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

[beancounter]

It's just a matter of consistency, convenience and "level playing field" for the game mechanics.

If certain races (species, really) were vastly superior to others, everyone would start using them, and ignore all of the less optimal choices.

 

[Ixal]

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.

There was this thing called damage reduction in 3E...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There was this thing called damage reduction in 3E...

And it is still there in 5e.
Half damage or no damage from nonmagic weapons does exactly this in most cases.

 

[DND_Reborn]

There was this thing called damage reduction in 3E...

Yeah, I know, but it should be immunity in this case (the ancient dragon).

5E "resistance" is not enough IMO but whatever, most of 5E is a let down to me.

 

[ART!]

My memory of previous editions is not great; did any of them give a character (or monster, or whatever) a lower AC if a they were enlarged via a spell or somesuch?

 

[DND_Reborn]

My memory of previous editions is not great; did any of them give a character (or monster, or whatever) a lower AC if a they were enlarged via a spell or somesuch?

3.5 did...

 

[Stoutstien]

I'm partial to damage threshold and some times flat reduction as simple mechanics to tag on to NPCs that I want to feel truly epic and can destroy armies without slapping "well it's immune to non magic stuff I guess.." stickers on it.

My bulk rules originally was designed to streamline carrying capacities and encumbrance then I realized it made relative sizing of creatures and objects easier as well. If a barbarian wants to pick up a log and swing it at an enemy we don't really want to stop the game to calculate both the PCs lifting capabilities and the actual weight of the object. Is so much faster to say they can lift up to a certain bulk (str modifier + maybe additional stuff like powerful build or being large) and give the item a single digit value for lifting. So if it's a freshly cut log it's dense so it would have a value of 4 times whatever length it has. So if it's 5 or less it's 4, 6-10 feet it's 8, and so on.
Same basic principles apply to creatures. So a large PC could be just taller and slightly broader then it's medium counterpart or just more dense. Leave more room for making a race feel more unique without just saying you take up more space on the floor.

 

[jmartkdr2]

My memory of previous editions is not great; did any of them give a character (or monster, or whatever) a lower AC if a they were enlarged via a spell or somesuch?

3e had this - -1 AC for being large, -2 for huge, -4 for gargantuan. But you got a +4 to grapples checks for being large.

Even with the penalty large was still a pretty big advantage for a pc. Not un-balance-able, but a net bonus nonetheless.

 

[Stoutstien]

3e had this - -1 AC for being large, -2 for huge, -4 for gargantuan. But you got a +4 to grapples checks for being large.

Even with the penalty large was still a pretty big advantage for a pc. Not un-balance-able, but a net bonus nonetheless.

And the opposite was true for anyone who avoided most physical interactions with stuff. The bonuses for being small greatly out weighed the cons for casters. I'd like to avoid that paradigm moving forward.

 

[DarkCrisis]

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.

If only there was a way to solve problems in D&D via the players actions (like magic maybe) instead of changing the whole game to accommodate a need to just make things easier.

It’s like people can’t think around corners anymore and have to have the answer given to them on a platter.

5th Ed embracing that “easy mode” label.