So yeah we all know the fairy playable race is technically classed as "small" rather than tiny but to me this kind of kills part of the fun of playing a fairy character, I know Zee Bashew did a video on the pitfalls of playing a large character in a campaign in regards to accommodating and balancing a large character but are there any similar pitfalls for having a tiny character in your campaign?
To me it would seem as if most of the downsides to playing a tiny character would be on the player themselves rather than from the DM's perspective in accommodating and balancing the campaign for a tiny character. Would not be any issues in dungeon crawling as the tiny character is able to fit wherever the normal sized characters are able to fit unlike the large character who would need to wait outside because the map was not designed with big characters in mind. You would not have any issues with the damage scaling turning your monsters into mincemeat as if anything the tiny character is going to be at a disadvantage when it comes to weapon attack power and whatnot and even if they play as a character with a flying speed it is not like they can break that much.
Just wondering if there is anything I am not taking into account in letting somebody play a tiny character in a campaign?
One concern, as small as it may be (heh) is that tiny does allow them to pass through bars in gates etc.
The other side is that they don't count as difficult terrain for opponents and so can't block paths.
Mostly, it will be shenanigans thst youl have to look out for. "I'm really small so can fit in the Fighter's pocket" *dumps dexterity and any stealth related stats*. I don't really see major issues with being tiny (or large for that matter, I can make doors larger).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
4e’s Faerie race was considered Tiny - I expect the choice to go witch Small in 5e was somewhat reactionary against that.
Tiny provided a number of difficulties for the DM . Tiny characters are able to get places other characters cannot, find cover or hide where other players might not, and otherwise make use of their smaller size in ways which break the system. Additionally, prior editions allowed a tiny creature to share a square with other creatures and, though 5e is silent on that front, it is likely a common holdover homerule that can introduce additional problems. None of these were insurmountable problems - and the existence of Reduce in 5e means a DM should be able to solve them anyway - but there were plenty who found it overpowered.
Additionally, as others have mentioned, there is the gear issue. 4e’s Faerie race solved this issue by giving Faeries a feature where they could shrink items for the purpose of carrying them or using them as a weapon, but which would revert to their normal size of the Faerie lost control of them. Basically a way of hand waiving away the question by implementing a “just carry stuff normally” rule. Frankly, I would allow this in 5e - the kind of DM who throws a hissy fit about “but your tiny character can’t carry this!” while ignoring a halfling carrying a battle axe, spear, two long swords, eight hand axes, multiple sets of light armour, ten days of trail rations, etc., seems like the kind of DM who selectively applies logic just to shut down things that annoy them.
4e’s Faerie race was considered Tiny - I expect the choice to go witch Small in 5e was somewhat reactionary against that.
Tiny provided a number of difficulties for the DM . Tiny characters are able to get places other characters cannot, find cover or hide where other players might not, and otherwise make use of their smaller size in ways which break the system. Additionally, prior editions allowed a tiny creature to share a square with other creatures and, though 5e is silent on that front, it is likely a common holdover homerule that can introduce additional problems. None of these were insurmountable problems - and the existence of Reduce in 5e means a DM should be able to solve them anyway - but there were plenty who found it overpowered.
Additionally, as others have mentioned, there is the gear issue. 4e’s Faerie race solved this issue by giving Faeries a feature where they could shrink items for the purpose of carrying them or using them as a weapon, but which would revert to their normal size of the Faerie lost control of them. Basically a way of hand waiving away the question by implementing a “just carry stuff normally” rule. Frankly, I would allow this in 5e - the kind of DM who throws a hissy fit about “but your tiny character can’t carry this!” while ignoring a halfling carrying a battle axe, spear, two long swords, eight hand axes, multiple sets of light armour, ten days of trail rations, etc., seems like the kind of DM who selectively applies logic just to shut down things that annoy them.
good points. as a DM I don't throw hissy fits about carrying capacity I go with the assumption that their gear will be made to their size. But I don't let them wield great swords etc.
One could also make the point that stats like Strength are relative to the size of the creature. 6 six foot human with a strength of 17 in reality is going to be different than a 3 foot halfling with a strength of 17. Carrying capacity is strength X 15. For tiny it is half that. But it could still give the tiny creature a carrying capacity of triple their own weight.
So many variables and arguments that could be made it just isn't worth it.
