to side space but perhaps a lot of this is reasonable.
Perhaps creature sizes could be open to DM interpretation to fit.
Here are some reasons why this is a bad idea:
All of this for what? To ameliorate the lack of suspension of disbelief you have for some niche edge cases? Edge cases that—rather than modifying the foundational scale of the game—the DM could just adjust for on the fly?
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
This is one of those cases where the rules aren't meant to directly simulate reality in a 1 to 1 model, but rather the rules approximate combat in a way that is fun and still understandable. Just like how in a turn-based strategy game, when you see the characters fighting, you understand that they're not just standing around taking turns whakcing each other and letting themselves get whacked, and that in the fiction it's an epic, skillful duel.
The rules exist to give you meaningful tactical options, to be easily understood by all, and to still be fun. 5 feet works just fine for that.
I see what you mean about minis but would argue that they are mainly representative.
I was looking for a way in which minis might still be consistently used, though it might alternatly be possible to keep a 5' grid but consider that two sword and board fighters could operate in the same area. Several games I've known use tokens anyway so this might not be a great issue. It's not like characters would be forced to occuply a smaller area though I;s argue that rogues with knives and various others could choose to do so.
I'd also say that a spear can be considered as a reach weapon when thtust one-handed and that a staff can also be used at reach when used as a long club which could be used two-handed.
It could just be an optional rule. It could be greatly advantageous with choke points while increasing vulnerabiity to AoE.
AoE is another subject that might ideally be revisited. Many forms of AoE come from sprays or explosions against which shields might be effective, There's certainly an argument that a shield might be a better defence against a fireball than a dexterous within the envelopment attempt to dodge.
The rules already say that characters can move through a space occupied by a non-hostile creature. Usage of things like tokens permitting, I think it could be fine for creatures to remain functional in that shared space if they were armed with suitable weaponry like spears of daggers. Perhaps we could just say that very occupied spaces were less easy to pass through.
You're looking for a level of complexity that D&D 5th edition is not intended nor designed to support. You might want to try another edition or system
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
D&D's combat is highly abstracted. A rogue standing there with a dagger might technically need less space, while a Goliath with a battleaxe would need more, but 5 feet is a reasonable approximation for the amount of space a character occupies. And they may well need that space during a round, since they're not standing there in formation. They need to be able to thrust, turn, parry, spin. Even a halfling with a knife will need room to move around.
Earlier editions attempted to address this, but people found it too confusing. The issue you seem to be having is related to assigning a set 5 ft. to every grid. In an earlier edition an attempt was made to offer an option to express everything in grid squares without assigning a measurement to the square. In other words, if you entered a small house, each grid could actually represent 2 ft squares (or whatever size you needed them to be), while outdoors each grid could be 5 ft. Each medium creature occupied one grid square.
The problem with that method is that players would then argue, "but my spell says it affects a 10' radius so I should be able to affect 5 grid radius while indoors" or "how come I can control a 15' diameter outside but inside I can only control a 6' diameter when my arms are the same size." "Why is my fireball bigger outside." Also that 50' rope would suddenly be able to stretch 25 squares instead of 10 - players had a hard time with it. Expressing everything in grid squares (instead of feet, meters, etc.) made it feel too much like a game of checkers (or insert whatever boardgame you wish here).
I still do this, btw, from time to time, and my players have a really hard time of it. If players walk into a 10'x10' hut - which in real life is large enough for an entire group to enter and have a conversation with someone within - I might draw the map as being 4 squares x 4 squares so the tokens/miniatures can fit. I'll still describe it as a 10x10 hut, and I try to explain that we're simply using grid squares instead of actual measurements just so everyone can fit - and invariably someone will try to argue that their spell should therefore cover even more of the room than I'm allowing.
The simple truth is that most people can't wrap their brains around the topic.
As for houseruling a different size for your grid squares - nothing is stopping you, but as others have pointed out this will make measuring distances for spells, AoE, and reach more difficult. Nothing is stopping you from houseruling different weapon traits either - but again, there's a reason 5e simplified those (some would say over-simplified them). You could also play "grid-less". Don't use grids at all, simply measure distances. Most VTTs allow this, and using tape measures on tabletop is always an option - but again, most players start to have a problem with this which is why it is the exception and not the rule.
Did you know that once upon a time each weapon had a different speed, meaning your initiative was determined by what weapon you were using?
Did you know that once upon a time each weapon had a different ability to affect different armor types?
Those weapon sizes you quote - one guess why those were removed in the editions that followed.
Although more realistic, those rules were dropped in previous editions because most people found it to be too complex. I would ask yourself, is the problem or issue that you're trying to solve better or worse than your solution? Also, if you have so many houserules that your players need to constantly check a notebook to keep track of them - is it really worth all the extra hassle?
In the end, it is your game table, you set the rules (so long as your players are ok with it).
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (original Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
D&D combat has a certain level of abstraction and doesn't perfectly emulate reality like some other RPG which do it better.
I’ve played other games (earlier editions of D&D plus others) where you had to worry about reach and how close you are depending on the weapon. My groups always abandoned the practice pretty quickly. The effort required did not increase the fun by a proportional amount.
It did have its moments. Like if I have a dagger and you have a glaive, and I can get up close inside your reach, I’m suddenly very dangerous. But in the end, it just wasn’t worth it for us.
As far as creature size, they have a game balance function. While they’re larger, so they threaten and control a bigger area, they’re also easier to target. More melee characters can be adjacent to them, ranged characters have an easier time finding a clear shot without cover, and casters only need to catch one part of them in an AoE. So I wouldn’t meddle with size too much.
