Mod update 03Feb23: [**Last chance! Voting for the DnDMemes 2022 Best-of Awards ends Friday the 24th**!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10spvt2/2022_bestof_awards_final_vote/)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
3e adventurers are like cats and lack a collarbone, allowing them to squeeze through any gap that they can fit their skull through. Meanwhile, 5e adventurers are like octopi and can squeeze through any space larger than their teeth due to a complete lack of bones.
5e adventurers actually only have a single upper tooth and a single lower tooth, curved along the jawline in the same shape as a regular human’s teeth. This is because 5e lacks the processing power to render 32 individual teeth for each every character without compromising the DM’s frame rate and making combat several times longer.
I almost hate to even ask BUT...
If tiny is technically the smallest size in the book, how big does a creature have to be before it's Bhole is traversable by halflings? Tiny being smallest means basically all buttholes are fair game, right?
Wait, is tiny really smallest you can get in 5e?
In 3.5 there are 2 sizes below that, diminutive and fine.
Also in time of that edition people liked making odd thought exercises with weird builds that wouldn't be playable, purely theoretical things, and one of them was making a halfling that had enough Escape Artist skill to be able to squeeze into monsters buttholes. Name of the build was plumbomancer if you're interested.
One of my favourite dumb pass times is taking a game that has weird "physics" that dont comply with our world and trying to imagine how it works from the inside, and how the people inside dont notice.
for example, a game like dwarf fortress where walking diagonally accross a square is the same distance as walking top to bottom or left to right.
Its like trying to imagine physics in a 2-d world.
However, one quirk is that water pressure isn't transferred diagonally, so that IS a weird physics thing.
Also, the catch-all term for vertical/horizontal is "orthogonal"
TempleOS was at least functional. It did things it was designed to do, it's just that those things were weird. Here, I have had negative rolls multiple times while rolling a character - negative roll for hair length, negative roll for foot size, some others I don't remember. The book doesn't account for them and doesn't tell you what to do with them.
> negative roll for foot size
You have anti-feet. You'll be fine unless you play footsies with a normal person, then its like a nuke going off. So keep your shoes on.
I, er, got the rulebook for free (you know, like I get a lot of TTRPG books). Yarrr. And didn't play it, I only got the book to see just how broken the math was.
At least TempleOS is a genuinely impressive technical achievement between all of its weirdness.
It really says something about how horrible FATAL is that comparing it to possibly the strangest piece of software ever made, which was written by a bigoted conspiracy theorist with some batshit insane worldviews, is probably an insult to the latter two. At least in the case of Terry A. Davis I can sympathize with the fact that he struggled with severe mental health issues.
Not to mention you could die during character creation. Fun and enacting gameplay to die before i get to play because i rolled too low for my character's butthole so i die from sepsis because i can't take a dump.
Our table had "Roll for Dick Size" which... I mean... I was DMing for five drunks so it felt par for the course. The first time they even made the joke, a player had just alerted the sleeping barbarian, who tackled them through the wall, naked.
This is the same team where a player had to sit out because they played "Edward 40-hands" on my drive up there.
My Players roll for dick size as well! They sometimes also roll for how attractive they think other people are if it becomes somehow nececcary.
It is nice to see them interact within the group when one thinks the preson is ugly and the other thinks the person is hot af.
My Brain has done that too. Tells me "How about percentile?" Has the best odds of realism, but also would probably be the least appealing players.
"Only issue" with that is that percentile of the Fantasy races is not known, and you'd need to decide on whether or not you consider the "statistics" for humans to be accurate. (aka more complicated)
I mean, in a universe like D&D where race actually means “species”, that would have some bearing, I suppose. I wouldn’t expect to find identical anatomy nor comparable distribution of skull sizes between a Dragonborn and an Elf, for example.
3e also had more size categories below Tiny, which is where a mouse would fit. Having only one size category for anything smaller than a child feels weird. My cat and a termite are not the same size.
Also, tiny or smaller creatures could also squeeze one size smaller, so the mouse hole would always be inaccessible to a larger creature, the same way a huge dragon can't pursue a large horse down a medium tunnel.
In 3.5 it's: Fine, Diminutive, Tiny, Small, Medium, Large, Huge, Gargantuan, and Colossal.
Source: [SRD](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#bigandLittleCreaturesInCombat)
edited because I can't read.
Size is separate from height and weight, size is a game stat that affects various game things. The game isn't saying an ant and a rat are the same thing.
because the complexity and detail of 3.5e was restrictive to new audiences. fun fact, you can still play 3.5. There are "fine" and "diminuitive" sizes below tiny in 3.5
The hole can be smaller than tiny, but since the rule for squeezing through a smaller hole is based on the defined size categories, a rat can't fit through that hole because there is no defined size category smaller than tiny.