Most of the pitfalls of a Tiny PC are that it stops making sense for the Tiny PC to do a lot of things that are rather necessary for adventuring.
You can picture a three-foot halfling doing all the things a regular Medium-sized adventurer can. After all, small children are routinely three feet tall and get into all sorts of trouble; a well-trained and highly experienced five year old could wreak untold havoc upon the world. Such a character can attack other entities, they can make Strength checks (if not to necessarily the same degree as the party's goliath), they can lift, carry, and use ordinary gear - it doesn't break verisimilitude for a Small character to do those things.
A Tiny character? A six-inch pixie? That breaks verisimilitude. Tinkerbell is not going to meaningfully be able to damage most enemies with weapons, nor can she meaningfully make checks to move or affect the terrain and environment around her. A simple doorknob is a very high DC Strength check for a pixie, a closed window is an immovable obstacle. The ways such a miniscule creature can interact with the world, without using magic either real or Handwaveimancy, is extremely limited. This is a creature for whom Mage Hand is proportionately as powerful as Bigby's Hand - and Mage Hand is explicitly very weak by normal adventuring standards. To say nothing of what happens when a pixie is struck by an ogre's warclub hundreds if not thousands of times her own mass - HP never makes sense, but it makes even less sense for a Tiny PC.
Could allowances be made? Certainly. Anyone who actually wants to play a Tiny PC should already be eager to explore these issues, and any such character that decides to Adventure has likely worked out at least some way around the worst such issues. It's not undoable, the same way a Large character is not undoable. But it does require either a great deal more Handwavium than more typical PCs or a lot of care into maintaining verisimilitude when your character is smaller than the average rat.
in reality almost every tiny creature would not live through first contact with a melee strike.
Their carrying capacity would be very small.
In reality, none of the characters are likely to survive long in combat. Bleeding out can happen very quickly. If anything, smaller flying creatures are actually better off because they won't take the full brunt of the swing from a hammer, unlike a heavier humanoid that tries to hold their ground.
One concern, as small as it may be (heh) is that tiny does allow them to pass through bars in gates etc.
The Amorphous trait allows a medium sized Plasmoid to pass through a 1 inch opening. (Leaving their gear behind.) So, this is less of a size specific issue.
Previous editions scaled stats with size, so smaller creatures would have higher Dex/AC while larger creatures would have higher Strength and Reach, and penalties in the opposite. This contributed to runaway optimization that made the game difficult to balance. As long as the player gets no statistical benefits from being Tiny-, then the impact on gameplay is relatively minor. The combination of Tiny and Flight could simply be a step out of bounds for the power calculations of playable species. Some species with more potent abilities were balanced with major and minor detriments, but those have a negative impact on playability, so it ended up being easier to keep the starting mechanics within a manageable box. (Can't get away with giving Tiny Fairies penalties to melee because they would just become the Munchkin choice for casters, and players would simply avoid them for martial builds.)
Being tiny, on its own, is not problematic, and already possible via features like the Druid's Wildshape, so a DM needs to take the same considerations into account either way. A Druid can not turn into a Flying+Tiny creature until 8th level, but an Aarakocra Druid could be either Tiny or Flying as needed by level 2.
One concern, as small as it may be (heh) is that tiny does allow them to pass through bars in gates etc.
The other side is that they don't count as difficult terrain for opponents and so can't block paths.
Mostly, it will be shenanigans thst youl have to look out for. "I'm really small so can fit in the Fighter's pocket" *dumps dexterity and any stealth related stats*. I don't really see major issues with being tiny (or large for that matter, I can make doors larger).
Yeah but I would say being able to fit into tight spaces or between bars is a pretty fair trade off for the downsides of playing a tiny character, gives them more utility and unique ways to overcome certain obstacles, unless those bars are supposed to be some impenetrable barrier that would break the campaign if any of your players were to pass through them I don't really see the issue.
Also using dex as a dump stat seems like it would be a worse idea for the player rather than the GM.
Biggest downfall would be that any sane DM thinking about it would ask you how you care carrying things. As a tiny creature, how, exactly, are you carrying that 50' of rope? You almost certainly do not have a normal sized backpack... etc.
To be honest they probably wouldn't, in all honesty in most campaigns we don't track carry capacity and space all that closely but still we use common sense as to what sort of things you would be able to carry and fit in your pack, I don't think the tiny character would be carrying much of the adventuring supplies.
