D&D 5E The Fate of the Smol

[Horwath]

Well, being small should be a global disadvantage with some circumstantial benefits.

Unfortunately, circumstantial seems at 1st glance worse than codified global mechanics.

Not being able to use Heavy weapons, speed lower by 5ft(we should keep that) and include carry capacity reduction to 10lb per STR point for small characters.

Now for advantages: armor is half the weight as is most size appropriate gear, you have an option to have size smaller mount, cover bonus of +2 for medium character might count as +5 for small character, more places to hide, stealth might gain advantage or negate disadvantage(depending on the area, but again this is DM based rule), not having attack/AC penalties in smaller confined spaces,

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, your enjoyment of the hobby requires that everyone at the table follows your preferences? Not only that, but, people who don't even play at your table must follow your preferences too?

You must absolutely hate public games.

We're just not going to agree on this. I do not have any sympathy really for people whose enjoyment of the game requires them to force others to play in a particular way. I fully endorse the design principle that leaves it up to the table to sort this kind of thing out. You want halflings to be realistic (or at least believable to you, whatever that line actually is)? Fair enough. Find a group of like minded players and have at it. Knock yourself out.

Me? I refuse to force my preferences onto other groups, particularly groups I will never actually meet. If someone wants fifteen foot tall halfings? Fantastic. Someone wants to have halflings with hairy feet? Sure, that hasn't existed in D&D for over twenty years, but, cool, go for it. Someone wants halflings to be limited to 6th level fighters? Totally great.

But, when someone wants to tell me how I should play my character? When you're not even present at my table? Yeah, not happening.

If you use any published rules, you're letting "someone to tell you how to play the game." The books are literally filled with things that say what you can and cannot do in the game. These are called rules. And publishing a game requires having some design principles. I am merely iterating what I feel are good design principles for a game like D&D. And ultimately if you don't want anyone to tell you what to do, you got to write your own game. And I have done that in the past. It just is a lot of work, and these days I have no time nor energy for such, so I merely hope that publishers keep producing games I like.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I've started to think that small and medium will just get merged in 5.5e/6e, and become mechanically the same.

Which will be a shame.

 

[Willie the Duck]

If you use any published rules, you're letting "someone to tell you how to play the game." The books are literally filled with things that say what you can and cannot do in the game. These are called rules. And publishing a game requires having some design principles. I am merely iterating what I feel are good design principles for a game like D&D. And ultimately if you don't want anyone to tell you what to do, you got to write your own game. And I have done that in the past. It just is a lot of work, and these days I have no time nor energy for such, so I merely hope that publishers keep producing games I like.

You're not wrong, but...
A huge chunk of the modern 5e audience has no personal attachment to a number of these limitations. They didn't start with TSR-era A/D&D where halflings kept up did some sneaking and sniping and people made jokes about how if the spit hit the spam they didn't have to outrun the monsters, just the halfling. They didn't start in the 3e era where you chose human or half-orc for barbarian and halfling for rogue or maybe wizard (and of course played whichever specially made elf subrace got you the bonus in the class prime requisite). Instead they started in an era with a Mos Eisley cantina of creature options (with a lot more non-IRL-human skin tones) and a number of cultural influences (Warhammer, Warcraft, hundreds of manga I haven't read, etc.) that suggest that maybe minotaurs should be good wizards or orcs are more druidic than barbarian -- and tieflings should be played whenever you want to play one, not when it lines up with a specific class in terms of playability.

Bringing this back to halflings, this means that, while actual rules for being a different size are perfectly reasonable, one that shuts down an entire form of play (big-hitter warrior) probably are going to be a thing of the past. The trick would be (and to be clear I'm not saying they way WotC looks like it will be trending is the right implementation of this) to give size S actual benefits and hindrances, but not cut off entire race-class combinations from realistically being played.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And ultimately if you don't want anyone to tell you what to do, you got to write your own game. And I have done that in the past. It just is a lot of work, and these days I have no time nor energy for such

If you've already written your own game in the past that gives you what you want, why aren't you playing that instead?

 

[Hussar]

If you use any published rules, you're letting "someone to tell you how to play the game." The books are literally filled with things that say what you can and cannot do in the game. These are called rules. And publishing a game requires having some design principles. I am merely iterating what I feel are good design principles for a game like D&D. And ultimately if you don't want anyone to tell you what to do, you got to write your own game. And I have done that in the past. It just is a lot of work, and these days I have no time nor energy for such, so I merely hope that publishers keep producing games I like.

There's a pretty large excluded middle here though. Of course, having classes and whatnot tells you how to play the game. But, we can have extremely limited, restrictive classes like we saw in 1e AD&D, or we can have very broad, wide open classes like we get in other editions. That doesn't make 1e superior, just different.

So, again, we're back to why do you get to force your preferences on other tables? If we were playing together, you could simply ask me, talk to me, try to convince me why your version of halflings would make the game more fun. I could agree or not, as the case may be. But, instead, in the past, the rules let your bludgeon other people with your preferences, and anyone who didn't agree had to pretty much shut up.