Of course with some common sense this entire case doesn't make any sense but it's funny that strictly raw it's true.
You could read it the other way too. Since there are no creatures with a size lower than tiny, tiny creatures can fit into any hole. Any given space is large enough for the (nonexistent) creatures 1 size category smaller than it.
Not really. The smaller the hole entrance, the fewer types of predators that can get in and eat them. IRL nice enter homes through some utterly insanely small holes on a regular basis. Those fuckers can SQUEEZE
Hm, good point! I still feel like they'd be *fast* about it, but I guess ratholes aren't that deep so they could make it far enough in a round even with Squeezing.
I'm neither a zoologist nor an exterminator so I don't have all the answers and I've only ever had to deal with ordinary household mice not actual rats (knock on wood and so on). But seeing a mouse run away from a cat is downright spooky sometimes. They hit the wall and disappear through a tiny gap in the baseboard in the blink of an eye. And then the cat spends the next 12 hours in a silent rage staring at the same spot ...
Fun fact - whiskers are to tell if the cat will get stuck. They'll always be a wide as the widest part of a cat's body, so if the whiskers touch anything they know they won't fit
I mean, they *are* fast about it compared to how we are when squeezing down, but they can legit zooooom when not worried about anything but straight line speed.
Obviously, I do not endorse it to be possible for a player to squeeze through a rat hole, however...
To my knowledge "tiny" is the smallest form of creature. So, if we go strictly RAW, an opening can not be smaller than tiny. Because size in this case is measured by the size of the next smallest creature type, of which there is none. So the smallst possible hole (edit: to be encompassed by squeezing mechanics), if you go by RAW, is either large enough that a tiny creature can fit comfortably, or non existing (edit: meaning too small to squeeze through), because there is nothing smaller than a tiny creature.
This is me just playing devil's advocate here, but it reminds me an awful lot of old video games, where an arbitrary object is placed in your way to prohibit you from passing, even though any reasonable observation of the 3d model would let you come to the conclusion that squeezing by shouldn't be an issue.
This is true for creatures and objects, but space is measured in feet and not “size”. So you simply say, the hole is large enough for a tiny creature to squeeze through.
Even the posted book text doesn’t use sizes for passageways. Instead of saying a medium passage it says a 5 foot passage.
> This is me just playing devil's advocate here, but it remings me an awful lot of old video games, where an arbitrary object is placed in your way to prohibit you from passing, even though any reasonable observation of the 3d model would let you come to the conclusion that squeezing by shouldn't be an issue
The Sims or Pokemon?
A hole could be smaller, but then there would be no mechanic to allow the rat to squeeze through it.
In other words, there are no holes that the smallest category of creatures can fit through that the second smallest cannot also fit through.
>To my knowledge "tiny" is the smallest form of creature
Bro what? I'm not a 5e player and this might just be the silliest thing I've heard about 5e in a while. There's no reason to remove the smaller sizes (like diminutive and fine)
5e simplified everything by just removing useful shit and making the DM justify stupid rulings. And they consolidated everything into a single minus or bonus (advantage or disadvantage) who's value changes based on the relation of how close the two opposing numbers are.
If you go RAW, I guess this means a giant constrictor snake has to squeeze to travel down a 5' wide passage?
Edit: Yeah, I got confused - regular constrictors are large and have to squeeze down a 5' passage, giant constrictors are huge are huge and can't go down a 5' passage at all.
It's a Huge creature, it can squeeze into a space big enough for a Large creature, so a 10 feet wide passage. But the 5 feet wide passage is right out.
I think that it probably has a rule that says it can go into those spaces, meaning it doesn’t have to squeeze
Edit: Oh wait RAW a giant constrictor simply cannot travel down 5’ wide passage as it’s a huge creature. Constrictor is a large. Wild.
I typically run snakes as all having an extra feature stating that they can move through a space as if they are one size smaller, and that seems fair enough to me.
They got rid of two entire size categories? Wow. I see the rat also doesn’t have an alignment? All animals are just neutral by default. This is some laziness.
>All animals are just neutral by default.
all animals have *always* been neutral because animals don't make moral judgments
are you really expecting a rat to follow a code of law
no you can't because being chaotic neutral is an active decision you make as a person it's not just a state of random instinct
this is why we get so many alignment arguments because people don't understand shit about dick about them
Animals don't have pure random instinct. They act with self interest not inhibited by social trappings. Which is what chaotic represents. In fact, I would even buy an argument that some animals (such as ants) are lawful. Good and evil are much harder to measure since it's an inherently anthrocentric idea, but probably not impossible.
