So we just wrapped up a nice little Pathfinder game early, mostly due to asking the GM run out of ideas after an in-party betrayal. We had a week were we weren't sure what we wanted to play next so we decided to take our old characters and run an experiment, the 3 foot square. Exactly what it says on the tin, this system completely changed the reach of our weapons, swords suddenly could reach two tiles (which really irked the knife-rouge.) Packing got tight and eventually we fell back on Phalanx tactics simply because of the "over-watch" this granted us. It's become a hot topic. We're trying to figure out if there is a place/use for this setup. Maybe a different system? Anyways we're looking for outside opinions. Anybody got ones they want to share?
we never encountered reach weapons on our one off but the general idea was as you said. Light and One-handed weapons only could reach tile, most one and two handed weapons could reach two.
I like it, it makes the battlefield a more dangerous place to move about, and as a biproduct of danger - improves the value of Mobility builds.
I think it would be a good combination with allowing moving half base speed during a full attack, maybe allow the monk to attack squares 1-2 when flurrying with unarmed (but not threaten). More moving less stepping.
It could really do wonders for formation/mobility tactics, and I think it's an interesting alternate rules system.
So we just wrapped up a nice little Pathfinder game early, mostly due to asking the GM run out of ideas after an in-party betrayal. We had a week were we weren't sure what we wanted to play next so we decided to take our old characters and run an experiment, the 3 foot square. Exactly what it says on the tin, this system completely changed the reach of our weapons, swords suddenly could reach two tiles (which really irked the knife-rouge.) Packing got tight and eventually we fell back on Phalanx tactics simply because of the "over-watch" this granted us. It's become a hot topic. We're trying to figure out if there is a place/use for this setup. Maybe a different system? Anyways we're looking for outside opinions. Anybody got ones they want to share?
Just so I get this right, the grid's scale is reduced to 1 yard/square but weapons keep their reach of 5' (or 10' for reach weapon)?
I've been working on a system like this. Here's the cliff notes of what I came up with:
Grid Makeup
Spoiler:
First, the grid is much finer. Fine and Diminutive creatures take up 1 square, Tiny is 2 squares, Small is 3 squares, Medium is 4 squares, Large is 6 squares, Huge is 9, Garg is 15, and Col is 20. Keep in mind that the space a creature occupies is its tactical area, and it is not filled completely. Measure out a 5x5 foot square and look at how much room it gives you to move around in. Now imagine another person in a 5x5 foot square adjacent; there's lots of empty space between you if you stand on far edges, but you can also butt right up against each other. Having finer grids 1) simplifies reach mechanics, eliminating the "corner problem" for all but Fine and Diminutive creatures and 2) allows you to have better reach categories for weapons. So, if we want the "scale" to be roughly comparable, with a Medium creature taking up a tactical area of roughly 5' squared, we'll say a 4 square line represents 2 meters, meaning each square is a 0.5m by 0.5m (3.3' square).
fine and diminutive - 0.25m^2 (1x1 squares)
tiny - 1m^2 (2x2 squares)
small - 2.25m^2 (3x3 squares)
medium - 4m^2 (4x4 squares)
large - 9m^2 (6x6 squares)
so on and so forth
One might notice that the scale of area goes up far less than the actual size increase of the creatures. Basically, larger creatures get a more "cramped" tactical area because they're so big.
Weapons
Spoiler:
Now, for weapons. This is the tricky part because weapon sizes are so disparate. Furthermore, double weapons can be wielded either as double weapons to TWF with the two ends, or they can be wielded 2-h "by one end"; that, logically, would extend their reach (imagine holding a quarterstaff closer to the middle and thwacking with both ends as opposed to swinging it by one end like a baseball bat). Other double weapons, like the Double Sword, don't exhibit such a drastic difference because you'd be expected to wield the handle closest to the "not-in-use" head... not by the blade itself, so it would be expected not to get much, if any, reach increase. Lastly, we have the issue of weapons that have "inside reach limits". A Longsword or a Greataxe may have nice medium reach (not as short as a dagger, but not as long as a polearm), but they'd be expected not to work quite as well if the enemy is pressed right up against you. Imagine a knife fighter getting close and in-fighting where you can't handle your weapon as easily. Other weapons might not care where along their reach the target is. So we need general guidelines as well as specific exceptions.
First, natural reach:
Tiny/Diminutive: None
Tiny: <0.5m (<1 full square)
Small: 0.5m (1 full square)
Medium: 1m (2 full squares)
Large: 1.5m (3 full squares)
Huge: 2m (4 full squares)
Garg: 4m (8 full squares)
Col: 5m (10 full squares)
Keep in mind that these are tactical distances to go along with your tactical area. A Human doesn't have 1 meter arms to punch with any more than he has 5 foot arms to punch with in the traditional system; instead, he can tactically reach up to 1 meter out from his tactical area in which he dances around during combat. This means he's taking quick steps outside that area to take some of his opponent's territory to attack before retreating back into his own squares. Now, different weapons:
For example, a Human wielding a Dagger can reach out to 3 squares, but a target within 1 square of him (adjacent), is harder to hit (I'll cover what this means later). If he used a Longsword, he can hit out to 4 squares, but, again, an adjacent foe is harder to hit. If he uses a Greatsword, he can hit out to 6 squares but the first two squares are harder to hit.
