Penalties and Being Small: Those who don't mind.

[ForeverSlayer]

I have a few people in my group who actually think penalties fit small characters therefore they don't have a problem with playing them. They have actually said that it is the penalties that actually gives them a mechanical sense that they are playing a creature that is small. What these guys would like to have is a bonus that balance out with the negative but if there isn't one then they aren't really heart broken. I hope 5e brings back penalties to small creatures and so do they. What do you prefer?

 

[nightwalker450]

I'm fine with penalties for small creatures. I think 3.5 went too far with the small weapons idea though, and prefer the simplified 4e style (you can't use a greatsword, it takes 2 hands for a longsword, etc..).

I think it'd be kind of silly not to have small size penalties.

 

[Minigiant]

I think 3e's attack, AC, and hide bonuses was good.

To me, small weapon users would focus on defensive, specialized, and ambush tactics as their are smaller targets while have bigger targets to aim at.

A halfling fighter wouldn't try to deal a lot of damage. They would spam feign attack and never miss while using their small size to survive the long fight. Or sneak around to charge the archers and spellcasters in the back.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think 3e's attack, AC, and hide bonuses was good.

To me, small weapon users would focus on defensive, specialized, and ambush tactics as their are smaller targets while have bigger targets to aim at.

A halfling fighter wouldn't try to deal a lot of damage. They would spam feign attack and never miss while using their small size to survive the long fight. Or sneak around to charge the archers and spellcasters in the back.

This! I like the fact that it didn't have to be about the DPR. Find other ways to handle your foe than just with damage.

 

[Henry]

A lot of people don't have problem with small-size penalties -- they have a problem with being "double" penalized for being small. For example, in 3.5, not only are small critters typically given penalties to STR, but they are also given limitations on the weight they can carry -- they can only carry 3/4 what a medium size critter could, as well, AND they can only use "small" weapons, etc.

Me personally, I think the penalties for small size make it so that being a small-sized or smaller warrior-type is pointless, and you could need to go Rogue or similar class whose damage is independent of size. For those who say that's as it should be, I'd like to see their thoughts on 7-ft tall barbarians taking on 50-foot 10-ton dragons. Plausibly speaking, those barbarians ought to be just as effective on the dragons as a pixie is on them.

 

[Grazzt]

I'm fine with penalties for small creatures. I think 3.5 went too far with the small weapons idea though, and prefer the simplified 4e style (you can't use a greatsword, it takes 2 hands for a longsword, etc..).

I think it'd be kind of silly not to have small size penalties.

Same here. I'm fine with penalties for small (as both a player and DM)

 

[Kingreaper]

I think having penalties for small size makes sense as long as they're balanced by appropriate benefits.

 

[Number48]

Change it from "Small-size penalty" to "Small-size different numbers" and I'm on board. Playing small should feel different, but it shouldn't feel like punishment no matter what your class choice.

 

[Serendipity]

Don't care for it - but the only iteration that really bothered me was the 3.5 version which introduces not only different damage for smaller creatures weapons but the fidgetyness of having to keep track of "no, that's a small sized short sword" or "that dagger is medium sized." It's just a degree of granularity I don't especially want or need.
A small sized short sword? We call that a dagger.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I have a few people in my group who actually think penalties fit small characters therefore they don't have a problem with playing them. They have actually said that it is the penalties that actually gives them a mechanical sense that they are playing a creature that is small. What these guys would like to have is a bonus that balance out with the negative but if there isn't one then they aren't really heart broken. I hope 5e brings back penalties to small creatures and so do they. What do you prefer?

Stranger, this forum ain't big enough for two size threads. You best have yer six shooter ready at high noon.

Okay personally, I either prefer to have no size penalties, or to have internally-consistent size penalties. In other words either take the last step and drop that one weapon restriction that 4e has, as many of us already do, and don't even bother having a separate size category. Or tweak 3e's size mods so that they actually make sense.

I think it'd be kind of silly not to have small size penalties.

I agree that no penalties is silly; I also think it's downright absurd that every small creature in WotC D&D has the same space and reach as a Medium creature, despite being roughly half the size. As I mentioned in my thread, the penalties mostly disappear into the stat block and I wouldn't know they're there without looking. But space and reach are clearly and intuitively related to size.

I understand that Small creatures have the space and reach of Mediums so that Sam and Frodo aren't outright gimped in melee. But from an internally-consistent and a realistic PoV, it's absurd that they all seem to have chimpanzee arms. It makes those Small penalties mere tokens, lip-service to realism, in a game that has never been overly concerned with realism. 3.x and 4e effectively have one PC size category: Smedium.