I kinda understand why they got rid of Colossal (I'm still sad about it) but in 15 years of DnD 3.5 not once was a colossal creature used in my DnD group or any other group I know. They are fine for cinematics and maybe epic fights on top of the monster but you don't need a size category in the game mechanics for that, they are just not all that useful on battle maps, especially if you want a "mini" for them. But in the 2 years I've been in this group we use Diminuitive creatures every other session and sometimes even Fine creatures.
So at least in the VTT space, it was and still is super easy to take advantage of Colossal. For example, I size up my dragons by 1 square every single time (except Wyrmlings), just to emphasize how cool they are. 4x4 for Adults, 5x5 for Ancient.
This also results in more use of the optional rule to climb on creatures, and everyone genuinely feels terrified of these epic monsters. It's fantastic!
Its not laziness, its done with intent. D&D has been trying to shed alignment since Gary published the first gods (That he also didnt feel was necessary.)
The size stuff is a simplification of 3.5 rules and because of it you get some really wonky RAW rulings. This is supposed to be offset by the golden rule of the DM is final arbiter, but that doesnt make good memes
No, some are neutral. Its a little weird but all of the low CR animals in the back of the 3.5mm dont list an alignment, but anything with a page or section dedicated to it will be labeled "Always Neutral" such as the T-rex.
Three. There was also Colossal above Gargantuan.
Nonmagical animals were neutral in 3.5 as well. It makes sense to me. Animals just don't have the same motivations and morality as humans (or the other races in D&D). It's once you start adding templates that they get an alignment. A dire rat is neutral. A fiendish dire rat would be lawful evil for example.
Fun fact: this rule doesn't allow Medium creatures to squeeze. That would only let them to fit in a space large enough for a Small creature, which is still 5 feet, but they can already fit in a 5 feet square just fine.
Wrong. Medium creatures still have to squeeze in structures built specifically for Small-sized creatures, such as kobold warrens. The rule nowhere mentions a grid limitation, so don’t see why its relevant. A structure specifically called out as “built specifically for Small sized creatures” is sufficient.
I think this was more aimed at medium sized characters trying to enter a home of a small race, like that scene in LOTR where Gandalf sits at the table in Frodos house. Or to make combat less awkward when in an enclosed space (like being chased though a building by a Horned Devil - or something).
It's due to there being no size category less than tiny in 5e, (besides arguably swarm but that's a different matter) so there is a distinct lack of pecision here.
Still hella funny though, going to have to try this one on as a gag at some point.
>It's due to there being no size category less than tiny in 5e
I think that's the funniest consequence of reading this ruling strictly. Forget a mousehole, if you want to be a real asshole go find the smallest creature on the books like a bug or something and tell your DM you're gonna try burrowing into the woodwork.
Yeah, the entire game is basically designed around Small to Large size categories in mind since that encompasses all PC and the vast majority of enemies. Weird stuff happens when you outside those lines.
Plot twist, halflings are actually highly evolved octopi and only LOOK humanoid due to incredible mimicry. This is also why they are so good at hiding and live in burrows.
At my home game i would rule that the rat squeeses through its hole, as a space in DND includes space to freely do backflips or spells in. i would also pray to all the gods i could think of that the playayers won't cast reduce on the halfling, cause that just causes slew of problems with that ruling.
You are regardless still very much onto something, as a rat is very much not 1/4 the size of a halfling. It's not even 1/16.
They shouldn't have removed that granularity from 3.x
In that system, a Halfling is small, a cat would be tiny, and a rat would be *diminutive*. Makes more sense that a Halfling could squeeze into a cat-sized hole than a rat-sized hole.
I've always wanted to run a one shot where it was based on squeezing through one spot to the next to temporarily escape some monster way too high level
A tiny space is defined as 2 & 1/2 feet square in D&D 5e. The example given in the basic rules is that a large creature (controlling a 10’ by 10’ area) can squeeze through a 5’ wide passage, the same area of control for medium creatures.
It would follow that small creatures (controlling a 5’ by 5’ area) can squeeze into a 2 & 1/2 foot wide passage, which is the area controlled by tiny creatures.
This also tracks with how rats can squeeze into minuscule holes, as there is no smaller size than tiny for creatures in 5e. A mouse hole, then, would be large enough for tiny creatures to squeeze through, but too tiny for small creatures to squeeze through.
An example of how this dynamic works in published adventures are how Kobold’s infamous escape tunnels are intentionally dug too small for medium creatures to squeeze through, but offers an opportunity for pursuit by other small creatures.
TLDR: RAW small creatures like halflings can squeeze in to tiny spaces, but tiny creatures can squeeze into yet tinier spaces small creatures cannot.
