PDA

View Full Version : Stupid Idea #5 - Expanding Reach



FreakyCheeseMan
2013-05-02, 08:25 PM
Hold on to your hats, people, this one's a doozie. (Seriously, I'm way less confident about this one than any of my other "Stupid" ideas - but I figure it's interesting enough to at least run it by people.)

So, for those of you just joining us, I'm working on building a homebrew system from the ground up, and am putting my more esoteric ideas up here for heartless disembowelment and mockery review. Today's idea is: Expanding Reach

Proposed Rules
The proposed rules for this are actually rather simple, and translate pretty closely to 3.5. The first change that would be made would be that the notion of a "Square" would be tightened down - a single square would be more like three feet, not five.

Secondly, the "Reach" of several weapons would be expanded; pretty much everything longsword-sized or bigger would strike out to two squares away (instead of just the single adjacent square.) Light weapons, such as daggers or unarmed attacks, would still only strike adjacent squares. Spears, etc, would probably reach up to three squares away.

I don't think this system will have any ways for characters to make themselves larger; I may have specific "Lunge" abilities that let characters make single strikes with increased reach, but apart from that, I don't think there would be mechanisms to extend reach any further.

Justification: Realism
This one is both very tough and very easy to justify realistically.

In terms of exact increments... no, I don't think it makes sense that a sword would essentially have "Twice" the reach of a knife, or extend some number of feat beyond the reach of a knife.

On the flip side, Reach is very definitely a consideration in weapons - if I'm holding a knife, trying to attack someone with a sword, you'd better believe I'm worried about the fact that his extends further than mine. From my limited understanding, even a few inches is significant - less than even one of the smaller squares I'm proposing, but still a very real thing.

Justification: Gameplay
If anyone has tried a system like this, I'd love to hear about it, cause I have very little notion of how it would work out.

On the one hand, I imagine that it would screw over light, one-handed weapons even more. On the other hand, there might be some cool things you could do by moving "inside" someone's defences - if you actually close with the guy swinging a greatsword, he might be very unhappy.

Also, it seems like a net benefit to martial classes, which I'm always in favour of.

That's pretty much everything; convince your disemboweling!

Nightraiderx
2013-05-02, 08:41 PM
you can have a sort of range advantages. for one lets use a dagger, long sword and a long spear as an example. 1R 2R and 3R

1R vs 2R. The 1R weapon can get on the inside of the 2R weapon range, making the 2R weapon harder to use and take a penalty, however, stepping into range from 2-1 should provoke an attack from the 2R weapon. Likewise, the 2R weapon holder can take a step back on his turn and reset the advantage the 1R weapon had.

1R vs 3R. The 1R weapon would still provoke an attack like the 2R weapon did, however once the 1R weapon is in range, the 3R weapon is rendered useless, and the 3R weapon wielder would have to move back, however being opened up, this would provoke an attack from the 1R weapon.

2R vs 3R. Could employ the same tactic, advance into an enemy space of a 3R wielder and provoke an attack, at the max range of the 2R the 3R weapon could hold the similar penalty that the 2R weapon had against the 1R weapon
Although if the 2R wants to step within one range, he takes a penalty, but the 3R wielder can't defend nor attack unless the 3R wielder moves backward, but can move safely without the provocation of the 2R wielder.

LordErebus12
2013-05-02, 08:58 PM
The first change that would be made would be that the notion of a "Square" would be tightened down - a single square would be more like three feet, not five.

That makes a lot of annoying changes to ranges for spells and such. although it might be better to just use Squares as measurements, rather than ft.

I've always figured that the five foot square that each character stands in to represent the room you need for a little bit of moment and enough space to swing of a sword without killing the ally next to you.

If you tighten the squares I see some problems with squeezing, attacking with swinging/slashing weapons, etc. since your so close to each other when moving in a group. In game, it might not have a huge effect, but realistically i see it as a problem.

I see why you figure a longer weapon might have a effect on reach, since in the spear's case it is nearly as long as you are tall, but then again you dont hold it at the end but rather near the middle.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-05-02, 09:11 PM
That makes a lot of annoying changes to ranges for spells and such. although it might be better to just use Squares as measurements, rather than ft.

Well, this is a system I'm building from the ground up - 3.5 spells aren't gonna be in it at all.



I've always figured that the five foot square that each character stands in to represent the room you need for a little bit of moment and enough space to swing of a sword without killing the ally next to you.


If you tighten the squares I see some problems with squeezing, attacking with swinging/slashing weapons, etc. since your so close to each other when moving in a group. In game, it might not have a huge effect, but realistically i see it as a problem.

...true.


