D&D (2024) Size, Carrying Capacity, Strength, Athletics, Mobility

[Yaarel]

Difference between that halfling and human is that there are benefits to being small and those benefits should be more pronounced. That shift to more pronounced benefits can't happen if the gains are not offset elsewhere in some way

Remind me of the "benefits" of being Small?

 

[Horwath]

The force of a bow is its construction, not size. There are composite bows that can shoot as far as a longbow.

it's both

That can work too, a custom Medium bow that has the same stats as a Large longbow. A Small creature can use a Medium weapon, no problem. Again, I feel any oversized weapon needs to be built custom for a smaller creature to use effectively.

yes.

The greatsword too should have extended Reach (like the reallife zweihaender) and should be most effective with a full swing "cleaving" a target or targets some distance away, and be at a Disadvantage versus an adjacent target because of applying the "half-swording" fighting style.

But D&D oversimplifies the mechanics for the sake of gaming convenience.

D&D greatswords are not real life greatswords. They are probably longswords. maybe claymore at best.
they are far too portable in description to be real zweihanders.

For my tastes, I strongly oppose convoluting the Basic mechanics for almost no benefit in gameplay.

A dagger, is a dagger, is a dagger: 1d4. What matters is if its wielder is Medium or Large, high Strength or high Dexterity.

large creature when its uses a dagger, it gets 2d4 damage, by the rules.
so why not same rules for small characters?

maybe we should do the opposite??

small dagger d4
medium dagger 2d4
large dagger 3d4

 

[tetrasodium]

The force of a bow is its construction, not size. There are composite bows that can shoot as far as a longbow.

That construction also determines the expected draw length. If an archer is only 2-3 feet in height they aren't going to be drawing a bow string 80-100+ cm back and the resulting arrow is going to be a lot less useful once it's in flight. It's literally a big part of the reason why there are bows made for kids of different age ranges like in that link.

Remind me of the "benefits" of being Small?

There's too many holes in the UA stuff we have so some of these are going to use 2014 rules that do not yet seem to have changed. Here are a few.

Spoiler: one

MOVING AROUND OTHER CREATURES
During your Move, you can pass through the
space of an ally, a creature that has the
Incapacitated condition, a Tiny creature, or a
creature who is two sizes larger or smaller than
you.

Spoiler: two

Squeezing into a Smaller Space
A creature can squeeze through a space that is large
enough for a creature one size smaller than it. Thus, a
Large creature can squeeze through a passage that's
only 5 feet wide. While squeezing through a space,
a creature must spend 1 extra foot for every foot it
m oves there, and it has disadvantage on attack rolls
and Dexterity saving throws. Attack rolls against the
creature have advantage while it’s in the smaller space.

Spoiler: three

The Halfling Race for Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) Fifth Edition (5e) - D&D Beyond

Regis the halfling, the only one of his kind for hundreds of miles in any direction, locked his fingers behind his head and leaned back against the mossy blanket of the tree trunk. Regis was short, even by the standards of his diminutive race, with the fluff of his curly brown...

www.dndbeyond.com

Spoiler: four

The Gnome Race for Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) Fifth Edition (5e) - D&D Beyond

Skinny and flaxen-haired, his skin walnut brown and his eyes a startling turquoise, Burgell stood half as tall as Aeron and had to climb up on a stool to look out the peephole. Like most habitations in Oeble, that particular tenement had been built for humans, and smaller resi...

www.dndbeyond.com

Spoiler: five

Grung (Race)

From One Grung Above, page 4. Your grung character has an assortment of inborn abilities, part and parcel of grung nature. Ability Score Increase. Your Dexterity score increases by 2, and your Constitution score increases by 1. Age. Grungs mature to adulthood in a single year, but have been...

dnd-5e.fandom.com

 

[CreamCloud0]

No "heavy" is not flavor, it's literally a mechanic. That's incredibly noteworthy because heavy is a mechanic that also serves a gateway to open a bunch of powerful mechanics like the 2014 GWM feat & four of the eight weapon masteries. You are trying to justify nakedly pure minmaxed CharOp with roleplaying fluff

honestly i see this as more reason to find reasons to let small species use heavy weapons, cutting off such a significant amount of gameplay build options in combat, one of the major focuses of gameplay for a trait that barely has any positive benefits, you get what? better use of partial cover, can fit through smaller openings and can use medium creatures as mounts? you can move through the spaces of large creatures as difficult terrain but can't grapple creatures bigger than large either.

i'm sure they could find some other alternative penalty for small species that doesn't prevent them from effectively contributing in an entire area of combat, is it really so different from saying that oh i dunno, species with darkvision can't use arcane magic above 3rd level, if you want to be an effective wizard, sorcerer, warlock or artificer just don't pick a dwarf, an elf or anything else with darkvision!