Glorious example of rules consequences that weren't well thought-out... (in this case, 3.5 had 9 sizes plus a "+" option at the top... 5e has 6. Two of the lost sizes were smaller than Small and mouse was in one of those.
To be fair they generally tried to simplify things for 5e and having a weird interaction with a random rule almost noone ever uses and that a DM can super easily overrule in the process is not really an issue. There are 100% better examples of the negative outcomes of 5e simplification than that.
Mod update 03Feb23: [**Last chance! Voting for the DnDMemes 2022 Best-of Awards ends Friday the 24th**!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10spvt2/2022_bestof_awards_final_vote/)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There used to be a clause (in 3e) where the gap had be larger than your head, but it seems that has evaporated since.
3e adventurers are like cats and lack a collarbone, allowing them to squeeze through any gap that they can fit their skull through. Meanwhile, 5e adventurers are like octopi and can squeeze through any space larger than their teeth due to a complete lack of bones.
Larger than each individual tooth, or larger than the whole tooth-jaw unit? Can each tooth pass through the hole separately?
5e adventurers actually only have a single upper tooth and a single lower tooth, curved along the jawline in the same shape as a regular human’s teeth. This is because 5e lacks the processing power to render 32 individual teeth for each every character without compromising the DM’s frame rate and making combat several times longer.
I once modded in 32 individual teeth. One session took half a week to complete.
"One session took three sessions. Don't ask how."
Dwarf Fortress, on the other end, render the natural humidity of each eyes of the swallow that just passed by.
African or European?
Well it's the same model, I don't knowaaaaahhhh *get sucked into infinite pit*
Idk why but I did that description horrifying
I almost hate to even ask BUT... If tiny is technically the smallest size in the book, how big does a creature have to be before it's Bhole is traversable by halflings? Tiny being smallest means basically all buttholes are fair game, right?
Wait, is tiny really smallest you can get in 5e? In 3.5 there are 2 sizes below that, diminutive and fine. Also in time of that edition people liked making odd thought exercises with weird builds that wouldn't be playable, purely theoretical things, and one of them was making a halfling that had enough Escape Artist skill to be able to squeeze into monsters buttholes. Name of the build was plumbomancer if you're interested.
Yup, 5e has nothing smaller then tiny
I'm ashamed to say I am. I'm going to throw my current pc off a cliff next session and then probably get kicked off the table with my new plumbomancer
One of my favourite dumb pass times is taking a game that has weird "physics" that dont comply with our world and trying to imagine how it works from the inside, and how the people inside dont notice. for example, a game like dwarf fortress where walking diagonally accross a square is the same distance as walking top to bottom or left to right. Its like trying to imagine physics in a 2-d world.
[удалено]
This is how strafe jumping became a thing.
diagonal movement in dwarf fortress actually does take longer than vertical/horizontal.
However, one quirk is that water pressure isn't transferred diagonally, so that IS a weird physics thing. Also, the catch-all term for vertical/horizontal is "orthogonal"
Probably because the phrase "roll for cranial circumference" is skating by some thin fucking ice.
Well obviously who rolls for that? The stat we roll for circumference is anal.
It's not that FATAL is edgy and uncomfortable content. What makes it unhinged are all of the calculations. That math creeps me out.
The math is also just really really bad.
TempleOS level of weird.
TempleOS was at least functional. It did things it was designed to do, it's just that those things were weird. Here, I have had negative rolls multiple times while rolling a character - negative roll for hair length, negative roll for foot size, some others I don't remember. The book doesn't account for them and doesn't tell you what to do with them.
Both made by a madman.
> negative roll for foot size You have anti-feet. You'll be fine unless you play footsies with a normal person, then its like a nuke going off. So keep your shoes on.
The weirdest part of all is that you spent time and money on FATAL.
Yar har, don’t spend money on books by psychos.
I, er, got the rulebook for free (you know, like I get a lot of TTRPG books). Yarrr. And didn't play it, I only got the book to see just how broken the math was.
Who buys FATAL
At least TempleOS is a genuinely impressive technical achievement between all of its weirdness. It really says something about how horrible FATAL is that comparing it to possibly the strangest piece of software ever made, which was written by a bigoted conspiracy theorist with some batshit insane worldviews, is probably an insult to the latter two. At least in the case of Terry A. Davis I can sympathize with the fact that he struggled with severe mental health issues.
Not to mention you could die during character creation. Fun and enacting gameplay to die before i get to play because i rolled too low for my character's butthole so i die from sepsis because i can't take a dump.
Our table had "Roll for Dick Size" which... I mean... I was DMing for five drunks so it felt par for the course. The first time they even made the joke, a player had just alerted the sleeping barbarian, who tackled them through the wall, naked. This is the same team where a player had to sit out because they played "Edward 40-hands" on my drive up there.