4e’s Faerie race was considered Tiny - I expect the choice to go witch Small in 5e was somewhat reactionary against that.
Tiny provided a number of difficulties for the DM . Tiny characters are able to get places other characters cannot, find cover or hide where other players might not, and otherwise make use of their smaller size in ways which break the system. Additionally, prior editions allowed a tiny creature to share a square with other creatures and, though 5e is silent on that front, it is likely a common holdover homerule that can introduce additional problems. None of these were insurmountable problems - and the existence of Reduce in 5e means a DM should be able to solve them anyway - but there were plenty who found it overpowered.
Additionally, as others have mentioned, there is the gear issue. 4e’s Faerie race solved this issue by giving Faeries a feature where they could shrink items for the purpose of carrying them or using them as a weapon, but which would revert to their normal size of the Faerie lost control of them. Basically a way of hand waiving away the question by implementing a “just carry stuff normally” rule. Frankly, I would allow this in 5e - the kind of DM who throws a hissy fit about “but your tiny character can’t carry this!” while ignoring a halfling carrying a battle axe, spear, two long swords, eight hand axes, multiple sets of light armour, ten days of trail rations, etc., seems like the kind of DM who selectively applies logic just to shut down things that annoy them.
good points. as a DM I don't throw hissy fits about carrying capacity I go with the assumption that their gear will be made to their size. But I don't let them wield great swords etc.
One could also make the point that stats like Strength are relative to the size of the creature. 6 six foot human with a strength of 17 in reality is going to be different than a 3 foot halfling with a strength of 17. Carrying capacity is strength X 15. For tiny it is half that. But it could still give the tiny creature a carrying capacity of triple their own weight.
So many variables and arguments that could be made it just isn't worth it.
If it is magic items usually I am a little more flexible but when it comes to mundane items it really depends on where they find it. For instance if the players are raiding a Drow armoury it does not make much sense for them to find armour sized for a halfling or a gnome, even when it comes to minataurs which the playable version is technically classed as medium I would probably rule that they would need armour specifically crafted to suit their stature, with a tiny character I would probably rule the same way with most gear needing to be specifically crafted for their size, unless of course they can justify it like wearing a magic ring as a girdle or something.
In regards to carry capacity I guess there is always the square-cube law to explain that away? I mean sure we are ignoring other aspects that make that law inconvenient but that is pretty much normal for most fantasy settings.
When the DM/GM allows it, I love playing oddball characters, and will take the time and effort to balance those characters attributes with negatives for that DM/GM. Sometimes those negatives will go beyond even what the DM/GM requires of me, because those restrictions make sense to me. If I wanted to play a tiny character, and was given the OK to do so, that character may only be able to lift and carry, say 1lb/1/2kg, and might have no effective melee strike capability. That character's usefulness would be focused on what it could do for the party as a spy, an investigator of the next room over, a distraction that the PCs could use against the NPCs, etc.. As a player, don't always expect the DM/Gm to adapt to your style of play and your desires. Take the time and effort to come up with a workable plan that everyone in the group can feel good about.
Most of the pitfalls of a Tiny PC are that it stops making sense for the Tiny PC to do a lot of things that are rather necessary for adventuring.
You can picture a three-foot halfling doing all the things a regular Medium-sized adventurer can. After all, small children are routinely three feet tall and get into all sorts of trouble; a well-trained and highly experienced five year old could wreak untold havoc upon the world. Such a character can attack other entities, they can make Strength checks (if not to necessarily the same degree as the party's goliath), they can lift, carry, and use ordinary gear - it doesn't break verisimilitude for a Small character to do those things.
A Tiny character? A six-inch pixie? That breaks verisimilitude. Tinkerbell is not going to meaningfully be able to damage most enemies with weapons, nor can she meaningfully make checks to move or affect the terrain and environment around her. A simple doorknob is a very high DC Strength check for a pixie, a closed window is an immovable obstacle. The ways such a miniscule creature can interact with the world, without using magic either real or Handwaveimancy, is extremely limited. This is a creature for whom Mage Hand is proportionately as powerful as Bigby's Hand - and Mage Hand is explicitly very weak by normal adventuring standards. To say nothing of what happens when a pixie is struck by an ogre's warclub hundreds if not thousands of times her own mass - HP never makes sense, but it makes even less sense for a Tiny PC.
