HD&D: Size Matters?

In the third edition game, a creature’s size has a significant impact on its statistics. Each of the nine size categories came with its own size modifier. This modifier was used to modify attack bonuses, armour class, grapple checks and hide checks. There’s a full list of the size categories and the modifiers over at the d20 SRD site. The question I am currently wrestling with, as I’m sure you all saw coming, is how much (if at all) we incorporate Size into HD&D. Do we need to go down this road at all?

A Closer Look at Third Edition

You can follow the above link and look at all the juicy rules for size and third edition. Despite that, I’m going to reproduce most of them here to facilitate discussion. There were nine size categories in third edition, all of which gave the creatures varying bonuses and penalties. Let’s have a look them:

Height: 6″ or less; Weight: 2 oz. or less
AC Modifier: +8; Attack Modifier: +8; Grapple Modifier: -16; Hide Modifier: +16
Ability Score Modifiers: Str (-10), Dex (+8), Con (-2)
Natural Armour: 0

Height: 6″ – 1 ft; Weight: 2 oz. – 1 lb
AC Modifier: +4; Attack Modifier: +4; Grapple Modifier: –12; Hide Modifier: +12
Ability Score Modifiers: Str (-10), Dex (+6), Con (-2)
Natural Armour: 0

Height: 1 -2 ft; Weight: 1 – 8 lbs
AC Modifier: +2; Attack Modifier: +2; Grapple Modifier: -8; Hide Modifier: +8
Ability Score Modifiers: Str (-8), Dex (+4), Con (-2)
Natural Armour: 0

Height: 2 -4 ft; Weight: 8 – 60 lbs
AC Modifier: +1; Attack Modifier: +1; Grapple Modifier: -4; Hide Modifier: +4
Ability Score Modifiers: Str (-4), Dex (+2), Con (+0)
Natural Armour: 0

Height: 4 – 8 ft; Weight: 60 – 500 lbs
AC Modifier: +0; Attack Modifier: +0; Grapple Modifier: +0; Hide Modifier: +0
Ability Score Modifiers: Str (+0), Dex (+0), Con (+0)
Natural Armour: 0

Height: 8 – 16 ft; Weight: 500 lbs – 2 tons
AC Modifier: -1; Attack Modifier: -1; Grapple Modifier: +4; Hide Modifier: -4
Ability Score Modifiers: Str (+8), Dex (-2), Con (+4)
Natural Armour: +2

Height: 16 – 32 ft; Weight: 2 – 16 tons
AC Modifier: -2; Attack Modifier: -2; Grapple Modifier: +8; Hide Modifier: -8
Ability Score Modifiers: Str (+16), Dex (-4), Con (+8)
Natural Armour: +5

Height: 32 – 64 ft; Weight: 16 – 125 tons
AC Modifier: -4; Attack Modifier: -4; Grapple Modifier: +12; Hide Modifier: -12
Ability Score Modifiers: Str (+24), Dex (-4), Con (+12)
Natural Armour: +9

Height: 64 ft or more; Weight: 125 tons or more
AC Modifier: -8; Attack Modifier: -8; Grapple Modifier: +16; Hide Modifier: -16
Ability Score Modifiers: Str (+32), Dex (-4), Con (+16)
Natural Armour: +14

Is it any wonder that so many have accused third edition of being too complex? The size rules in third edition are a good example of Modifiers Gone Mad. What seemed like a sound and rational use of the rules to begin with, was extrapolated to the point that all they do is slow the game down.  This is probably the reason why the size rules aren’t properly followed in third edition. The Enlarge Personspell grants the recipient +2 Str, -2 Dex and -1 to AC and Attack rolls regardless. The halfling is a Small creature, but it gets a -2 penalty to its Strength, not -4.

You will also note that the third edition size rules are something of a dodge. They seem to be following the (arguably reasonable) rationale that large creatures are ungainly (and therefore easier to hit), and clumsy (find it harder to hit others). A low dexterity, and the imposition of a size penalty to armour class and attack rolls played into this. But larger creatures get such stonking Strength and Natural Armour modifiers that this is completely eclipsed their defects. A colossal creature is actually harder to hit and a better fighter despite its size. Which largely makes you wonder why they bothered.