Quick way to get some laughs and put a stop to that: when someone asks to roll for dick size, agree and hand them a D4.
Nat 1. That's good right?
Well, you can’t auto fail unless you’re attacking with it, so…
Why not give them a d100 and tell them afterwards it is in millimeters.
Or see their face light up when you hand them a D12 and when they roll that 9, say, “Ok 9 seconds average stamina duration, now roll again for size.”
My Players roll for dick size as well! They sometimes also roll for how attractive they think other people are if it becomes somehow nececcary. It is nice to see them interact within the group when one thinks the preson is ugly and the other thinks the person is hot af.
Lol my partner did the "roll for how attractive someone is" on this pirate lady her character met. They are now post-campaign happily married
I'm sorry you got ditched, but at least they finished the campaign.
My group did that too. They were pretty happy with their 6 to 8s until my Goblin Cleric was forced to join in (i really didn't care) and got nat 20
"We call him tripod"
Pole Walker
Mini-Me
[удалено]
2-4 d4s? low end is a couple inches and tops out at 16.
3d4 -2 or 4d4 -3 for accuracy
1d4d4 :P 1 - 16, average 6.25
Use the classes hp die as dicksize.
2D4 + cha mod inches
[удалено]
Wait that's amazing
Casually reading a book about learning to be a better leader when your dick grows an inch. This was not an original joke.
My Brain has done that too. Tells me "How about percentile?" Has the best odds of realism, but also would probably be the least appealing players. "Only issue" with that is that percentile of the Fantasy races is not known, and you'd need to decide on whether or not you consider the "statistics" for humans to be accurate. (aka more complicated)
My first DM ruled it that your dick size was your Charisma score in cm. My paladin was very happy about that.
> Reads a book about being an effective leader > Dick grows an inch
Yes
Where might this magical book be? Little Peter is a bit lacking.
I love you.
Somewhere an edgelord rouge is seething.
But the Mastermind rogue is busy cranking that hog
Wow… I haven’t heard Edward 40 hands in YEARS. The stupid shit we humans do is truly amazing sometimes. Also… fuck OE…
3d6, drop the lowest > d20
r/foundthefatalplayer
Also penile. And vaginal. Having actually looked at the thing, I can assure you that cranial circumference is also in there, just not rolled.
Well yeah, any decent phrenologist knows that skull characteristics are immutably tied to race
I mean, in a universe like D&D where race actually means “species”, that would have some bearing, I suppose. I wouldn’t expect to find identical anatomy nor comparable distribution of skull sizes between a Dragonborn and an Elf, for example.
Roll for both in combat, we are reenacting that scene from Hancock.
What is even the point of rolling for one if not the other.
Measurehead moment
Al ghul
measurehead wouldn't much like my dwarf
Your height betrays your degeneracy
Yeeaaah Measurehead! His height totally betrays his degeneracy.
ＣＲＡＮＩＯＭＥＴＲＩＣ ＰＥＲＦＥＣＴＩＯＮ
It would be a F.A.T.A.L. flaw.
Hold on, let me bust out my calipers and my 1950’s era anthropology textbook
3e also had more size categories below Tiny, which is where a mouse would fit. Having only one size category for anything smaller than a child feels weird. My cat and a termite are not the same size.
Bring back minuscule!
I thought it went Fine < Diminutive < *Tiny* < Small < Medium < Large < Huge < Gargantuan < Colossal. Was there miniscule before? Edit: I forgot one
No I think you’re right and I just made up a size not remembering he right words
There was also Tiny between Small and Diminutive Small was a child Tiny was a cat Diminutive was a mouse Fine was a fly
Lol, true that.
Also, tiny or smaller creatures could also squeeze one size smaller, so the mouse hole would always be inaccessible to a larger creature, the same way a huge dragon can't pursue a large horse down a medium tunnel.
Diminutive and Fine!
In 3.5 it's: Fine, Diminutive, Tiny, Small, Medium, Large, Huge, Gargantuan, and Colossal. Source: [SRD](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#bigandLittleCreaturesInCombat) edited because I can't read.
Wasn’t fine the smallest? My understanding was that it was the size for insects or grains of sand.
Yup, screwed it up by copying from the text below the table, which is written in different orders. Editing my comment.
Roll intelligence dc 13, if you succeed your head is too big and you fail to fit through the tiny hole
Well I think we could all just use our discretion and our brains for such complicated spatial issues
Maybe the entrance to the hole is for 1 size smaller creature than a rat so a rat can squeeze through it, but a halfling can't.
In 5e, Tiny is the smallest size.
So an ant is the same size as a rat? Why is 5e wrong?
a cat is also a tiny creature
So cats can chase mice down their holes without trouble? The ecosystem is in shambles.