Special Weapon Properties
Spoiler:
Next comes the Reach weapon property. Weapons with Reach are longer than other weapons of the same size category. This will also cover the possibility of using smaller weapons which maintain their reach property, but it's not quite as long because it's a smaller weapon (ie. a Human wielding a Small Longspear as a 1-h weapon) Reach, effectively, makes you start counting squares from your natural reach while everything inside your natural reach is untargetable.
So, for our Human:
Natural Reach: 2 squares
Light Reach Weapon: Can Hit 3-5 squares fully, 2-3 squares hard to hit, 0-2 squares cannot hit
1-h Reach: Can hit 3-6 squares fully, 2-3 squares hard to hit, 0-2 squares cannot hit
2-h Reach: Can hit 4-7 squares fully, 2-4 squares hard to hit, 0-2 squares cannot hit
Next, are double weapons. This is a tricky one because it relies on something not strictly codified in the rules; Shafted weapons vs Handled weapons. Basically, a double weapon with a Shaft (ie. Quarterstaff) can be wielded with the full reach of a 2-h weapon if you choose to forego the double property while a Handled weapon (ie. a Double Sword) only counts as a 1-h weapon for reach. Chained weapons are treated as Shafted weapons. If, instead, you use them as double weapons, you treat them as having 1-h reach unless the weapon calls out the one or both "heads" as equivalent to light weapons (ie. Double chained kama) in which case you treat them as light weapons for reach.
Next are exceptional weapon types. Some weapons, such as Close weapons, defy the normal categorization. Others such as the Monk property will give benefits specifically to the Monk class. Weapons from the Close fighter weapon group, plus Natural Weapons, only reach out to your Natural Reach, but they suffer no inside reach area. So your Unarmed Strike only goes out to 2 squares (1 meter), but there is no "too close" area where a target is harder to hit. Weapons with the Monk property/from the Monk Fighter group include the "too close" area where they'd normally suffer "hard to hit" penalty as a no penalty area, but only for characters with at least 4 Monk levels or Weapon Training with the Monk weapon category. Whips have no "untargetable" area, but instead start counting reach from double your natural reach and inside that doubled area is counted as "hard to hit". Whip Mastery removes the standard "hard to hit" area and makes it full chance to hit, limiting "hard to hit" to just the area inside double your natural reach. Improved Whip Mastery cuts this to just your natural reach, and Greater Whip Mastery cuts it to half your natural reach.
Miscellaneous
Spoiler:
Next, is what "too close" and "hard to hit" mean and how you calculate for fractional squares and very small creatures. Creatures in your "too close" radius simply get 20% miss chance as if they benefit from partial concealment. If you are flanking your target or they are denied their dex to AC and you are wielding a light or one-handed weapon (in 1 hand, not two), non-reaching weapon, you can instead take a -4 to hit (-2 if you have Weapon Focus or fighter Weapon Training) to attack without this miss chance (essentially, if their back is turned, you can slit their throat), but only if their size is within 1 category of yours (ie. a medium creature can do this vs small, medium, or large targets). If you encounter a fractional square at the far end of your reach, round down for full hit chance and treat that partial square as "hard to hit" with 20% miss chance. If you encounter a fractional square at the end of your "too close" reach, round down. Fine and Diminutive creatures have 0 natural reach so, no matter what weapon they wield, they cannot reach appreciably outside their own square. Tiny creatures have a reach greater than 0 but less than 1 full square. Treat their natural reach as 1 to calculate, then subtract 1 from all categories. So, a tiny creature with a dagger treats their reach as 1 square so 1 square x 1.5 = 1.5 from which you subtract 1 and round down to 0; you have a "hard to hit" reach of 1 square at 20% miss chance and your inside reach is effectively 0 meaning a creature inside your 4 squares can be hit fully. With a 1-h weapon, this would go to 1 square of full hit and full hit inside your own square. With a 2-h weapon, it's 1 square of full hit plus 1 more of 20% miss and creatures in your squares are full to hit. Note that, in the case of creatures who's "too close" area extends outside their own squares, their own squares are also included so those occasions where you find yourself co-occupying squares with an enemy will give you a 20% miss chance unless you use a weapon that disregards this (ie. Close weapons, Monk weapons with proper training).
Regarding 5' steps (tactical shift) and co-occupying of space: Instead of a 1 square 5' step, you get a tactical shift equal to your natural reach. So a medium creature occupying 4x4 squares can shift up to 2 squares (minimum 1 square). While you cannot completely co-occupy another creature's space, you can partially co-occupy it. You can occupy no more than half of another creature's tactical area. Up to 9 fine creatures or up to 3 diminutive creatures can co-occupy the same spot. Keep in mind the rules for "too close" miss chance when invading an opponent's tactical area and also keep in mind that a tactical shift may not get you fully out of his threatened area if you're too small.
Also, regarding diagonals, you can choose at the beginning of your turn whether you want to count 1 square->2 square or 2 square->1 square. This gives you a bit more control over your reach categories.
Lastly comes height differences. If a creature is very tall, it has to "spend" some of its reach aiming downwards if the target is significantly shorter. So, for every two size categories smaller than you, your natural reach is considered 1 square shorter unless you are a "long" type of creature (ie. your tactical area is not square) in which case you lose 1 square of reach for every 4 size categories. If this would bring your effective natural reach to 0, then you can only hit the target if you co-occupy their space and, if you are tiny or larger, it is treated as "too close" (with normal exceptions for Close and Monk weapons). This doesn't work in reverse since you can always aim at a target's feet.
There used to be (in previous editions / miniature rules) a factor called weapon space. This was miniature / combat related. Different weapons required different frontage / space to be effectively used and also an area where they interdicted movement. A two handed sword had a 10' weapon space. 5' on each side of the wielders center-point. You could hold the standard "dungeon corridor" by yourself. Alternately a pair of characters with, say, long swords could fight in the same space. Or 4 guys with spears. Penalties for trying to work in too small a space and the possibility of hitting an ally by mistake. Weapon length figured in as well with grappling requiring location in the same square, normal melee weapons adjacent and longer weapons having reach (most polearms two squares, pikes three).
*edit* We used a 5' = 1" scale. Squares optional, and more than one miniature could occupy the same square. Thrusting polearms (spears and pikes) could fight 2 ranks deep (3 for pikes).
It makes options that are already good even better.
For Example? And what could be done minimize the effect you are concerned with?
Among other things, dagger wielders striking in "very close range" cannot be hit back by an opponent with a longsword, unless the longsword takes a step back to get "in reach". Feats and options denying the opponents to disengage or that allows you to follow-up create a new dynamic in combat.
It makes options that are already good even better.
For Example? And what could be done minimize the effect you are concerned with?
Among other things, dagger wielders striking in "very close range" cannot be hit back by an opponent with a longsword, unless the longsword takes a step back to get "in reach". Feats and options denying the opponents to disengage or that allows you to follow-up create a new dynamic in combat.
You either have penalties for being too close as opposed to prohibition or drop the longsword and draw a dagger. Quickdraw anyone? Then too, getting in that close probably involves AoOs I would think. Back in the day trying to close gave the other guy first attack and if he hit you didn't get to close. it made trying to get into range of a short weapon risky...
It makes options that are already good even better.
For Example? And what could be done minimize the effect you are concerned with?
Two handers and pole arms are already better than daggers and dual wielding. You're penalizing the already bad options by effectively giving the other styles reach.
You could give an inside arc. where you can't attack with swords, but that doesn't mesh with the other rules because you can use a longsword in a grapple.
I've had enough pole arm users to know there is very little drawback to 5 foot and swing.
... or the good old kick-your-enemy-5-feet-away-to-hack-it-with-your-sword we see in many movies.
It also opens new options for shields (keep close opponents at bay) and for two-weapon-fighting (first strike allows you to get into close range without AoO, then attack with light weapon).
It makes options that are already good even better.
For Example? And what could be done minimize the effect you are concerned with?
Two handers and pole arms are already better than daggers and dual wielding. You're penalizing the already bad options by effectively giving the other styles reach.
You could give an inside arc. where you can't attack with swords, but that doesn't mesh with the other rules because you can use a longsword in a grapple.
I've had enough pole arm users to know there is very little drawback to 5 foot and swing.
And sometimes bad options are just that. Taking a knife to a gun fight irl or a dagger to a sword fight in game is not, or should not be, a good idea. I don't think there is an area where you absolutely could not use a normal length weapon (except maybe grappling on the ground) but penalties could apply that would make a dagger a better choice in close vs. a long sword.
That's odd. In my post above the three lines under the quote box aren't inside the box (they belong to BigNorseWolf). But when I hit reply to check the formatting it is appropriate... oh well. Those three lines are BNWs, not mine. Mine starts with "And sometimes...". Didn't catch it in time to edit / fix it.
changing the base square from 5ft to 3ft(1meter)...
try 2.5 ft first as that's half and see how it goes...
if you are going to double the resolution of base square quantization in D&D for medium sizes that changes things like squares threatened etc, but not ranges or things based on actual measurements.
You would have to go back and look at weapons, the actual business area of the weapon, take into account the 0 to 3ft reach for a medium humanoid creature due to withdrawing the arm or extending it to full extension (as that is more than one 2.5 ft quantized unit).
a humanoid creature of medium size can pull back their elbow and rotate to threaten another medium sized humanoid standing next to them with the pointy end of a longsword (sword crosses the holder's body).
I'd also point out that the longsword is sharp and can slash along its entire length.
