D&D 5E All character races are Medium-sized...why?

[James Gasik]

1) It's fun.

2) Why does it need an upside? We have small races, and being small really only has disadvantages since they can't effectively use heavy weapons.

3) It opens up opportunities for PC races that include ogres, half-giants, true minotaur, ect.

I wouldn't mind having large races but it seems that in this case, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. I don't really care for the mostly-downside of being small either, but that ship sailed beyond the sunset awhile ago.

At least give a race real reach. Bugbears get kinda sorta reach and that's not broken.

 

[Stoutstien]

Bounded accuracy keeps the abilities of PCs within a verry narrow window. And being large, and many other things, is not inside it.

Bounded accuracy applies to attack and save DC modifiers. That's it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Bounded accuracy applies to attack and save DC modifiers. That's it.

Not quite, it also includes ability checks.

And, FWIW, it went too far. The 40 cap from prior d20 systems was perfect, 30 is too constricted IMO.

 

[Stoutstien]

Not quite, it also includes ability checks.

And, FWIW, it went too far. The 40 cap from prior d20 systems was perfect, 30 is too constricted IMO.

Fair. Are attack rolls just a special ability check...anyways. the range works work ok for 5e based on the normalized range of play. It work best from lv 5-15 where most tables see play so overall it's a good concept. It could be better on the top end in many regards like having saves DCs that are impossible for some PCs. As a concept it works just need a little tinkering.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Fair. Are attack rolls just a special ability check...anyways. the range works work ok for 5e based on the normalized range of play. It work best from lv 5-15 where most tables see play so overall it's a good concept. It could be better on the top end in many regards like having saves DCs that are impossible for some PCs. As a concept it works just need a little tinkering.

Slight thread derail:

Spoiler: Bounded Accuracy solved nothing, though. It just shifted the problem.

Prior editions (d20 anyway) had the escalating bonuses and AC/DC issue, with numbers getting out of control so bonuses would far outweigh the d20 roll itself. Some AC/DC were so high creatures (including PCs) had no hope of success even if they rolled a d20.

So, they bounded the numbers, to keep things more plausible. But, when it comes to combat/damage, they had to increase HP and of course damage. Now you have a system where you succeed a lot (hitting in combat, for instance) but the impact is not as much (because of hit point bloat).

In the end, you have escalating damage and hit points, instead of attack modifiers and armor classes.

Ultimately, it accomplished nothing IMO.

 

[Stoutstien]

Slight thread derail:

Spoiler: Bounded Accuracy solved nothing, though. It just shifted the problem.

Prior editions (d20 anyway) had the escalating bonuses and AC/DC issue, with numbers getting out of control so bonuses would far outweigh the d20 roll itself. Some AC/DC were so high creatures (including PCs) had no hope of success even if they rolled a d20.

So, they bounded the numbers, to keep things more plausible. But, when it comes to combat/damage, they had to increase HP and of course damage. Now you have a system where you succeed a lot (hitting in combat, for instance) but the impact is not as much (because of hit point bloat).

In the end, you have escalating damage and hit points, instead of attack modifiers and armor classes.

Ultimately, it accomplished nothing IMO.

I don't think it's a derail as long as we loop back.
On an individual scale bounded accuracy has flaws but it does keep game logic sane as you progress. Even ancient dragons can be downed by enough guards shooting arrows and max lv PC have a reason to fear getting overwhelmed by hordes of low CR does.

The mistake was on the way they tried to scale up HP/damage as the primary threshold for staying power for PC/NPCs. If they went for a lower curve after a certain point(around lv 11 in my vote) it works better for bounded accuracy and prevents bloat. Need to readjust T3-4 content but it's a mess anyways.

In context of large PC races it's similar. If there wasn't an expectation of exponential growth with size it not an issue. With my bulk rules a PC can be large without taking up more grid space than a medium creature which open up more opportunities for stuff the players actually care about.

 

[jasper]

Pondering this that centaurs and minotaurs are both size M when used as player races, yet when encountered as NPCs are L. Does anyone know of any specific rationale into shoehorning all races into size M rather than just leting them be size L and rolling with it so to speak?

Reach and control problems. Plus the centaur pc is already upset on how much movement it takes to take stairs.

 

[jasper]

If you are going to allow every 'monster' to have PC options then don't nerf them.

Lots RPGs where they can cope with such issues.

I fine with not allowing any monster race as an official race. Y'all can homebrew it.

 

[jasper]

What is even more odd is the rooms they live in a large enough for them, but the corridors to get to those rooms are not large enough...

They're brought in in pieces and assembled in the room.

boss boss I have extra parts left over.........

 

[DND_Reborn]

Even ancient dragons can be downed by enough guards shooting arrows and max lv PC have a reason to fear getting overwhelmed by hordes of low CR does.

But these are the concepts where players differ. IMO an ancient dragon (e.g. Smaug) should never be downed by enough guards shooting arrows. Given such monsters immunity to normal weapons would handle the issue, though.

A max lvl PC already has reason to fear a horde of low CR foes as a 20 always hits, so even if the system allowed for PCs to (typically) have ACs in the 30s at that level, enough 20s would still defeat the PC.

The mistake was on the way they tried to scale up HP/damage as the primary threshold for staying power for PC/NPCs.

Agreed. Just as the bounded accuracy too much IMO, they had to bloat damage/hp too much to compensate. A better balance would have been nice.

For example, I find it ridiculous that in AD&D you had a 50/50% chance to put an ogre to sleep via the spell. Now, at 59 hp and a maximum of 40 hp affected by the spell, it is virtually impossible. You would have to upcast sleep at 5th level to have the same 50/50% chance of putting an ogre to sleep. Just plain stupid and poor design IMO.

In context of large PC races it's similar. If there wasn't an expectation of exponential growth with size it not an issue. With my bulk rules a PC can be large without taking up more grid space than a medium creature which open up more opportunities for stuff the players actually care about.

Grid spacing is also an issue. Not enough differentiation is made between vertical space and horizontal, or even length vs width. The default size of 3 ft works better IMO than 5 ft in 5E. But often I have just found ToM to work better anyway.