A Closer Look at Fourth Edition

Of course, in fourth edition, they didn’t bother. The only significant nod toward size is that Small PCs can wield two-handed weapons. Size doesn’t factor into the rest of the rules at all, except to tell a GM how many squares a monster occupies on the battle grid. Size was a big thing in third edition, and yet it hardly matters at all in fourth? Do either of these games provide us with a model for HD&D?

Also in fourth edition, the designers reduced the number of size categories from nine to seven. They did away with the Colossal and Fine categories (the latter of which was a damn silly name any way). However, I suspect their motivation had more to do with fitting the largest monsters on their doody Dungeon Tiles series of products. I feel a rant coming on, but I’ll fight it down to keep the post on track.

Size in HD&D

Conceptually, HD&D leans much closer to third edition than Fourth. However, I don’t really want to embrace all of the third edition size modifiers with gay abandon. There are some things I’m sure that I want to do, other things that I’m not so sure about. Hence me writing this post at all. 

Generally, the problem of Size granting bonuses and imposing penalties to anything, is that Size isn’t something that scales with level. You are either one size or the other: it doesn’t matter if you’re a 55th level fighter, if you’re a human you’re still only medium sized. If all the other variables in the system (attack rolls, defences and so on) scale with level, then a character of a different size is a statistical blip in the system. However, I don’t want to champion system efficiency at the expense of verisimilitude. That is, after all, why we’re working on HD&D in the first place.

Size Categories

I’m happy to keep the nine size categories from third edition.  Anyone out there who can come up with a name for the smallest category that isn’t “Fine” will have my eternal gratitude. At the moment I’m leaning towards “Teeny Weeny” – which goes a long way to demonstrate how much I dislike the term “Fine”.  So, the categories are: Teeny Weeny, Diminutive, Tiny, Small, Medium, Large, Huge, Gargantuan and Colossal.

In all likelihood, PC races will either be Small, Medium or Large: with the vast majority being Medium, and the tiniest minority being Large. Therefore, workable rules need to exist for all three of these sizes to be available for player characters. That’s a challenge.

Hit Points

I have already mentioned this in a previous post, but it is my intention that Size modifiers a character’s hit points, by providing additional hit points at each level. Size takes on the roll that Constitution did in third edition. My initial thoughts as to how size modifiers hit points are as follows:


Bonus Hit Points

Teeny Weeny


















This is a modifier version of the table that first appeared in my post on Hit Points and Damage back in January. The bonus hit points are in addition to the 4 hit points per level than every race gains. So a medium-sized creatures gets an extra 4 hit points per level, and a colossal creatures gets an extra 20 hit points per level. I explained my reasoning behind additional hit points for larger creatures then, and my reasons haven’t changed since so I won’t repeat myself.

I think it’s crucial for the game that Medium and Small creatures are treated in the same way in almost all circumstances. There are so many Small PC races that to do otherwise is simply confusing. The laundry list of additional abilities granted to the third edition gnome and halfling is simply not sustainable in HD&D.

However, I am giving Large characters +4 hit points per level. I’m not sure that the HD&D system can cope with this benefit as a freebie that gets handed out to specific races. I remember it causing some issues in my old second edition Darksun campaigns, where the half-giant PC could simply swandive off a mountain range, get up and walk home. To draw a third edition equivalent, it would be like one character in the party having Con 18, and all the other party members having a Con of 10. So what can be done to balance this?

Reflex Defence

What if we applied a bonus or penalty to a character’s Reflex Defence based on their size. Larger characters have more hit points, but they get hit by attacks more often due to their size. Of course large creatures are also likely to have thick armour, so hitting such a creature is no guarantee of damaging it; but the obvious trade-off is in play. Large creatures have more hit points, but they are easier to hit so are more likely to be damaged more often. This sounds as though it should work. It sounds like the sort of thing that will make a player think twice before choosing to play a Large character.

But how do we get the balance right? Can we get away with using the same size modifiers from the table above? Probably not. A colossal creature might be getting +16 hit points per level, but that doesn’t balance with a -16 penalty to its Reflex Defence. That would mean a thirtieth level dragon would have Reflex Defence of 9 and would be successfully hit 95% of the time by almost any PC of 10th level of higher.

So what balance would be right?

