Level Up (A5E) Strength − Size matters

[Minigiant]

Sorry, but aren't these discussions about human-size (or halfling-size as well) comparisons?

I mean, I don't care for the larger creatures to be considered clumsy either necessarily. Some should, if it fits the description of the creature, but not most of them really.

Interesting side note about DEX. If you look at a sample of most of the monsters in D&D, ever ability score progresses as CR get higher EXCEPT DEX. DEX varies more, but remains "fairly" even throughout.

Well isn't the discussion also about increasing the penalty of small characters?

If we are making size matter more for small creatures, shouldn't we focus on both the pros and cons?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Great! If you are admitting that what I said is true, ...

"And if mechanics don't make you awesome at something, and only narrative does, then it would seem that there is no issue with racial stat adjustments."

Swing, batter batter. SWING AND A MISS!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well isn't the discussion also about increasing the penalty of small characters?

If we are making size matter more for small creatures, shouldn't we focus on both the pros and cons?

Which was why I included halfling-size as well.

Frankly, I know why WotC kept it simply for gear and encumbrance by saying small and medium creatures had the same values, but it really blows my mind when you consider the physics of it. Yeah, I know "fantasy game" but still.

Our house-rule is Small Creatures are considered to have a STR score 4 points lower when it comes to determining lifting,dragging values, etc.

Anyway, I think when it comes to grappling one-size category difference should impose advantage/disadvantage. Skill can make up a lot for that, and it should only be imposed on "direct contests". By that I mean STR vs. STR, not STR vs DEX. You could actually have it go the other direction for STR vs. DEX, so a human trying to grapple a halfling (who uses DEX) might have disadvantage on the attempt. Any parent trying to catch a young child running around can probably attest to that.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Anyway, I think when it comes to grappling one-size category difference should impose advantage/disadvantage. Skill can make up a lot for that, and it should only be imposed on "direct contests". By that I mean STR vs. STR, not STR vs DEX. You could actually have it go the other direction for STR vs. DEX, so a human trying to grapple a halfling (who uses DEX) might have disadvantage on the attempt. Any parent trying to catch a young child running around can probably attest to that.

At a certain point, the amount you gain in fidelity to realism is offset by the fidgetiness of the rules. 5e definitely errors on the side of simplification and streamlining.

What it really comes down to IMO, for racial stat adjustments, is the following:

A. Mechanical. This allows for more of a choice point of differentiation. I happen to both agree and disagree with Defcon on this particular point; I think that people tend to overvalue a +1; but I disagree with Defcon that is meaningless. +1 might not mean a lot with a d20, but in a Bounded Accuracy, +1s are harder to come by, and you are scrounging for each +1 that you can get. Essentially, that whole argument is the "Dude, don't even worry optimizing" argument, except for racial stat bonuses only. It only works if you don't worry about it. Which ... I mean, there are optimizers that play the game.

So while there are some that might be, "Yay, now I can play any race I want and it doesn't matter," there are other that prefer finding particular combos, because of ... reasons I guess.


B. Roleplay. These bonuses reify the standard tropes of D&D and allow players to either revel in them (my Goliath is STRONG!) or play against them (my goliath was cast out for being weaker ...). Mechanics and RP can build on each other.

Again, there are those who would say that we don't need this- these have already been established over years. I don't think that's a great argument. We always have new players, and this combination of mechanics/RP that feeds on each other isn't something they'd necessarily know.


C. Tradition. Ugh. This is the weakest argument, by far. Nevertheless, D&D has traditionally used, for chargen, the Race/Class differentiation to create characters. Given that this has been a rich field that D&D has mined for chargen (which I'm not that into, but some people are really really into) I think a good deal of thought has to be given before changing it. It's like the "six abilities." Sure, if the system was designed from scratch today, it would probably be different. But you need to have both a compelling reason to move away from the old system, as well as a better system to replace it.


Anyway, that's why I would be in favor of keeping "standard" bonuses in race descriptions, and then adding a general "variant race" rule that allows for floating bonuses or the like.

 

[Charlaquin]

You are defining strong as "combat strong."
The OP is defining strong as the ability to lift (and therefore grab, punch, etc.).
There is a huge difference.

No, I am defining it purely as physical might. The Viper isn’t bulky, but he is very strong. Physically.

GoT is not full of strong characters that aren't especially big. It is full of skilled fighters that aren't especially big. Brienne defined herself by being big and skilled, which is why she was one of the few women that could fight equally with a man. The Hound and the Mountain, both known for being stronger than others, were indeed bigger. Drogo, Hodor, Tormund, Wun Weg (the giant) were all physically stronger than the entire cast. And all of them are big. Drogo looks like a modern day action doll.

All characters whose strength along with their size results in a lack of agility compared to other, still very strong characters like Ned, John, Ygritte, Jamie, Brom... I could go on. The show also features a lot of physically weak but skilled characters like Arya, but they’re not who I’m talking about (and Arya gets decently stacked for her size by the end).

In LotR, Gimili looks like a modern day powerlifter, just short. His shoulders, despite being two feet smaller than Aragorn, are wider.

That was my point. He is smaller, but stronger.

That is why he is strong. Legolas is a better fighter, but he is not physically stronger.

Legolas isn’t bulky, but he is undeniably very strong. He’d have to be to shoot a warbow as effectively as he does. What must the poundage on that thing be with some of the shots he makes, and how strong must he be to make it look so effortless to draw? Apparently elf physiology must just not show muscle mass well, cause that boy is STRONK despite being so skinny.

