D&D 5E The Burden of Being Small

[was]

OK, for small characters I'm seeing:
1.) reduced speed
2.) harsher weapon restrictions
3.) lower encumbrance limits

..What I am not seeing, is any benefit for being small. Or am I missing something? I remember previous additions giving improved AC or +1 to hit. Is there no benefit in being a small character to compensate for the drawbacks in this edition?

 

[KarinsDad]

OK, for small characters I'm seeing:
1.) reduced speed
2.) harsher weapon restrictions
3.) lower encumbrance limits

..What I am not seeing, is any benefit for being small. Or am I missing something? I remember previous additions giving improved AC or +1 to hit. Is there no benefit in being a small character to compensate for the drawbacks in this edition?

You mean like being nimble?

Or stealthy?

Or advantage on saves versus a good percentage of magic?

Or darkvision?

Or +2 in the super important Dex stat?


All races have pros and cons.

This edition has the least penalties for being small (with the exception of the 6 speed for halflings in 4E).


And where are the encumbrance limitations that you are talking about?

 

[Mistwell]

They can kick butt? Do things like hide behind their allies and attack with advantage every round?

 

[was]

You mean like being nimble?

Or stealthy?

Or advantage on saves versus a good percentage of magic?

Or darkvision?

Or +2 in the super important Dex stat?


All races have pros and cons.

This edition has the least penalties for being small (with the exception of the 6 speed for halflings in 4E).


And where are the encumbrance limitations that you are talking about?

...not looking at a race by race comparison. There are several medium races that have the same benefits listed above. Past editions had features that compensated smaller characters for the drawbacks of being small. I had not seen any in this edition and was just wondering if I had missed them.

...As for the encumbrance penalty, that was my error. I misread the bottom of pg. 176 where it says Tiny, not Small.

 

[Barantor]

Their weapon restrictions are really, really mild compared to what they used to be in previous editions.

Lucky and the moving through other creatures with halfling is amazing and the Gnomes get some really cool spells by default and the only race with +2 int and have advantage on all wis,int and cha saves that are magic.

So they can't use Heavy weapons without a disadvantage... big whoop? Still get Longswords normal and lots of other weapons they had to use two handed.

 

[was]

Once again, I am not looking at any specific race. I was not looking to argue the merits of any specific race vs. any other. Just looking at the differences between being small vs. being medium. If I did not make that clear than I apologize.

 

[Li Shenron]

OK, for small characters I'm seeing:
1.) reduced speed
2.) harsher weapon restrictions
3.) lower encumbrance limits

..What I am not seeing, is any benefit for being small. Or am I missing something? I remember previous additions giving improved AC or +1 to hit. Is there no benefit in being a small character to compensate for the drawbacks in this edition?

I also noticed that AC modifiers by size are gone in 5e. Actually we don't know for sure (there's a good chance such modifier is in-built in monsters' stats) but at least it's gone for PC races.

I didn't notice any specific rule for small characters in Basic, but that doesn't mean it isn't there, just assuming...

So I would rather take a look at small PC races (halflings and gnomes) as a whole before saying that their small size is a penalty. Even if it is, the racial benefits should make the whole race roughly on par with the others.

 

[N'raac]

To the OP's comments, I note that there is an advantage in some editions to a M character having a Reduce spell cast on him - including +1 to hit, +1 AC in 3e, for example. I think the OP question is relevant for assessing this in 5e - is there an advantage to Size S over Size M which might, in at least some cases, offset the drawbacks, or is having the character's Size reduced always and inevitably detrimental?

 

[KarinsDad]

Once again, I am not looking at any specific race. I was not looking to argue the merits of any specific race vs. any other. Just looking at the differences between being small vs. being medium. If I did not make that clear than I apologize.

Yes, wizards have worse weapons than fighters. It's a shame.


The point that you are missing is that even though small races have certain weaknesses, they also have certain strengths. One cannot just look at the weaknesses and say "Hey, look, this is a problem". One has to look at the big picture.

As an example, I have never and I quite literally mean never saw a small PC played in 3E through 4E that I can remember. Not one in nearly a decade and a half of playing these two versions.

In our current group of six, we have: 1 halfling, 1 gnome, 1 half elf, 1 human, 1 dwarf, and a player who is waffling between elf and human.

Sure, this is anecdotal. But 2 PCs out of 6 small is basically unheard of in earlier editions for my groups.

I think you are noticing an issue which is not an issue.

 

[Li Shenron]

Once again, I am not looking at any specific race. I was not looking to argue the merits of any specific race vs. any other. Just looking at the differences between being small vs. being medium. If I did not make that clear than I apologize.

Well in that case, it seems like being "small" is indeed a penalty, if there isn't a default benefit that applies universally to all creatures of size "small".

I really don't think this is true for creatures smaller than "small" size. Certainly their AC and other stats will reflect that.