I have crunched the numbers in a ludicrously complex Excel spreadsheet, that I won’t bore you by uploading. Basically, if we impose the same size modifier to Reflex defence as we do to hit points, then we notice the following things:

  • Small and Medium size characters work well at all levels. It takes three successful hits (over six rounds) to bring such a character from maximum health to zero hit points.
  • It’s slightly more advantageous to be Tiny or smaller at low levels, and more of an advantage to be larger at higher levels.
  • Low level creatures of Huge, Gargantuan and Colossal size are more likely to be killed quickly than low level opponents of Medium size. This is because the extra hit points isn’t enough to off-set the extra damage they take from being hit more often.
  • A -4 penalty to Relfex for Large characters seems to work. Let me expand upon this.

If they just receieved the +4 hit points per level, Large creatures would be brought down with five successful hits (over the course of 10 rounds in a one-on-one fight), as opposed to the three successful hits it required to floor a medium sized creature.  However, that is only the case if the chance to hit the Large creature is the same as the chance to hit a Medium sized creature. A -4 to Reflex Defence is the same a 20% increase the chance of being hit with each attack. It doesn’t affect the number of successful hits that are required, but the amount of times those hits land is more frequent. Assuming a one-on-one fight, the -4 to Reflex means that a Large character will take those hits over six rounds during the very low levels, and over seven rounds for the majority of its career.

Basically, a Large creature with +4 hit points per level, and a -4 to Reflex defence can only expect to stand up in combat for one round longer than a Medium sized character with less hit points and a higher Reflex. Frankly, that doesn’t sound like too bad a situation to me.

If you are looking at a situation where you have Large and Medium sized creatures fighting alongside one another in the same party, then this would seem to be an obvious solution. But there are some problems doing it this way. I’ll touch on them below.

Anything Else?

Apart from Reflex Defence and Hit Points I don’t propose to let Size affect any other character-based statistic in HD&D. Creatures of a larger size are obviously going to be stronger and slower than smaller creatures but I don’t think there’s any reason to formalise that into a size-related ability score modifier. The invidual attributes for any given race can cover that aspect of the rules just as efficiently and far more simply. If we have a spell that makes a character larger, then we can adjudicate what that spell actually does when we write it. The same can be said of a natural armour bonus.

Equally Size doesn’t need to apply to grapple anymore. There’s no such thing as an “Opposed Grapple Check” in HD&D, instead you’d be making an Unarmed Strike against your opponents Fortitude defence. And as for the Hide skill… well the rules say that in order to hide you have to find an area of cover or concealment that is larger than you are. So there’s no need to impose a penalty on the check, it’s just that larger creatures will find that the chances of them being able to make a Hide check are few and far between.

Problems Inherent in the System

I have no problem in using Size as a way to increase the hit points of larger creatures. That seems highly appropriate. However, also using it to modify a character’s Reflex defence is a might iffy. Remember that one of my hopes in giving humungous monsters more hit point is that a group of PCs could attack one such monster, and the fight would last more than about half a combat round. Balancing Size to Hit Points destroys this idea.

But you might argue that such an idea deserves to be destroyed. After all the “Solo Monster” concept for 4e has been met with general disdain from my current gaming group. But this is not just a 4e problem. The greatest of all solo monsters (the great wyrm red dragon) may have 1390 hit points in 4e, but it still has 660 hit points in third edition. That’s still significantly more than the PCs because it’s intended to be able to survive for a fair amount of time against a number of opponents. We don’t want the dragon getting killed half way through round two because all the PCs are attacking it at once.

Two things could ride to the rescue here. The first (and most obvious) is Armour. Colossal creatures have very thick hides. They may get hit more often, but their armour class (i.e. damage reduction in 3rd ed-speak) is likely to compensate for this. That would require a little more number crunching on my part. However, if we go with a Damage Conversion rather than a Damage Reduction mechanic for armour, that solution evaporates.

The other thing is we could just use different size modifiers to modify Reflex Defence, than we use for hit points. Nothing wrong with that. We could stack the deck so there was no net benefit for a PC to play a Large character, but the advantage of size soon ramped up when you reach the Huge, Gargantuan and Colossal categories. But that feels a bit like cheating to me. If we halved the modifiers a Large creatur would have -2 to Relfex, Huge -4, Gargantuan -6 and Colossal -8.


We could just say “bugger it” and only apply the Size modifier to hit points. Let Large PCs enjoy the benefits of being large without being incommoded by it. We could balance it in other ways. Large Size could be a racial talent (or a number of talents) if we thought it appropriate. Personally, I think it would be nice if we didn’t have to bother with talents: that the extra hit points you get for an increased Size balances with the penalty to reflex defence. It’s a trade off. This trade off only needs to be fair for large creatures, because players are never likely to get their handso on anything bigger.

