Does Size Matter?

[Tequila Sunrise]

For as long as I’ve played this game, characters and monsters have been categorized in a variety of sizes. But in a practical mechanical way, there are only two or three size categories.

AD&D has Big and Not Big, and the only thing that separates them is whether your longsword deals 1d8 or 1d12 damage to that size. I don’t know with certainty how other TSR editions handle size, but I’m guessing it’s not too different from AD&D.

WotC editions have Little, Smedium, and Big. WotC, particularly within 3.x, has a variety of size modifiers and multipliers. But when all’s said and done, most of that stuff disappears into the stat block. The meaningful differences are space and reach -- Bigs can block ten-foot passages and get to smack Smediums with AoO, Smediums take up one space and get to smack Littles with AoO, while Littles take up no space and don’t get to smack anyone.

So I guess I’m wondering how 5e will handle sizes, and how you feel on the subject. Is it worth making a distinction between Small and Medium if they have the same space and reach? Are all those inconsistent 3.x size modifiers worth it? How many size categories does D&D need? Do we need size categories at all?

 

[kitsune9]

If the base rules has no tactical, size doesn't matter other description and logic (i.e. don't describe a 10'x10' room with a red dragon in it), and the figured stat block with size already considered for you. If they have a tactical module, then size does matter because it will give rise to space, reach, AoO's, and other rules in which tactical considerations apply.

 

[Astrosicebear]

Anyone will tell you yes, size does matter.

But in all seriousness, size is important for the narrative of the story to be represented mechanically in the game.

I think the tactical module will cover most of the rules for things liek creatures and cover, squeezing, etc. While the core rules will just have the size category definitions, a Halfling is small, a human is medium, and a colossal red dragon is well, colossal.

 

[Living Legend]

My wife has assured me on several occasions that size really isn't a big deal, like at all, so don't worry about it you know.

 

[Tehnai]

I agree with the other posters. Size is important in a tactical module, where you need to know how many squares a given monster occupies.

Otherwise, I'm cool with separating monsters as "Sort of size of a PC" and "Big".

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Size, sheer size, is best represented by representative amounts of increased hit dice for large creatures, higher damage amounts for the weapons of large creatures, longer reach/threat area for large creatures. For those fighting larger creatures there may be some adjustment to their ability to hit big things and the ability to avoid BEING hit by big things (AC adjustments) but otherwise the statistics of a thing should be all you need to account for its bigness/smallness.

 

[scadgrad]

Size was not always included. In 0E through B/X, there really wasn't a size stat since total HD established that (in most cases). Where it did not, details in the description gave you more information. Works just fine TBH.

 

[Grazzt]

If the base rules has no tactical, size doesn't matter other description and logic (i.e. don't describe a 10'x10' room with a red dragon in it), and the figured stat block with size already considered for you. If they have a tactical module, then size does matter because it will give rise to space, reach, AoO's, and other rules in which tactical considerations apply.

Agreed. Without tactical, you can simply give bigger monsters more HD, bonus to damage, etc. like others have mentioned above. Worked in past editions, should work ok this time around too.