Most fantasy video games that appeal to more mature crowds (The Witcher, Dragon Age, Skyrim) almost directly correlate size with physical strength. Magic can imbue strength. But that is why it is magic. But size equals strength. It is why a giant in Skyrim can send you flying across the battlefield or Letho in The Witcher is physically superior to Geralt.

In all of these, characters are often strong without being physically bulky or especially large, and without magic. When characters are both strong and large (such as giants in Skyrim), they are also lumbering.

 

[DEFCON 1]

"And if mechanics don't make you awesome at something, and only narrative does, then it would seem that there is no issue with racial stat adjustments."

Swing, batter batter. SWING AND A MISS!

So do mechanics matter or don't they?

If you think the mechanics do matter in making your character awesome and representative of who they are, and that a +2/+1 racial modifier accomplishes that... then good for you. But I think it's fairly conclusive that mathematically the modifier bonuses fail almost completely. That pesky d20 makes your so-called "strong" character look like a chump weakling more often than not.

But hey... if you can convince Morrus otherwise, more power to you. I'm just suggesting you may want acquire a little more evidence to support your position, because right now it seems as weak as the half-orc does when he rolls a 1.

 

[Minigiant]

Which was why I included halfling-size as well.

Frankly, I know why WotC kept it simply for gear and encumbrance by saying small and medium creatures had the same values, but it really blows my mind when you consider the physics of it. Yeah, I know "fantasy game" but still.

Our house-rule is Small Creatures are considered to have a STR score 4 points lower when it comes to determining lifting,dragging values, etc.

Anyway, I think when it comes to grappling one-size category difference should impose advantage/disadvantage. Skill can make up a lot for that, and it should only be imposed on "direct contests". By that I mean STR vs. STR, not STR vs DEX. You could actually have it go the other direction for STR vs. DEX, so a human trying to grapple a halfling (who uses DEX) might have disadvantage on the attempt. Any parent trying to catch a young child running around can probably attest to that.

But again, these are all penalties. There is a strong mindset that tunnelvisions being Small as all bad. This is why you see fewer small PCs, especially in games and editions with more penalties.

The only benefits of being Small in the base game is squeezing and the optional rule for climbing on enemies. None of the other benefits of being half the size and 11/3 the weight of the next larger category comes up. But there are pages of discussion on why gnomes should be weak.

In a discussion about size, focusing on increasing the benefits of being larger and penalties of being smaller without the opposite might cause unintended outcomes. Then people wonder why halfling and gnomes are frequently roleplayed as silly characters because only extreme roleplayers are willing to ignore all the "nerfs". I once remembered having to explain to a DM friend of mine why so many of his players played wacky characters. All his houserules for "realism" discouraged anything but "cookie cutter characters" so anyone breaking the mold decides them might as well go off the deep end.

 

[Charlaquin]

But again, these are all penalties. There is a strong mindset that tunnelvisions being Small as all bad. This is why you see fewer small PCs, especially in games and editions with more penalties.

I will say, in I loved playing Small characters in 3.5 because +1 AC and +1 on attack rolls was well worth the smaller weapon damage dice to me. It was pretty obnoxious having to use different weights for all my small-sized equipment, but tracking carry weight is always obnoxious.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But again, these are all penalties. There is a strong mindset that tunnelvisions being Small as all bad. This is why you see fewer small PCs, especially in games and editions with more penalties.

The only benefits of being Small in the base game is squeezing and the optional rule for climbing on enemies. None of the other benefits of being half the size and 11/3 the weight of the next larger category comes up. But there are pages of discussion on why gnomes should be weak.

In a discussion about size, focusing on increasing the benefits of being larger and penalties of being smaller without the opposite might cause unintended outcomes. Then people wonder why halfling and gnomes are frequently roleplayed as silly characters because only extreme roleplayers are willing to ignore all the "nerfs". I once remembered having to explain to a DM friend of mine why so many of his players played wacky characters. All his houserules for "realism" discouraged anything but "cookie cutter characters" so anyone breaking the mold decides them might as well go off the deep end.

Oh, I agree completely small creatures (especially PC races) should have gotten more, but that is because I would like to see them penalized more as well. Other games have small creatures gaining a +1 or +2 AC bonus for example, because, frankly, they are smaller targets and thus harder to hit.

You should see our houserules for halflings and gnomes, we basically combined nearly all of the subraces traits into the main races, so you get lots of stuff. But, you are making up for lack of things elsewhere.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So do mechanics matter or don't they?

Already addressed.

To the extent that you think mechanics don't matter, why don't you take up the argument with someone who got a +1 sword.
"Hey, bud, let's toss that magic weapon away! Nothing matter in the eyes of the almighty God, d20!"

Or tell someone to give up their ASI.
"Sure sure sure. You're 4th level now. But who cares? The sands of time and the vagaries of the dice make your ASI useless. GIVE UP!"

Or perhaps just rubbish a fighting style.
"Why bother picking? C'mon. Just roll a die. Life is just a casino, man. Buy the ticket, take the ride. WOOT!"


I'm sure Storytime with no Mechanics With Uncle Defcon is a good time for all, but given bounded accuracy, those people who do care about mechanics, even a little, tend to appreciate the small things, and the small bonuses, in life.