The thought of a Great Wyrm dragon who is more agile than a kobold ballerina continues to irk me. Some thoughts on this one please! I need some guidance here.

16 thoughts on “HD&D: Size Matters?

  1. If you use talents to control size then you could have Humans that were akin to “Andre the Giant” and interesting “Runt” Ogre’s that were only medium sized – anything that adds to the flavour mix appeals to me.

    You could make the next level of size talent available at certain racial levels (for example) and runt ogre’s could use it to swap for “other talent” – therefore you could have the runt ogre with Higher Intelligence that is a good spellcaster with a couple of natty extra talents but only medium sized….

    Just thinking outloud again.

  2. Ha! “Miniature”! Excellent!

    If we assume that Small/Medium characters are the baseline and that anything larger than that is at an advantage, then your Runt Ogre wouldn’t so much have a talent to make himself medium-sized, as not have the required talent to make him larger. And yes, he could use that talent to pursue other endeavours. Yes, I hadn’t thought of making size-related talents more widely available, but there’s no reason why I couldn’t as long as the player could provide an adequate reason.

    But if we tie size to a talent, then we’re definitely saying that being large is an advantage. Which is fine: if you’re larger you have more hit points. But where does this leave a penalty to reflex defence dependent on size. Should we not have one?

  3. ok – well if the increase in size is taken as a talent – then why is there a need for a penalty – you’ve used a talent to gain the advantage.

    For example you could say – at 10th level all races get an extra talent.
    For ogres this could be a size increase ; for humans a talent signifying some racial trait of their flexibility…. I don’t know.

    You can alway trade this in for something else – but there is no need to penalise the size talent… it can simply be a bonus like all otehr talents.

    There is nothing to my mind that says a “Large” individual with good combat sense and high dex shouldn’t be better at avoiding the angry kobold with the pointy sword than the reed-watching wizard with the combat sense of a lemming.

  4. You’re right. If a larger size is taken as a talent, then there is no mechanical need for comensurate penalty. I’m just wondering whether it would be more ‘realistic’ for larger characters to be easier to hit. A 30th level dragon with a dex of 5, would still have a Reflex Defence of 27. As the Reflex Defence only represents the difficulty of hitting the target (not hitting and doing damage, as Armour Class did in third edition), then shouldn’t it be lower.

    Shouldn’t something the size of a barn door, be as easy to hit as a barn door?

    If you think on balance the answer is “no”, then great! Less work for me. Size becomes tied to the talent system, and that’s the end of it.

  5. Neil says this:

    Personally I wouldn’t bother. Looking at the huge variance within the size categories themselves, medium 4′ to 8′, for example you could argue that there should be differences in stats even here. That road leads to madness however and so I would group miniature (who said Jon was just a big cheque ;-) ?) tiny and diminutive together, small, medium and large together and huge, gargantuan and colossal together making just three categories none of which PCs are affected by!

    On a purely logical note, proportionally larger creatures will be tougher, stronger (do more damage) have more HP and be able to cover the ground quicker (move). They would likely be easier to hit (for smaller creatures) but not necessarily slower (reflexes). Smaller creatures on the other hand should be harder to hit for larger creatures but would be considerably more fragile and weaker ( do less damage) the smaller they got. Physiology of course also comes into play: insects for example are much tougher than an equivalently sized mammal because they have an exoskeleton.

    IMHO leave size for monsters and just assign modifiers as you see fit. for example an ancient dragon would have masses more HP, be a lot tougher to hurt and would be relatively easy to hit for creatures smaller than it (the bonus would increase with diminishing size). A fairy on the otherhand would be hard to hit, for anything bigger than it, but be able to do little physical damage and would be crushed with a slap (assuming no magic).

    Remember size is relative, a dragon may well be much easier to hit for a human but a Tarrasque would have about the same chance as a human against a human (if you get my meaning).

    Another problem you have is that you have lniked the ability to be hit with reflexes, again a dragon will be easier to hit due to it’s sher size but its reflexes shouldn’t be any less.