Could allowances be made? Certainly. Anyone who actually wants to play a Tiny PC should already be eager to explore these issues, and any such character that decides to Adventure has likely worked out at least some way around the worst such issues. It's not undoable, the same way a Large character is not undoable. But it does require either a great deal more Handwavium than more typical PCs or a lot of care into maintaining verisimilitude when your character is smaller than the average rat.
To be honest I imagine the most likely class choice for such a character would be some sort of caster, or perhaps a rogue that targets vital areas with poison but even that would kind of be pushing it a little, definitely does not make much sense for them to take on the role as the party's barbarian as funny as that would be. Besides Pixies are already known for their magical abilities so being a caster kind of fits.
Truth is I kind of expect that playing a tiny character would come with the caveat that certain things that regular sized PCs can do may be much harder or even impossible for a tiny character to do, but with those limitations comes unique opportunities for RP and unique methods of problem solving as they deal with their limitations and use their size to their advantage.
I think Yurei's post is spot on, but I'll contribute how I'd handle it (from the DM side of the screen).
Allow the "tiny" in story and role-play but mechanically, have them function as small. This is how I've handled really large half-orcs or goliaths - Andre the Giant sized or larger. They are imposing and would force me to consider some sort of mechanical benefit but I treat them as Medium-sized PCs because things get out of control otherwise.
What I might allow is a once per day mechanical advantage as a result of size. The extra large goliath (though medium sized) can bypass a check to break a door (object AC, damage, bludgeoning weapon, etc.) by simply saying, "I'm just gonna Fezzik the door. I'm massive. Can I just Juggernaut my way through it?" I'll say yes, ONCE PER DAY because it's cool and hardly gamebreaking when we find one instance where it pushes against the rules.
I'm sure you can come up with a similar once per day scenario as a result of being tiny, though in normal gameplay, day by day, fight after fight, you're treated as small.
I think Yurei's post is spot on, but I'll contribute how I'd handle it (from the DM side of the screen).
Allow the "tiny" in story and role-play but mechanically, have them function as small. This is how I've handled really large half-orcs or goliaths - Andre the Giant sized or larger. They are imposing and would force me to consider some sort of mechanical benefit but I treat them as Medium-sized PCs because things get out of control otherwise.
What I might allow is a once per day mechanical advantage as a result of size. The extra large goliath (though medium sized) can bypass a check to break a door (object AC, damage, bludgeoning weapon, etc.) by simply saying, "I'm just gonna Fezzik the door. I'm massive. Can I just Juggernaut my way through it?" I'll say yes, ONCE PER DAY because it's cool and hardly gamebreaking when we find one instance where it pushes against the rules.
I'm sure you can come up with a similar once per day scenario as a result of being tiny, though in normal gameplay, day by day, fight after fight, you're treated as small.
I dunno to me that kind of ruins part of the fun of playing a character that deviates from the norm, I guess to each their own on how they would decide to run such a thing if they would even allow it in the first place but from the perspective of the player part of the fun of playing a handicapped character is finding ways to overcome the unique challenges that such a character would face and finding areas where your character does excel, from the perspective of the DM part of the fun is seeing how the player adapts to those challenges and plays their character.
I mean yeah a tiny character is going to have trouble on strength saving throws and ability checks, carrying items and melee combat but there are still plenty of ways that they can contribute to the group, for most of the games I have played strength based checks outside of combat usually only require one or 2 characters to participate and are generally handled by the burliest characters, a lot more common are the nature, perception and investigation type checks in which size isn't really a factor, then there are always stealth checks which I imagine tiny creatures would have advantage in and if they play a caster then they have a much larger toolbox to interact with that is not disadvantaged by their size, there are still plenty of ways a tiny creature can contribute to the group outside of strength based challenges and in situations where their size does present a challenge it can be fun to see how they handle it, do they get another player to help or in a situation where they don't have the help of another player what solutions do they come up with to overcome the obstacle?