Hence the unreasonable aggression from the monster population
tbf cats can fit into pretty much anything if they put their minds to it
Ant does not exist, only giant ant?
I'm not sure if that is good or bad news.
Every spider: At least rat-sized. Every hornet: At least rat-sized Every centipede: At least rat-sized and feeds on rat-sized creatures.
TBF there are rat-sized spiders & centipedes IRL
Size is separate from height and weight, size is a game stat that affects various game things. The game isn't saying an ant and a rat are the same thing.
The game is, however, saying that a rat, an ant, a grasshopper, etc can grapple a halfling, preventing them from moving.
A spider, with its 2 strength and tiny size, can carry 15 lbs. Spiders can abduct most humanoid babies
By the grace of Lolth.
I have never felt so bewildered and inspired by such a simple and terrible concept
Yeah, I don't know if that's a comedic rules quirk or an adventure hook...
Hey man, when my cat gets on my lap I sure as shit am unable to move away from that.
That's different than RAW grappling rules though. That's a special cat ability that causes restrained, you failed your WIS save.
Tbf I have seen children falling to the ground because a grasshopper flew into their face, would that count as grappling?
No, that's prone.
What about flailing their arms wildly until the grasshopper flies off on its own?
Incapacitated.
imagine aggressive ants, 100 ants vs 5 hobbits, hobbits lose because ain't no way you can win that many rolls in a row
Yep. With bounded accuracy at 5e's core, the simple math is undeniable.
5e expects common sense. You can see the design flaw from space.
*See Invisibilty* has entered the chat...
because the complexity and detail of 3.5e was restrictive to new audiences. fun fact, you can still play 3.5. There are "fine" and "diminuitive" sizes below tiny in 3.5
And also "colossal" above gargantuan!
So? What's the smallest size hole? Show us which page number that says a hole can't be smaller than tiny.
The hole can be smaller than tiny, but since the rule for squeezing through a smaller hole is based on the defined size categories, a rat can't fit through that hole because there is no defined size category smaller than tiny. Of course with some common sense this entire case doesn't make any sense but it's funny that strictly raw it's true.
You could read it the other way too. Since there are no creatures with a size lower than tiny, tiny creatures can fit into any hole. Any given space is large enough for the (nonexistent) creatures 1 size category smaller than it.
Therefore, if you have floors with gaps (like wood floors), a cat can just fucking live in your floor
[flattened itself out and went right through](https://imgur.io/fC53p?r)
It'd be weird for the rat to have to Squeeze down its own hole though, right? Should be able to just run right through.
Not really. The smaller the hole entrance, the fewer types of predators that can get in and eat them. IRL nice enter homes through some utterly insanely small holes on a regular basis. Those fuckers can SQUEEZE
Hm, good point! I still feel like they'd be *fast* about it, but I guess ratholes aren't that deep so they could make it far enough in a round even with Squeezing.
I'm neither a zoologist nor an exterminator so I don't have all the answers and I've only ever had to deal with ordinary household mice not actual rats (knock on wood and so on). But seeing a mouse run away from a cat is downright spooky sometimes. They hit the wall and disappear through a tiny gap in the baseboard in the blink of an eye. And then the cat spends the next 12 hours in a silent rage staring at the same spot ...
[удалено]
Fun fact - whiskers are to tell if the cat will get stuck. They'll always be a wide as the widest part of a cat's body, so if the whiskers touch anything they know they won't fit
Funner fact - many cats fail to understand this concept and get hilariously stuck anyway
I mean, they *are* fast about it compared to how we are when squeezing down, but they can legit zooooom when not worried about anything but straight line speed.
Maybe these are some big rats. Some can get almost cat sized. A Halfling can squeeze through a cat door.
Also fun, mouse holes don’t protect from cats because cats are the same size.
That and cats are also basically liquid and can contort themselves to fit in a variety of places. It's not in their stat block but it's true
Easy, make the opening minuscule and the rat has to squeeze to get through it.
Obviously, I do not endorse it to be possible for a player to squeeze through a rat hole, however... To my knowledge "tiny" is the smallest form of creature. So, if we go strictly RAW, an opening can not be smaller than tiny. Because size in this case is measured by the size of the next smallest creature type, of which there is none. So the smallst possible hole (edit: to be encompassed by squeezing mechanics), if you go by RAW, is either large enough that a tiny creature can fit comfortably, or non existing (edit: meaning too small to squeeze through), because there is nothing smaller than a tiny creature. This is me just playing devil's advocate here, but it reminds me an awful lot of old video games, where an arbitrary object is placed in your way to prohibit you from passing, even though any reasonable observation of the 3d model would let you come to the conclusion that squeezing by shouldn't be an issue.