  6. I like any advice that starts, “Personally, I wouldn’t bother”!

    As you can see from the tables above, third edition implemented the logic that smaller creatures have an easier time against larger opponents pretty well. All creatures except Medium creatures had their armour class and their attacks modified by size. These bonuses and penalties meant that a Huge creature fighting another Huge creature was on the same level playing field as a human fighting a human. The size modifiers only really came into play with combat between the size categories.

    Those rules exist in third edition, and I can leave them unchanged for HD&D. It adds an extra degree of complexity to monster design, but that is all. However, the more bonuses and penalties we heap onto Size, the less likely it is we can use the talent system for Large PCs.

    As it stands at present in HD&D, size affects your hit points. And nothing else. Now, it’s all very well saying that I can simply assign whatever modifiers I see fit to monsters, but that’s not going to butter any parsnips if I’m face with a Large PC. I need rules.

    D&D has no end of rules for this sort of thing, and HD&D does too to a certain extent. All creatures are built around the level mechanic, with skills and defences worked out to a mathematical formula. As I said in the comment to Jon above, a 30th level dragon will have a Reflex Defence of 10 + half his level + his Dexterity ability modifier. That means 25 + his Dex modifier.

    That’s really high, but there’s nothing I can really do to lower that (to take into account the dragon’s size) unless I have a rule that says something like “All Colossal creatures get -8 to their Reflex Defence”.

    Just a note of terminology: Reflex Defence is supposed to represent your ability to get out of the way of being hit. You might as well call it Dodge. While I grant you a dragon’s reflexes (with a small “R”) won’t be influenced by its size, its Reflex Defence probably should be.

    It strikes me that I’m tying myself in a knot over this, and I’m probably thinking that it’s a bigger deal than it actually is.

  7. I think that your colossal dragons should have a huge -16 penalty to reflex defenses. If I was stood next to something of that size I would have to be pretty inept not to hit it 95% of the time. Its huge DR or AC would be the problem. I think it is fine to hit a dragon nearly every time but this is balanced by struggling to do enough damage to it for it to even notice.

  8. I fear that, despite Jon and Neil’s welcome advice to not bother, that I tend to agree with you Steve. I think I would prefer it if a creature’s size affected a broad array of statistics. Whether these modifications would merit a talent would depend on how much of an advantage they were.

    However, I think that giving Colossal creatures a -16 to their Reflex saves is a little too much in HD&D. Taking into account what Neil as well, here are my proposals. Notice that Size does not necessarily affect ability scores, although it’s extremely likely that humungous creatures will be tougher and stronger than smaller creatures. Creatures advantaged by higher than average ability scores get those higher stats using the talent system.

    Max of 1 hit point/level; +6 to attack rolls; +6 to Reflex Defence

    -4 hit points/level; +4 to attack rolls; +4 to Reflex Defence

    -2 hit points/level; +2 to attack rolls; +2 to Reflex Defence

    No modifiers

    +4 hit points/level; -2 to all attack rolls; -2 to Reflex Defence

    +8 hit points/level; -4 to all attack rolls; -4 to Reflex Defence

    +12 hit points/level; -6 to all attack rolls; -6 to Reflex Defence

    +16 hit points/level; -8 to all attack rolls; -8 to Reflex Defence

    Now is that fair. The penalty to Relfex compared to the additional hit points per level is not a fair trade off. The extra hit points keep the larger creatures on their feet for longer than a medium sized creature despite the fact they are hit more often. If you consider a Medium sized creature should last 6 rounds in combat:

    Large (8 rounds), Huge (9-10 rounds), Gargantuan (10-11 rounds), Colossal (11-12 rounds). However, that’s in a solo fight against one PC. Against two PCs they will go down twice as quickly. A party of six PCs of the right level would – all things being equal – drop a Colossal dragon in two rounds. However, all things are not equal, as the dragon can also rely on its Armour Class and the fact it dishes out more than average damage.

    However, the penalty to hit is a major disadvantage. Now larger creatures do more damage, so although they may hit less often when they do it you would certainly feel it. Also, as high strength often modifies a creature’s attack roll anyway, very strong creatures may mitigate this penalty (as they did in third edition).

    Arguably, larger creatures may also possess attacks where the Size modifier is not appropriate. A dragon may apply its size penalty to its melee attacks, but not to its breath weapon (for example).

    Anyway – my material point is that being of a size other than Small or Medium is a mixed bag. It is a combination of advantages and disadvantages that (taken as a whole) are cost neutral. That means creatures who are larger or smaller don’t require special talents to be so. At least, that’s my hope.