So yeah we all know the fairy playable race is technically classed as "small" rather than tiny but to me this kind of kills part of the fun of playing a fairy character, I know Zee Bashew did a video on the pitfalls of playing a large character in a campaign in regards to accommodating and balancing a large character but are there any similar pitfalls for having a tiny character in your campaign?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rW9nDkNqhY
To me it would seem as if most of the downsides to playing a tiny character would be on the player themselves rather than from the DM's perspective in accommodating and balancing the campaign for a tiny character. Would not be any issues in dungeon crawling as the tiny character is able to fit wherever the normal sized characters are able to fit unlike the large character who would need to wait outside because the map was not designed with big characters in mind. You would not have any issues with the damage scaling turning your monsters into mincemeat as if anything the tiny character is going to be at a disadvantage when it comes to weapon attack power and whatnot and even if they play as a character with a flying speed it is not like they can break that much.
Just wondering if there is anything I am not taking into account in letting somebody play a tiny character in a campaign?
One concern, as small as it may be (heh) is that tiny does allow them to pass through bars in gates etc.
The other side is that they don't count as difficult terrain for opponents and so can't block paths.
Mostly, it will be shenanigans thst youl have to look out for. "I'm really small so can fit in the Fighter's pocket" *dumps dexterity and any stealth related stats*. I don't really see major issues with being tiny (or large for that matter, I can make doors larger).
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
in reality almost every tiny creature would not live through first contact with a melee strike.
Their carrying capacity would be very small.
4e’s Faerie race was considered Tiny - I expect the choice to go witch Small in 5e was somewhat reactionary against that.
Tiny provided a number of difficulties for the DM . Tiny characters are able to get places other characters cannot, find cover or hide where other players might not, and otherwise make use of their smaller size in ways which break the system. Additionally, prior editions allowed a tiny creature to share a square with other creatures and, though 5e is silent on that front, it is likely a common holdover homerule that can introduce additional problems. None of these were insurmountable problems - and the existence of Reduce in 5e means a DM should be able to solve them anyway - but there were plenty who found it overpowered.
Additionally, as others have mentioned, there is the gear issue. 4e’s Faerie race solved this issue by giving Faeries a feature where they could shrink items for the purpose of carrying them or using them as a weapon, but which would revert to their normal size of the Faerie lost control of them. Basically a way of hand waiving away the question by implementing a “just carry stuff normally” rule. Frankly, I would allow this in 5e - the kind of DM who throws a hissy fit about “but your tiny character can’t carry this!” while ignoring a halfling carrying a battle axe, spear, two long swords, eight hand axes, multiple sets of light armour, ten days of trail rations, etc., seems like the kind of DM who selectively applies logic just to shut down things that annoy them.
good points. as a DM I don't throw hissy fits about carrying capacity I go with the assumption that their gear will be made to their size. But I don't let them wield great swords etc.
One could also make the point that stats like Strength are relative to the size of the creature. 6 six foot human with a strength of 17 in reality is going to be different than a 3 foot halfling with a strength of 17. Carrying capacity is strength X 15. For tiny it is half that. But it could still give the tiny creature a carrying capacity of triple their own weight.
So many variables and arguments that could be made it just isn't worth it.
Most of the pitfalls of a Tiny PC are that it stops making sense for the Tiny PC to do a lot of things that are rather necessary for adventuring.
You can picture a three-foot halfling doing all the things a regular Medium-sized adventurer can. After all, small children are routinely three feet tall and get into all sorts of trouble; a well-trained and highly experienced five year old could wreak untold havoc upon the world. Such a character can attack other entities, they can make Strength checks (if not to necessarily the same degree as the party's goliath), they can lift, carry, and use ordinary gear - it doesn't break verisimilitude for a Small character to do those things.
A Tiny character? A six-inch pixie? That breaks verisimilitude. Tinkerbell is not going to meaningfully be able to damage most enemies with weapons, nor can she meaningfully make checks to move or affect the terrain and environment around her. A simple doorknob is a very high DC Strength check for a pixie, a closed window is an immovable obstacle. The ways such a miniscule creature can interact with the world, without using magic either real or Handwaveimancy, is extremely limited. This is a creature for whom Mage Hand is proportionately as powerful as Bigby's Hand - and Mage Hand is explicitly very weak by normal adventuring standards. To say nothing of what happens when a pixie is struck by an ogre's warclub hundreds if not thousands of times her own mass - HP never makes sense, but it makes even less sense for a Tiny PC.