 

[tetrasodium]

honestly i see this as more reason to find reasons to let small species use heavy weapons, cutting off such a significant amount of gameplay build options in combat, one of the major focuses of gameplay for a trait that barely has any positive benefits, you get what? better use of partial cover, can fit through smaller openings and can use medium creatures as mounts? you can move through the spaces of large creatures as difficult terrain but can't grapple creatures bigger than large either.

Some of those are pretty significant if you think that the tactical grid elements should be more important & have less efforts at tactical rules intended to undermine the tactical elements.

i'm sure they could find some other alternative penalty for small species that doesn't prevent them from effectively contributing in an entire area of combat, is it really so different from saying that oh i dunno, species with darkvision can't use arcane magic above 3rd level, if you want to be an effective wizard, sorcerer, warlock or artificer just don't pick a dwarf, an elf or anything else with darkvision!

I'm sure wotc could find some alternatives like the old -strength -carry capacity, but it seems that the folks pushing to allow size small PCs to wield heavy weapons are also pushing against those

 

[Yaarel]

D&D greatswords are not real life greatswords. They are probably longswords. maybe claymore at best.
they are far too portable in description to be real zweihanders.

Despite the name literally meaning "great sword", the claymore is a normal D&D Versatile longsword. Reallife fighters can and do wield a claymore with one hand.

I feel strongly, any "Versatile" weapon should improve two dice sizes when two handed. Thus, longsword 1d8 Versatile 1d12.

I support the Japanese unit of measurement for bladelengths: 1 shaku ≈ 1 foot ≈ 30 centimeters

0-1 feet: knife ... a dagger is a double-edge knife
1-2 feet: shortsword ... wakizashi, gladius, seax, machete, etcetera
2-3 feet: sword ... the "normal" sword, katana, knightly arming sword, viking sword, spatha, etcetera
3-4 feet: longsword ... the historical longsword wielded variously onehand or twohand, and its corresponding grips
4+ feet: greatsword ... the reallife zweihaender plus the fantasy buster swords of various styles

The "normal" "sword" stats would be 1d8 Slashing-Piercing, Finesse and onehanded.

(I like to stat the katana as 1d6 slash-pierce Finesse Versatile 1d10.)

The historical rapier bladelength is actually very long, same as a longsword, except very thin.

large creature when its uses a dagger, it gets 2d4 damage, by the rules.
so why not same rules for small characters?

I realize the 2014 rules have different weapon damages for different sized weapons.

But I feel having excessively different mechanical stats for a same weapon is profoundly unhelpful.

Instead, simplify a "Size Bonus to Damage" that only refers to the creature Size. The creature applies this same Damage Size Bonus whether using a dagger, a greatsword, or an unarmed strike.

maybe we should do the opposite??

small dagger d4
medium dagger 2d4
large dagger 3d4

Some species should include the option of being Large: Orc, Goliath, and even Human.

The Large Size has no mechanics in itself, but other mechanics can refer to it. For a Large player character to extend Reach and gain a Size Bonus to Damage requires a Feat.

That construction also determines the expected draw length. If an archer is only 2-3 feet in height they aren't going to be drawing a bow string 80-100+ cm back and the resulting arrow is going to be a lot less useful once it's in flight. It's literally a big part of the reason why there are bows made for kids of different age ranges like in that link.

Some bows are very "stiff" and transmit the force of the shot without an especially long draw length.

There's too many holes in the UA stuff we have so some of these are going to use 2014 rules that do not yet seem to have changed. Here are a few.

MOVING AROUND OTHER CREATURES
During your Move, you can pass through the
space of an ally, a creature that has the
Incapacitated condition, a Tiny creature, or a
creature who is two sizes larger or smaller than
you.

With regard to game balance, I consider moving thru a hostile space to be negligible. One is still vulnerable to Attacks.

It turns out, in 5e extended Reach is no big deal. Because. There is only one Reaction. So weapon damage to multiple targets within Reach, especially for Opportunity Attacks is more rare and less meaningful.

