D&D 5E The Fate of the Smol

[James Gasik]

It's been awhile since I made a thread on here, as opposed to answering someone else's posts (actually, as near as I can tell, none of my old threads exist anymore- no great loss), so be gentle.

After watching Treantmonk's video about the race changes in Monsters of the Multiverse, something nagged at me. Many races now have a Small-size option. But no benefit is given to those races, since, for the most part, Small is a disadvantage. One can argue a Small character can find cover or a hiding spot more easily, and squeeze into narrower places (or use smaller creatures as mounts), but these seem pretty situational with regards to being forced to use smaller weapons without Disadvantage.

I know this debate is old hat, and some people don't see a problem with it. That's not what this thread is for, really.

What I'm curious about is, since WotC seems to think Small and Medium sizes area about equal, does this mean that A), they value the above benefits higher than I do? I played a Halfling Fighter until 13th level in AL and I honestly never found it to be anything other than an hindrance. Or B), they are planning to give Small races an actual advantage in material going forwards (such as the 2024 PHB)?

I'm curious to hear the communities thoughts, and if you feel there will be a change, what form do you suppose that will take?

I don't think weapon damage will be changed- some have argued that Small races do more damage than their size would indicate already (using Enlarge/Reduce as evidence). Also, no Small races have a Strength penalty (at least, not anymore...) so it's obvious that, pound for pound, Halflings way stronger than Humans.

Do you think they will adjust weights for Small equipment? Make Small equipment cheaper to buy?

I also highly doubt we'll see a return to the +1 to hit/+1 to AC of 3e, since those benefits would be worth way more to certain characters than doing 2d6 with a greatsword. I don't expect any kind of numerical advantage, if anything changes at all. But I do expect something, if for no other reason than how ability score bonuses have been reworked so any Race can be a member of any Class with equal competence- it's hard to quantify "Hey, you can have a +2 Strength Fairy" with "Small Races take a hit to weapon damage, so don't do that if this affects you in any way!"

 

[CreamCloud0]

I think small races should have some sort of bonus to light weapons, in contrast to the disadvantage they have with heavy(?) weapons, I’d suggest some sort of advantage on stealth checks but that seems a little too much of a generalisation that wouldn’t necessarily be true for all small races

 

[Vaalingrade]

Just remove the heavy tag or the 'screw small characters' rule for heavy. Everyone who would get mad at that over ~my verisimilitude~ meaning halflings should such and fail at using weapons are already mad at the ASI changes, so there's no additional danger in making other improvements.

 

[Stormonu]

WotC seems to be on a trend of removing any sort of disadvantage, from alignment restrictions, size differences, negative ability modifiers and the like. All of it seems to stem from a believe that restrictions do nothing but restrict play, rather than make an attempt at simulation or cost/benefit. Everything is becoming “have your cake and eat it too.”

It is not a sentiment I agree on.

 

[toucanbuzz]

so it's obvious that, pound for pound, Halflings way stronger than Humans.

Do you think they will adjust weights for Small equipment? Make Small equipment cheaper to buy?

I think they will do absolutely nothing, no matter how much it might detract from verisimilitude, even if a 20 Strength, 40-pound halfling can dead-lift 300 pounds over his head, comparable to me, if our proportions were extended to my size, doing a dead-lift of 1500 pounds over my head.

It's a shame, though, on size meaning something. The AD&D halfling companion book introduced us to mythology, bedtime stories, and lore that unified halfling cultures with pride for being smaller than most races. Their stories are replete with examples of how being smaller saved the day and how being bigger was a hindrance. It might feel even more special if that means something, but beyond what they've already got, I just don't see it.

 

[James Gasik]

You're probably right that not much will happen, but it just struck me as odd to give Small-size options to a bunch of races, as if they felt size had no functional difference.

 

[Hussar]

i would say that that's why you get small size as an option to a bunch of races - it has no functional difference. The difference is purely cosmetic. Which, frankly, is probably as good a reason as any. As soon as you start with the advantages/disadvantages route to size, it becomes largely a optimizers thing. Play a small race for this bonus and because of the way you're making your character, the disadvantages are so minimized as to be trivial.

Now, you play a halfling barbarian and it's mechanically identical to a goliath barbarian. Any differences are purely the choice of the player. You want your halfling to be weaker? Go for it. Nothing stopping you. Don't put your highest stat in strength and don't put any bonuses there either. Poof, weaker halfling.

The biggest problem I see is that people want to control how other people make their characters. The fact that the player, and not the game or the DM is forcing them to play their character in a way that appeals to the game designers or the DM is somehow a bad thing.

 

[James Gasik]

Well, I mean, being unable to use Heavy weapons without disadvantage is not exactly trivial...

 

[Vaalingrade]

Did 2e have something to screw halflings who use weapons or was that new with 3.5 and Small weapon sizes?

 

[Weiley31]

Did 2e have something to screw halflings who use weapons or was that new with 3.5 and Small weapon sizes?

Possibility that 3.5 did that. I know in 3.0/3.5 small races got an AC bonus against Larger creatures and what not IIRC.