I much, much prefer a lighter touch by the game. You want restrictive rules? Fantastic. I do too, sometimes. I would LOVE to see the game support a much lower magic level, for example. But, I also realize that unless I can convince the players of this, it's just not going to happen.

5e is really not the right edition for restrictive rules.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You're not wrong, but...
A huge chunk of the modern 5e audience has no personal attachment to a number of these limitations. They didn't start with TSR-era A/D&D where halflings kept up did some sneaking and sniping and people made jokes about how if the spit hit the spam they didn't have to outrun the monsters, just the halfling. They didn't start in the 3e era where you chose human or half-orc for barbarian and halfling for rogue or maybe wizard (and of course played whichever specially made elf subrace got you the bonus in the class prime requisite). Instead they started in an era with a Mos Eisley cantina of creature options (with a lot more non-IRL-human skin tones) and a number of cultural influences (Warhammer, Warcraft, hundreds of manga I haven't read, etc.) that suggest that maybe minotaurs should be good wizards or orcs are more druidic than barbarian -- and tieflings should be played whenever you want to play one, not when it lines up with a specific class in terms of playability.

Bringing this back to halflings, this means that, while actual rules for being a different size are perfectly reasonable, one that shuts down an entire form of play (big-hitter warrior) probably are going to be a thing of the past. The trick would be (and to be clear I'm not saying they way WotC looks like it will be trending is the right implementation of this) to give size S actual benefits and hindrances, but not cut off entire race-class combinations from realistically being played.

I fully get the desire to be able to effectively play any species as any class, I just feel the species should still play differently. And yes, some sort of flaw and benefit for the size would be ideal. Three feet and eight feet tall people playing exactly the same just seems like a total failure of the rules system though.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If you've already written your own game in the past that gives you what you want, why aren't you playing that instead?

Different games are written for different purposes. I don't believe that there can be some 'perfect game' that gives me everything I want for every purpose. And these were simple games, written ages ago for different me for different use. I don't think I'd be satisfied with these systems any longer, and creating a game of the scope and amount of crunch D&D has is a massive endeavour.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I fully get the desire to be able to effectively play any species as any class, I just feel the species should still play differently. And yeas, some sort of flaw and benefit for the size would be ideal. Three feet and eight feet tall people playing exactly the same just seems like a total failure of the rules system though.

So long as you have a 20-point swing from the d20 and only like a 6-point swing from STR mods ranging from -1 to +5... any kind of rule that affects Strength scores based upon race size is going to be purely for show. You're never going to get any sort of true verisimilitude from those rules.

A STR 8 halfling can still hit DCs of 19 while a STR 20 goliath can still rolls Nat 1s. So there will ALWAYS be places where the 3 foot character outshines the 8 foot character in uses of Strength. Not as often... but still completely possible and likely over time. So for me... the fact that this "verisimilitude-breaking" event can still happen... even with these rules for any STR mins and maxes in place based on size... says that it is completely folly to think any game mechanic is going to solve the problem. It ain't. It never will, so long as the d20 is used as the randomizer in the rules. So I just stop caring about it. It can't be solved with the d20 system, so why get worked up about it if I insist on using the d20 system?

You want a true rule system that almost never has a 3 foot halfling out-strength an 8 foot goliath? Use one whose die roll is a d2 + mod. Then the mod bonus can assure you of the goliath always winning STR contests over the halfling.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There's a pretty large excluded middle here though. Of course, having classes and whatnot tells you how to play the game. But, we can have extremely limited, restrictive classes like we saw in 1e AD&D, or we can have very broad, wide open classes like we get in other editions. That doesn't make 1e superior, just different.

So, again, we're back to why do you get to force your preferences on other tables? If we were playing together, you could simply ask me, talk to me, try to convince me why your version of halflings would make the game more fun. I could agree or not, as the case may be. But, instead, in the past, the rules let your bludgeon other people with your preferences, and anyone who didn't agree had to pretty much shut up.

I much, much prefer a lighter touch by the game. You want restrictive rules? Fantastic. I do too, sometimes. I would LOVE to see the game support a much lower magic level, for example. But, I also realize that unless I can convince the players of this, it's just not going to happen.

People can of course agree between themselves on anything. But it doesn't mean the rules shouldn't have some basic structure. Why do rules restrict what classes can take what spells, cannot the players just agree about it amongst themselves?

If the rules for splats fail to offer mechanical representation for those splats, then the splats are not needed. And I certainly have no need to pay someone to tell me 'do whatever'. I can 'do whatever' for free. If I pay for rules for halflings, I want the rules in some way attempt to model them being hella small!

And me expressing my preference for game design that has some structure on a public message board is not forcing anything on you.

5e is really not the right edition for restrictive rules.

D&D is not a right game for non-restrictive rules. If you want freeform character creation, there are a ton of games that do that. No splats for species, no classes, just some sort of point buy to get what you want, with freedom to mix and match things.