The cut and thrust of my argument is that cutting actions can take more space (often horizontally and lacking in confined spaces) while thusting and spear positioning actions can take less.
I think that the thing that broke me was the polearm master feat which would allow weapons that could extend to the extent of the fabled 10' pole and be spun, even by a dwarf height character, with no safe space provided to characters on either side.
Nor do think that spell casters may necessarily need to occupy separate 5' squares, when considering that their somatic components just require the use of one hand and that they may be casting spells with purely verhal or limited material components,
Thank you, this provides a great contextualised idea for a rogue facing an opponent. But with two rogues chasing a merchant down that alley that will soon open up into a major street, I think that the two rogues would effectively use the small space available. These are flexible operatives who can make good use of any small gap afforded. It's a bit like big cats, They might take up space when circling each other, but they could all jump onto the back of a fleeing or cornered wildebeast.
Piercing weapons have long been supreme in history, we're talking spears, pikes..., arrows and bolts here.
Soldiers with bows and crossbows may occupy any space available but if space is limited (such as with a doorway from a corridor) is if a volley with density was desireed, they can pack in.
In siege battles, soldiers have been historically known to pack the ramparts. A 5e tower placed on top of an elephant may accomodate four characters but, in most conceptions, it hasn't been a literal 10' by 10' tower placed on top of that poor beast.
I have relatively rarely known players to develop sword and board/weapon and shield characters in 5e even though these builds proliferated in history. It was standard among the armoured Romans and Greeks and was even more popular among peoples who, often for reasons of local climate, opted to fight unencumbered and unarmoured. Tribal warriors could be canny and precision based attackers. Carrying a shield may add a little to weight but may not significantly add to noise.
In fantasy the "ranger" named Strider may have travelled light with just a sword, but even with all his elven training Aragorn still took up a shield when facing the confines and choke points of Helm's Deep. Similarly armies like those of the Romans were even more dependent on shields and close formations when cleaing out towns.
It may make sense for warriors within small groups and on an open field to fight with perhaps with one arm free for balance with just one dedicated weapon, but when going into close confines, thrusting weapons with shield protection would rule.
I think it would make sense to permit a pair of gladus and shield type combatants to occupy a single square and I don't see that this would raise issue. In a more open setting, and even though I wouldn't expect a party to have many warriors, I wouldn't allow four such warrior to occupy two adjacent squares.
Question: If a player was to take two characters instead of one, at what lower propotion of experience should those characters have in comparison to the single characters of other players. Especially in a world of magic and sorcery I can imagine that pairings (or groupings) of warriors might work together to watch each other's backs and I'm sure that magicians and sorcerers might well want to associate with people like this. I mean, If you want to have a tank facility, why not have it with double shielding..?
This is a level of granularity that 5e doesn't remotely attempt to approach, and trying to bodge it into the game will just cause issues. You would have better luck with a system/edition designed for this level of (imo) pedantic detail.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
That's utter BS.
D&D has historically added:
more classes;
subclasses;
subraces with even humans having variants;
backgrounds,
rules that, in certain conditions, characters can move through occupied spaces;
rules for squeeziing through spaces;
rules on reach and utterly noc-sensical rules that characters can swing a pike;
short rest rules,
death save rules,
passive checks and group checks,
legandary resistances,
inspiration,
ritual casting,
What issues? I
I'd just say that if players wanted to they could make a case for why characters could remain active while sharing the same space.
What reason can you come up with why two spellcasters, either or both of whom could be gnomes or other small or slight creatures, couldn't share a space and say cast spells with verbal components? (The somatic components only require one hand). Are you trying to evoke some kind of bad breath bullshit granularity?
What game? Please give suggestions and your reasons why you think that they would be more suitable.
5e can operate with a grid system, and it is one that can easily be adapted in the moderate ways I've suggested.
My idea is simple. Players, should they wish to, can make a case and a DM can make a decision.
It is very common to see “but this would make sense in the real world” arguments against D&D’s rules. The response is invariably some variation on “D&D is not designed for realism; it is a game designed for interchangeability, with a core element of gameplay design being mechanics that are easy to access, so complexity comes from encounter design not the system itself.”
You keep ignoring that point and making long “but realism” arguments with historical examples I am sure nearly everyone on this thread already knows. That is not an actual counter-argument to the points raised by others - it is doubling down on your initial argument that was already effectively countered with “the developers know it is not the most realistic; they found gameplay more compelling than realism.”
Let us, for example take your argument about shields. There are legitimate gameplay complaints to make about tanking in 5e - 4e, for example, went out of its way to make taunts and tanking viable from a mechanical perspective in a way 5e does not. You are not, however, making an argument of “better mechanical taunts would improve gameplay by adding a new dynamic to combat” but the argument of “historically shields were important.”
The former is a discussion on D&D; the latter is an argument about trying to make D&D something it intentionally is not - a realistic simulation.
A lot of realism is considered. Rapiers are considered to have finesse. Axes, not so much.
I'd had qualified my suggestions with:
If there are game practicalities that work against the ideas mentioned then they should also be considered, If systems such as using tokens are in operation maybe realities could fit in more readily,
I'm with you on this, Taunting can be, well, taunting. I'm in a TOR 2e game at the moment with an armoured khazd (dwarf) in Khazad Dum (Moria) and taunting via RP can be a fun and creative addition to the game.
and thrusting/impaling weapons as the majority of weapons that have had military use
And yet D&D has (some) aspects of realism.