Squeezing into a Smaller Space
A creature can squeeze through a space that is large
enough for a creature one size smaller than it. Thus, a
Large creature can squeeze through a passage that's
only 5 feet wide. While squeezing through a space,
a creature must spend 1 extra foot for every foot it
m oves there, and it has disadvantage on attack rolls
and Dexterity saving throws. Attack rolls against the
creature have advantage while it’s in the smaller space.

In my campaigns, "squeezing" challenges are extremely rare. Highly situational. Normally irrelevant to combat.

... Halfling ... Gnome ... Grung

Every species has traits that most other species lack. This is part of the species design space.


Small Size is irrelevant to any gaming balance.

 

[Yaarel]

By the way, weapons are highly modular. One can have different lists for different regions, different technologies, etcetera.

One can conveniently tweak or change the weapon table without disrupting other aspects of the game engine.

 

[ART!]

As has been pointed out elsewhere (and maybe here, 97 comments in), one of the reasons players often don't bother with or care to track encumbrance is that there's no incentive to do so. The only possible outcome is a problem for your character, and thereby for the group they're traveling and adventuring with. There's no benefit for lightly-encumbered characters, unless you consider the lack of a problem to be a benefit.

 

[tetrasodium]

As has been pointed out elsewhere (and maybe here, 97 comments in), one of the reasons players often don't bother with or care to track encumbrance is that there's no incentive to do so. The only possible outcome is a problem for your character, and thereby for the group they're traveling and adventuring with. There's no benefit for lightly-encumbered characters, unless you consider the lack of a problem to be a benefit.

That bold bit is 100% part of the problem, nut encumbrance RAW has an even bigger problem in how the caps it sets on carrying capacity are so high & badly scaled that it's almost impossible for the party to hit the problem stage outside of a proverbial end of session "ok lets loot the entire treasure hoard & go back home" wrap-up.

It's not just excessive capacity though, linear scaling of it makes any problems immediately nullified by the group. Even if strength build Alice is maxed out, Bob Dave or Cindy can almost certainly carry everything lice is already carrying & more even if some of them are playing low strength casters. Since 5e only has a "heavy load" equivalent range I'll save some time in the comparison & only compare to that from the old tables. In 5e every character can carry strength *10

Spoiler: numeric crunch

• 10 strength can carry 100 pounds in 5e before penalties kick in. in 3.x that was 67-100 pounds with 34-66 being light load
• 8 strength is now up to 80 pounds. in 3.x tha8 strength character could carry was 54-80 with 27-53 being light load.
• 18 strength is now up to 180. In 3.x that was 201-300 with 00 or less being light load.
  • That 201 is 2&½ as much as what a 10 strength character could carry before penalties kicked in& about the same for max
  • That 201-300 is three times what the 8 strength character could carry before penalties kicked in & about the same for max
• 20 strength now is 200 but back in 3.x it was 267-400 with 133 or less light load.
  • That 267-400 is 3.9 times what a 10 strength character could carry before penalties kicked in
  • That 267-400 is just over fivetimes what a 8 strength character could carry before penalties kicked in

Not only could a lower strength PC not carry as much as a high strength PC in the past, the low strength PC had a lower budget of free capacity because their gear* tended to consume a much larger % of capacity itself. The lightly encumbered state meant that there was an incentive to not simply kitchen sink an endless golf bag of magic iweapons plus what is now the adventuring gear table in the PHB. When it casme down to it & Alice couldn't carry everything with her strength build she might be able to offload a bit onto someone else once or twice, but it's going to add up to problems for someone rather quickly

* weapons, armor, adventuring gear, consumable items, magic items, etc

 

[Yaarel]

@tetrasodium

Note, the 5e Players Handbook offers the variant rule that distinguishes between "Encumbered" and "Heavily Encumbered".

But no one I know chooses to use this variant, because no one wants to be bothered with tracking Encumbrance. It is unfun for the vast majority of players.

If Encumbrance rules are going to work, they need to be extremely simple, conceptually visualizable, plus with fun aspects.

Maybe thinking in terms of the Size of objects can work, instead of the weight. Maybe the AC Bonus from Strength/Dexterity is only possible while Unencumbered.

Probably most players agree Encumbrance would matter, but there needs to be a painless way to approach it.