I see why you figure a longer weapon might have a effect on reach, since in the spear's case it is nearly as long as you are tall, but then again you dont hold it at the end but rather near the middle.

Well, even in 3.5 spears have reach- I'm just saying that swords should have a degree of reach too, compared to fists/daggers.

LordErebus12
2013-05-02, 09:22 PM
Well, this is a system I'm building from the ground up - 3.5 spells aren't gonna be in it at all.


Well, even in 3.5 spears have reach- I'm just saying that swords should have a degree of reach too, compared to fists/daggers.

Ah, i didnt realized it was a new system in its entirety, devoid of magic, but what about bows? I dont think the standard grid system could function right with every square functioning as 3 ft.

20 squares becomes 33 squares for the longbow. (ignoring composite for the moment)


Longspears have extended reach, not spears (although they can be thrown). They just use your own natural reach, but you are right, there should be a measure of reach gained from having a longer weapon. I'm just not sure how to actually go about it without.

in 3.5 I imagine a reach weapon (longspear will be example) is not a static "i stand still and thrust", its more of a "I advance to the edge of my square (without leaving it), attacking with all my reach plus the weapon length to hit the foe, two squares away."

Edit: how about rooms? suddenly the number of spaces within grow larger as the squares strink.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-05-02, 09:28 PM
Ah, i didnt realized it was a new system in its entirety, devoid of magic, but what about bows?


Longspears have extended reach, not spears (although they can be thrown). They just use your own natural reach, but you are right, there should be a measure of reach gained from having a longer weapon. I'm just not sure how to actually go about it without.

in 3.5 I imagine a reach weapon (longspear will be example) is not a static "i stand still and thrust", its more of a "I advance to the edge of my square (without leaving it), attacking with all my reach plus the weapon length to hit the foe, two squares away."

Oh, it's far from devoid of magic - there's all kinds of magic. I just meant 3.5 spells - I thought you were commenting on the fact that it would be annoying to adjust the range on 3.5 spells for a different grid size.

*Nods* It's tricky. I'd like to work it in, but I'm worried it'd break too many other things in the process.

LordErebus12
2013-05-02, 09:51 PM
Oh, it's far from devoid of magic - there's all kinds of magic. I just meant 3.5 spells - I thought you were commenting on the fact that it would be annoying to adjust the range on 3.5 spells for a different grid size.

*Nods* It's tricky. I'd like to work it in, but I'm worried it'd break too many other things in the process.

Right, it can be done, i just dont think it will work as well as you want it and will cause some problems.

What about making light weapons have no reach and leaving the squares at 5 ft.? unorthodox but it would make you lose that full attack to attack with a dagger. (since you'd need to move up to attack, then back off a bit).

spring attack remedies this, allowing light weapons to function normally.

RedWarlock
2013-05-06, 01:30 AM
Personally, I REALLY like the idea of 3ft squares. I've debated doing this kind of thing myself, though its an extensive enough set of changes, its basically an overhaul of a system already.

One implication would be the idea that your personal 1 yard sq (3ft x 3ft) isn't ally-passable any more. (a 5ft square is easier to squeeze into, but a 1yd square is more difficult) That can be where your inner range can come in.

Bows and ranged effects, I wouldn't even worry about trying to 'convert' range numbers and getting some odd number. The original 100ft is only an approximation anyway, there's no actual hard limit to an actual bow, you could set the increment to any number you choose at your convenience.

3 yards is 9 feet, which is almost 10 feet. A 1ft fudge is minimal. A 15ft room is 5 squares versus 3, no big deal. Rooms in D&D are only 5ft increments by convenience. If you're setting a new paradigm of 3ft increments, then 3yd(9ft), 4yd(12ft), or 5yd(15ft) rooms and corridors become just as easy to manage.

Plus you have the added idea of more incremental space. Creatures on the upper range for size, like powerful build races, might get a 2yd space versus most others' 1yd. You could also set up defender-style classes to take a wide stance, occupying more space to defend their allies.

I think diversifying weapon reaches like this also does a lot to add diversity to the weapons lists. You also get more interest in lunges, spacing changes, and special footwork tactics.

LordErebus12
2013-05-06, 01:46 AM
Plus you have the added idea of more incremental space. Creatures on the upper range for size, like powerful build races, might get a 2yd space versus most others' 1yd. You could also set up defender-style classes to take a wide stance, occupying more space to defend their allies.

I think diversifying weapon reaches like this also does a lot to add diversity to the weapons lists. You also get more interest in lunges, spacing changes, and special footwork tactics.

Okay, when explained more, i agree. I like the powerful build idea for spacing, it makes sense. For tower shields as well, i think. when its set as a wall, it would be almost two squares, id imagine.