This has always been something about dnd that confused me. For example, an imp (tiny), has more hit points than a goblin (small). Meaning that if I wack a goblin with a shortsword it’ll do more damage than if I hit an imp. This just doesn’t make any sense. My house rule is that if a creature is smaller than the weapon hitting it, it gains a +4 to AC but every hit with that weapon is a crit. Tell me what you think.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I wanted to put something funny but I couldn’t think of anything.
Hitting a goblin with a shortsword does the same amount of damage as hitting an imp. The imp is just tougher than a goblin is all. HP represents more than just how much physical damage a creature can sustain, it also represents how much grit a creature has too. Being a fiend, an imp is just grittier than a humanoid like a goblin.
Trying to use hit points as a measure of "physical resistance to damage" is like trying to use the combat rules to do a stroke by stroke combat play in a sword fight: it ignores the nature of the metric/function of the measure in the game.
The way I explain these things to new players is I try to get them some example of a fencing match among two equally skilled fencers in the real world who have a joy of showing off. Or some scene in a movie where two sword fighters are going at it.
There will be a series of exchanges, a lot of moving around, a back and forth and no one gets hurt and then suddenly someone is hit -- a point in fencing, or we see a cut along the arm or something. In D&D terms, that is a successful attack roll and some damage -- that scratch could be anything from 1 point to 10 points of damage, depending on the people involved and so forth -- an while it may look like just a scratch, it has an effect.
But all that stuff they did before that pointis all part of that first exchange --and that could mean three dozen strokes for either side.
Smaller creatures are going to be tougher to kill than larger ones because they are more nimble, have more experience fighting someone larger than they, are going to move differently and behave differently from a similar sized person, and are going to be much faster -- regardless of AC.
AC exists as a way to mitigate -- reflecting an extra degree of difficulty in getting a hit (AC determines if the hit is on a limb or in a vital spot, basically).
Another example is try to catch a hummingbird with your hands. Yes, you can do it, but it will take a while, require practice and skill, and all that. Or chase a chicken. Similar such actions demonstrate the difficulty of such things to those who have not spent a lot of time against such things.
So while you can do that rule, it does shift the balance of combat to a point where being small loses real meaning -- which strips you of some useful tools you can use when setting up encounters. A small creature is likely to select a space that minimizes the advantages of a large opponent -- where would you choose to fight a giant? In a space that gives you things to hide behind and move around in and that limits the ability of the giant to get in those huge powerful blows, or an open field where they can wail on you? Under your rules, applied fairly, giants have a plus four to hit a human or a dwarf.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This has always been something about dnd that confused me. For example, an imp (tiny), has more hit points than a goblin (small). Meaning that if I wack a goblin with a shortsword it’ll do more damage than if I hit an imp. This just doesn’t make any sense. My house rule is that if a creature is smaller than the weapon hitting it, it gains a +4 to AC but every hit with that weapon is a crit. Tell me what you think.
I wanted to put something funny but I couldn’t think of anything.
Hitting a goblin with a shortsword does the same amount of damage as hitting an imp. The imp is just tougher than a goblin is all. HP represents more than just how much physical damage a creature can sustain, it also represents how much grit a creature has too. Being a fiend, an imp is just grittier than a humanoid like a goblin.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Trying to use hit points as a measure of "physical resistance to damage" is like trying to use the combat rules to do a stroke by stroke combat play in a sword fight: it ignores the nature of the metric/function of the measure in the game.
The way I explain these things to new players is I try to get them some example of a fencing match among two equally skilled fencers in the real world who have a joy of showing off. Or some scene in a movie where two sword fighters are going at it.
There will be a series of exchanges, a lot of moving around, a back and forth and no one gets hurt and then suddenly someone is hit -- a point in fencing, or we see a cut along the arm or something. In D&D terms, that is a successful attack roll and some damage -- that scratch could be anything from 1 point to 10 points of damage, depending on the people involved and so forth -- an while it may look like just a scratch, it has an effect.
But all that stuff they did before that pointis all part of that first exchange --and that could mean three dozen strokes for either side.
Smaller creatures are going to be tougher to kill than larger ones because they are more nimble, have more experience fighting someone larger than they, are going to move differently and behave differently from a similar sized person, and are going to be much faster -- regardless of AC.
AC exists as a way to mitigate -- reflecting an extra degree of difficulty in getting a hit (AC determines if the hit is on a limb or in a vital spot, basically).
Another example is try to catch a hummingbird with your hands. Yes, you can do it, but it will take a while, require practice and skill, and all that. Or chase a chicken. Similar such actions demonstrate the difficulty of such things to those who have not spent a lot of time against such things.
So while you can do that rule, it does shift the balance of combat to a point where being small loses real meaning -- which strips you of some useful tools you can use when setting up encounters. A small creature is likely to select a space that minimizes the advantages of a large opponent -- where would you choose to fight a giant? In a space that gives you things to hide behind and move around in and that limits the ability of the giant to get in those huge powerful blows, or an open field where they can wail on you? Under your rules, applied fairly, giants have a plus four to hit a human or a dwarf.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds