Tiny vs. Tiny combat

[RJGrady]

So, I'm putting together a campaign that may feature a Tiny race is a basic option. It occurred to me that I could end up in a lot more situations where Tiny creatures are fighting Tiny creatures. I don't have a huge amount of experience in that area. Has anyone else ever dealt with this before? Does the lack of threatened squares make it weird?

[Vinedragon]

From what I understand, they would just enter one another's space and stab each other there. I don't see much of a problem.

[Bandw2]

up to 4 tiny creatures can fit in a square

[Mathius]

If tiny is your standard size then I would treat all sizes as 2 larger for game rule purposes.

[QuidEst]

Zoom in to 2.5x2.5 squares?

[Bandw2]

Mathius wrote:

If tiny is your standard size then I would treat all sizes as 2 larger for game rule purposes.

just 1 size up would be proficient.

[Grammar Cop]

Bandw2 wrote:

Mathius wrote:

If tiny is your standard size then I would treat all sizes as 2 larger for game rule purposes.

just 1 size up would be proficient.

I believe you mean "sufficient" rather than "proficient".

[Sinistrad]

Grammar Cop wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

Mathius wrote:

If tiny is your standard size then I would treat all sizes as 2 larger for game rule purposes.

just 1 size up would be proficient.

I believe you mean "sufficient" rather than "proficient".

I was going to chide you for being a jerk, but then I saw your name.

Seems legit?

[Bandw2]

Grammar Cop wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

Mathius wrote:

If tiny is your standard size then I would treat all sizes as 2 larger for game rule purposes.

just 1 size up would be proficient.

I believe you mean "sufficient" rather than "proficient".

BRAIN! YOU STRIKE AGAIN!

[Bandw2]

Sinistrad wrote:

Grammar Cop wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

Mathius wrote:

If tiny is your standard size then I would treat all sizes as 2 larger for game rule purposes.

just 1 size up would be proficient.

I believe you mean "sufficient" rather than "proficient".

I was going to chide you for being a jerk, but then I saw your name.

Seems legit?

red names are aliases

[Atarlost]

Bandw2 wrote:

Grammar Cop wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

Mathius wrote:

If tiny is your standard size then I would treat all sizes as 2 larger for game rule purposes.

just 1 size up would be proficient.

I believe you mean "sufficient" rather than "proficient".

BRAIN! YOU STRIKE AGAIN!

Do we need to call in a labor negotiator?

[Newbonomicon]

Tiny creatures will have fewer options in combat due to the whole entering squares thing. Bringing them up to small and treating everything else as one size category larger as well would probably fix that.

[RJGrady]

Well, it's not an entire campaign of Tiny people. As I said, I was just looking at a Tiny option for a fairly common race.

[Samasboy1]

Give them all longspears so they reach 5'?

They only ever use bows?

[Atarlost]

Samasboy1 wrote:

Give them all longspears so they reach 5'?

They only ever use bows?

Weapon reach modifiers multiply with size reaches so a tiny creature has 0' reach with longspears as well.

[RJGrady]

It seems likely, going by creature stat blocks and dev comments, that Tiny longspears give you 5 foot reach. But it doesn't seem to be stated anywhere.

[Kazaan]

It works differently with sizes smaller than Small as stat blocks consistently list Tiny and smaller creatures with reach weapons as attacking at 5'. As a rule of thumb, for smaller than Small creatures, calculate reach as if the creature had a natural reach of 5', then subtract 5' from the result for each category smaller than Small. So a Tiny creature attacks at 5' with a reach weapon (10' with whip) and a Diminutive creature attacks at 5' with a whip.