  9. Possibly in hindsight, the penalty to attack rolls and Reflex defence could be -2, -3, -4, -5 instead of -2, -4, -6, -8. That might fit better into the HD&D maths. I’ll have to crunch some numbers to see. But at least I have something to work with.

  10. I like Liliputian for the miniature (minnute, miniscule) screatures. That may require a cultural reference unavailable on Iourn though.

    How about damage reduction scaled against size. -1 or -2 per size category difference smaller than you. You could make the creature easy to hit but the attacker finds itself doing less damage.

    I like the idea of size based talents, though it does suggest sudden growth spurts at different stages in the campaign for PCs and a range of sizes in ogre communities and such like races.

    A further penalty to large creatures is their social awkwardness in the society of smaller creatures. Much like a human hitting his head on the beam in a dwarven tavern a large PC will find it a lot harder to make his way through an uncomfortably small city – especially narrow alleyways and small doors. Not so much of a problem for red dragons I admit, but then their sense of etiquette is less refined.

  11. Lilputian is also good. Maybe I should have a frivilous poll.

    I think in practice damage reduction would have to scale with size. The tarrasque has thick hide, so it doesn’t matter how often you hit it you’re unlikely to get through without some awesome magic weapon. However, I would prefer not to tie damage reduction to size with a formal mechanic. All those gargantuan dire maggots don’t have thick armour.

    Social awkwardness is definitely a factor for charatcers larger creatures. Bob the Firbolg might have all the hit points in the world, but if he can’t get the NPCs to stop chasing him with pitchforks long enough to ask some questions, he’s never going to work out where the bodies are buried.

    Of course, you could argue that a human in a community of firbolgs would have the same problem, so you could argue that it should all balance out. One would hope that if the GM had been misguided enough to allow a firbolg PC in the first place, then firbolgs would be playing a large part in the campaign.

    The GM has the option to tweak the DCs of skills such as Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate to take into account racial differences (which can often be boiled down to a difference in stature). But again, this is something that operates outside the mechanics for Size with a capital “S”.

    I haven’t ruled out the possibility of size related talents, I think it would be easier not to have them.

  12. Neil says:

    Do you ever read my posts? I didn’t say don’t bother with monsters, of course you need rules for them but why make it harder on yourself for PCs? Hence my suggestion to reduce the number of categories; no PC should be smaller than “small” or larger than “large”, simple!

    Your modifiers should be based on differences between categories, not just a straight one-off modifier. Yes, a human fighting a dragon should easily hit it, but it shouldn’t be so easy (if any easier) for a more comparable sized creature hitting a dragon (hence my example of a Tarrasque).

  13. I of course read everything you type with due dilligence. It’s just that I don’t think that three size categories is enough. There are differences between Small and Medium sized characters in the weapons they can wield, even if there are no statistically different in terms of hit points.

    Limiting PC races to the Small, Medium and Large categories (as I define them) would probably work well enough. It’s really coming up with rules for monsters bigger and smaller than the PC races – to make sure that they are using the same rules as player characters, and singing from the same hymn sheet.

    Which I think is key to HD&D and a big mistake of fourth edition. Monsters and PCs have to use the same rules, so those rules need to be robust enough to take into account all eventualities.

    And I am sure that the mathematician in you will realise the size modifiers do level the playing field. For example:

    Humans have +0 to hit and +0 to Reflex defence. Their size doesn’t affect the chances of hitting another human.

    A colossal dragon has -5 to hit and -5 to Reflex defence. This means that its chances of hitting another colossal creature are the same as a human hitting a human. But its chances of hitting a smaller creature is less.

  14. Neil says:

    I was referring to your comment about “Jon and Neil’s advice” when I accused you of not reading my posts as I had said the same thing as Steve!

    Your point about the size categories intrinsically applying differential modifiers is a good one and not something I considered.

    Yes Reflex defence should be modified but not reflex. Also, move should be modified as a bigger creature will simply have a longer gait.

  15. I can’t really take credit for the size category modifiers: that’s the way they did it in third edition. We’re not calling this Hybrid D&D for nothing!

    The speed of larger creatures will probably be greater than smaller creatures, but I’m happy to apply that ad-hoc during monster design. Otherwise you’re left with a colossal slug that can outspring a cheetah!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s