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

[tetrasodium]

5e ditched the rules present in past edition's that make going up/down in size from medium a mixed bag so size large is pure awesome with no meaningful downsides for anyone with an aura or pbaoe powers

 

[Paul Farquhar]

1) because of the dumb large weapon rules in the DMG that are intended only for monsters and break PCs.

2) because of the narrative inconvenience of having a character who is defeated by a narrow passage. Also see: daleks and stairs.

 

[Stormonu]

We don't have large PCs in D&D because the designers are simply too worried about their (martial) combat aspect, and that's pretty much it. It has little effect on the other two pillars, but because it skews the combat minigame, they won't allow it - even when said portion is only supposed to be 1/3 or less of the game...

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

I think the main reason is that nobody in WotC wants to fix any problems in existing adventures that would occur if you get large PCs. The complaints would never stop if a large PC cannot get access to parts of a dungeon or find a particular clue. "WotC broke the game!" And it might be in a few words hidden in an adventure book. All adventures were written with medium & small PCs in mind.

We don't have large PCs in D&D because the designers are simply too worried about their (martial) combat aspect, and that's pretty much it. It has little effect on the other two pillars, but because it skews the combat minigame, they won't allow it - even when said portion is only supposed to be 1/3 or less of the game...

It will indeed affect combat, and as far as I can see only in favor of the large creature. But it might also affect the Exploration pillar (your character does not fit through that door) and perhaps even Social Interaction pillar (this will depend on the players/DM).

As a DM, I would not allow it because it would constantly invite discussion. MY character is large, is it reasonable that I can see over the crowd what happens? MY character is large, so I can hit that flying creature at 15 ft altitude without jumping. But then I probably wouldn't allow centaur or minotaur PCs anyway.

 

[John R Davis]

The more ' wacky' the races the more 5th ed will either encounter these problems OR make things so vanilla that a minotaur is just an orc with rubber horns.

They already have flying PCs which could be more troublesome than large.

My first RPG was dragonquest. There was a fire giant PC in that party. I'm sure it added more hilarity than problems.

 

[Stormonu]

I think the main reason is that nobody in WotC wants to fix any problems in existing adventures that would occur if you get large PCs. The complaints would never stop if a large PC cannot get access to parts of a dungeon or find a particular clue. "WotC broke the game!" And it might be in a few words hidden in an adventure book. All adventures were written with medium & small PCs in mind.


It will indeed affect combat, and as far as I can see only in favor of the large creature. But it might also affect the Exploration pillar (your character does not fit through that door) and perhaps even Social Interaction pillar (this will depend on the players/DM).

As a DM, I would not allow it because it would constantly invite discussion. MY character is large, is it reasonable that I can see over the crowd what happens? MY character is large, so I can hit that flying creature at 15 ft altitude without jumping. But then I probably wouldn't allow centaur or minotaur PCs anyway.

Squeezing rules would handle the door problem. I would think an Orc, Warforged, Shifter or Goblin character would "break" the Social pillar long before a Large creature did.

"Constantly invite discussion" is a red herring. Players are always trying strange things - "Can my Eladrin misty step onto the Griffon's back? Can my halfling squeeze through the enemies legs? Can my aarokcora fly up to the ledge? Can my Haregon jump the super-wide pit?"

 

[James Gasik]

Plus you can run into that with races that are taller than humans on average anyways, Goliaths, Firbolgs, or Bugbears, for example.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Plus you can run into that with races that are taller than humans on average anyways, Goliaths, Firbolgs, or Bugbears, for example.

You can - but the rules do not tell you to. Being effectively blocked from 5' wide corridors makes about half the dungeons part of dungeons & dragons inaccessible and really puts limits on dungeon designers.

 

[James Gasik]

As I just pointed out in another thread, the big issue here is Enlarge and Reduce. Both spells alter your size with built-in effects to simulate the change. You don't want to make a large race that just does an extra d4 damage on all weapon attacks just because, for example. Especially since, due to 5e's emphasis on simpler rules, you can cast Enlarge on a Large creature with no problems, so if being Large had an equal benefit, you'd be able to make someone Huge for +2d4 damage.

Reduce has the same problem, if you wanted, say, a Tiny race. Subtracting 1d4 from weapon damage will just mean that people will mostly play Tiny casters, or classes that don't care much about their weapon die, like Rogues.

Which, I mean, is logical, but I hate pigeonholing races in this fashion, to where one race becomes "the best" or "the worst" choice due to some racial ability.

"No, don't play X race, play Y race because they get +d4 damage on all attacks"...yeah no thank you. Not unless there's a significant downside. Which being big might be, but it would also be a headache for a DM.

It's like why dedicated characters that are meant to ride horses are such a problem- dungeons don't really work with Large mounts, so you quickly have people playing Gnomes and Halflings so they can bring their loyal steeds with them.

Ditto for classes that are supposed to have Large sized pets.

 

[commandercrud]

Because 5e isn't as wonderfully flexible and planned out as they claim.