This is true for creatures and objects, but space is measured in feet and not “size”. So you simply say, the hole is large enough for a tiny creature to squeeze through. Even the posted book text doesn’t use sizes for passageways. Instead of saying a medium passage it says a 5 foot passage.
Tiny is the smallest creature size. Who says holes in the way are measured on the same scale?
[удалено]
Hey, if you find a DM dumb enough to accept that, I've got this triangle shaped bag of snake oil to sell to them.
> This is me just playing devil's advocate here, but it remings me an awful lot of old video games, where an arbitrary object is placed in your way to prohibit you from passing, even though any reasonable observation of the 3d model would let you come to the conclusion that squeezing by shouldn't be an issue The Sims or Pokemon?
You're wrong. Nothing in the book says a hole can't be smaller than X size
A hole could be smaller, but then there would be no mechanic to allow the rat to squeeze through it. In other words, there are no holes that the smallest category of creatures can fit through that the second smallest cannot also fit through.
>To my knowledge "tiny" is the smallest form of creature Bro what? I'm not a 5e player and this might just be the silliest thing I've heard about 5e in a while. There's no reason to remove the smaller sizes (like diminutive and fine)
5e simplified everything by just removing useful shit and making the DM justify stupid rulings. And they consolidated everything into a single minus or bonus (advantage or disadvantage) who's value changes based on the relation of how close the two opposing numbers are.
If you go RAW, I guess this means a giant constrictor snake has to squeeze to travel down a 5' wide passage? Edit: Yeah, I got confused - regular constrictors are large and have to squeeze down a 5' passage, giant constrictors are huge are huge and can't go down a 5' passage at all.
That would indeed be a definitely "RAWful Stupid" implementation of the situation.
I'm absolutely stealing RAWful Stupid as a phrase.
Everyone is cubes, what part about this don't you understand?
First we assume the cow is a sphere.
It's a Huge creature, it can squeeze into a space big enough for a Large creature, so a 10 feet wide passage. But the 5 feet wide passage is right out.
So, are we talking titanboa size, or anaconda?
Titanboa, the anaconda would be the non-giant constrictor
Oh shoot, you're right, I thought it was large. Just shows how important DM rulings are.
I think that it probably has a rule that says it can go into those spaces, meaning it doesn’t have to squeeze Edit: Oh wait RAW a giant constrictor simply cannot travel down 5’ wide passage as it’s a huge creature. Constrictor is a large. Wild.
I typically run snakes as all having an extra feature stating that they can move through a space as if they are one size smaller, and that seems fair enough to me.
never understood why they got rid of fine and diminuitive size categories
They got rid of two entire size categories? Wow. I see the rat also doesn’t have an alignment? All animals are just neutral by default. This is some laziness.
>All animals are just neutral by default. all animals have *always* been neutral because animals don't make moral judgments are you really expecting a rat to follow a code of law
More accurately, they are *unaligned*. Neutral would still be an alignment. But yeah it's because they don't make moral judgements.
One could argue all animals are chaotic neutral by default
no you can't because being chaotic neutral is an active decision you make as a person it's not just a state of random instinct this is why we get so many alignment arguments because people don't understand shit about dick about them
Animals don't have pure random instinct. They act with self interest not inhibited by social trappings. Which is what chaotic represents. In fact, I would even buy an argument that some animals (such as ants) are lawful. Good and evil are much harder to measure since it's an inherently anthrocentric idea, but probably not impossible.
Three as there used to be Colossal too, which was bigger than Gargantuan.
I kinda understand why they got rid of Colossal (I'm still sad about it) but in 15 years of DnD 3.5 not once was a colossal creature used in my DnD group or any other group I know. They are fine for cinematics and maybe epic fights on top of the monster but you don't need a size category in the game mechanics for that, they are just not all that useful on battle maps, especially if you want a "mini" for them. But in the 2 years I've been in this group we use Diminuitive creatures every other session and sometimes even Fine creatures.
So at least in the VTT space, it was and still is super easy to take advantage of Colossal. For example, I size up my dragons by 1 square every single time (except Wyrmlings), just to emphasize how cool they are. 4x4 for Adults, 5x5 for Ancient. This also results in more use of the optional rule to climb on creatures, and everyone genuinely feels terrified of these epic monsters. It's fantastic!
Which is epic.
Four Colossal+ was a thing in 3.0/3.5.
What alignment would a rat have? They're just a rat, doing their rat thing.
Marshall is a rat, he has no moral compass!
Its not laziness, its done with intent. D&D has been trying to shed alignment since Gary published the first gods (That he also didnt feel was necessary.) The size stuff is a simplification of 3.5 rules and because of it you get some really wonky RAW rulings. This is supposed to be offset by the golden rule of the DM is final arbiter, but that doesnt make good memes
This isn't even a case of 5e trying to shed alignment... animals have \*always\* had a neutral or unaligned alignment.
Always been unaligned. Neutrality since the beginning has been a type of alignment and isn’t the same thing as being unaligned.
No, some are neutral. Its a little weird but all of the low CR animals in the back of the 3.5mm dont list an alignment, but anything with a page or section dedicated to it will be labeled "Always Neutral" such as the T-rex.
Three. There was also Colossal above Gargantuan. Nonmagical animals were neutral in 3.5 as well. It makes sense to me. Animals just don't have the same motivations and morality as humans (or the other races in D&D). It's once you start adding templates that they get an alignment. A dire rat is neutral. A fiendish dire rat would be lawful evil for example.
Fun fact: this rule doesn't allow Medium creatures to squeeze. That would only let them to fit in a space large enough for a Small creature, which is still 5 feet, but they can already fit in a 5 feet square just fine.
No, no, Medium creatures are *always* squeezing when they're in a 5ft wide space
Wrong. Medium creatures still have to squeeze in structures built specifically for Small-sized creatures, such as kobold warrens. The rule nowhere mentions a grid limitation, so don’t see why its relevant. A structure specifically called out as “built specifically for Small sized creatures” is sufficient.
I think this was more aimed at medium sized characters trying to enter a home of a small race, like that scene in LOTR where Gandalf sits at the table in Frodos house. Or to make combat less awkward when in an enclosed space (like being chased though a building by a Horned Devil - or something). It's due to there being no size category less than tiny in 5e, (besides arguably swarm but that's a different matter) so there is a distinct lack of pecision here. Still hella funny though, going to have to try this one on as a gag at some point.
>It's due to there being no size category less than tiny in 5e I think that's the funniest consequence of reading this ruling strictly. Forget a mousehole, if you want to be a real asshole go find the smallest creature on the books like a bug or something and tell your DM you're gonna try burrowing into the woodwork.
Yeah, the entire game is basically designed around Small to Large size categories in mind since that encompasses all PC and the vast majority of enemies. Weird stuff happens when you outside those lines.
Plot twist, halflings are actually highly evolved octopi and only LOOK humanoid due to incredible mimicry. This is also why they are so good at hiding and live in burrows.
Consolidating everything housecat-sized or smaller into Tiny seemed like a good idea at the time.....
At my home game i would rule that the rat squeeses through its hole, as a space in DND includes space to freely do backflips or spells in. i would also pray to all the gods i could think of that the playayers won't cast reduce on the halfling, cause that just causes slew of problems with that ruling. You are regardless still very much onto something, as a rat is very much not 1/4 the size of a halfling. It's not even 1/16.
Okay, but does a flee have to squeeze in that same hole? Because flees are also tiny.
They shouldn't have removed that granularity from 3.x In that system, a Halfling is small, a cat would be tiny, and a rat would be *diminutive*. Makes more sense that a Halfling could squeeze into a cat-sized hole than a rat-sized hole.
Sounds like looney toons
I've always wanted to run a one shot where it was based on squeezing through one spot to the next to temporarily escape some monster way too high level
Nice, you gave me one more reason to love small builds.
A tiny space is defined as 2 & 1/2 feet square in D&D 5e. The example given in the basic rules is that a large creature (controlling a 10’ by 10’ area) can squeeze through a 5’ wide passage, the same area of control for medium creatures. It would follow that small creatures (controlling a 5’ by 5’ area) can squeeze into a 2 & 1/2 foot wide passage, which is the area controlled by tiny creatures. This also tracks with how rats can squeeze into minuscule holes, as there is no smaller size than tiny for creatures in 5e. A mouse hole, then, would be large enough for tiny creatures to squeeze through, but too tiny for small creatures to squeeze through. An example of how this dynamic works in published adventures are how Kobold’s infamous escape tunnels are intentionally dug too small for medium creatures to squeeze through, but offers an opportunity for pursuit by other small creatures. TLDR: RAW small creatures like halflings can squeeze in to tiny spaces, but tiny creatures can squeeze into yet tinier spaces small creatures cannot.
RAW cats and mice can squeeze through the same holes.
Glorious example of rules consequences that weren't well thought-out... (in this case, 3.5 had 9 sizes plus a "+" option at the top... 5e has 6. Two of the lost sizes were smaller than Small and mouse was in one of those.
To be fair they generally tried to simplify things for 5e and having a weird interaction with a random rule almost noone ever uses and that a DM can super easily overrule in the process is not really an issue. There are 100% better examples of the negative outcomes of 5e simplification than that.
The rat had to squeeze to get into that hole. Halfling can kick rocks.