Could allowances be made? Certainly. Anyone who actually wants to play a Tiny PC should already be eager to explore these issues, and any such character that decides to Adventure has likely worked out at least some way around the worst such issues. It's not undoable, the same way a Large character is not undoable. But it does require either a great deal more Handwavium than more typical PCs or a lot of care into maintaining verisimilitude when your character is smaller than the average rat.
Please do not contact or message me.
In reality, none of the characters are likely to survive long in combat. Bleeding out can happen very quickly. If anything, smaller flying creatures are actually better off because they won't take the full brunt of the swing from a hammer, unlike a heavier humanoid that tries to hold their ground.
The Amorphous trait allows a medium sized Plasmoid to pass through a 1 inch opening. (Leaving their gear behind.) So, this is less of a size specific issue.
Previous editions scaled stats with size, so smaller creatures would have higher Dex/AC while larger creatures would have higher Strength and Reach, and penalties in the opposite. This contributed to runaway optimization that made the game difficult to balance. As long as the player gets no statistical benefits from being Tiny-, then the impact on gameplay is relatively minor. The combination of Tiny and Flight could simply be a step out of bounds for the power calculations of playable species. Some species with more potent abilities were balanced with major and minor detriments, but those have a negative impact on playability, so it ended up being easier to keep the starting mechanics within a manageable box. (Can't get away with giving Tiny Fairies penalties to melee because they would just become the Munchkin choice for casters, and players would simply avoid them for martial builds.)
Being tiny, on its own, is not problematic, and already possible via features like the Druid's Wildshape, so a DM needs to take the same considerations into account either way. A Druid can not turn into a Flying+Tiny creature until 8th level, but an Aarakocra Druid could be either Tiny or Flying as needed by level 2.
Yeah but I would say being able to fit into tight spaces or between bars is a pretty fair trade off for the downsides of playing a tiny character, gives them more utility and unique ways to overcome certain obstacles, unless those bars are supposed to be some impenetrable barrier that would break the campaign if any of your players were to pass through them I don't really see the issue.
Also using dex as a dump stat seems like it would be a worse idea for the player rather than the GM.
To be honest they probably wouldn't, in all honesty in most campaigns we don't track carry capacity and space all that closely but still we use common sense as to what sort of things you would be able to carry and fit in your pack, I don't think the tiny character would be carrying much of the adventuring supplies.
If it is magic items usually I am a little more flexible but when it comes to mundane items it really depends on where they find it. For instance if the players are raiding a Drow armoury it does not make much sense for them to find armour sized for a halfling or a gnome, even when it comes to minataurs which the playable version is technically classed as medium I would probably rule that they would need armour specifically crafted to suit their stature, with a tiny character I would probably rule the same way with most gear needing to be specifically crafted for their size, unless of course they can justify it like wearing a magic ring as a girdle or something.
In regards to carry capacity I guess there is always the square-cube law to explain that away? I mean sure we are ignoring other aspects that make that law inconvenient but that is pretty much normal for most fantasy settings.
When the DM/GM allows it, I love playing oddball characters, and will take the time and effort to balance those characters attributes with negatives for that DM/GM. Sometimes those negatives will go beyond even what the DM/GM requires of me, because those restrictions make sense to me. If I wanted to play a tiny character, and was given the OK to do so, that character may only be able to lift and carry, say 1lb/1/2kg, and might have no effective melee strike capability. That character's usefulness would be focused on what it could do for the party as a spy, an investigator of the next room over, a distraction that the PCs could use against the NPCs, etc.. As a player, don't always expect the DM/Gm to adapt to your style of play and your desires. Take the time and effort to come up with a workable plan that everyone in the group can feel good about.
To be honest I imagine the most likely class choice for such a character would be some sort of caster, or perhaps a rogue that targets vital areas with poison but even that would kind of be pushing it a little, definitely does not make much sense for them to take on the role as the party's barbarian as funny as that would be. Besides Pixies are already known for their magical abilities so being a caster kind of fits.
Truth is I kind of expect that playing a tiny character would come with the caveat that certain things that regular sized PCs can do may be much harder or even impossible for a tiny character to do, but with those limitations comes unique opportunities for RP and unique methods of problem solving as they deal with their limitations and use their size to their advantage.
Monk, in the style of Ant-man.
I think Yurei's post is spot on, but I'll contribute how I'd handle it (from the DM side of the screen).
Allow the "tiny" in story and role-play but mechanically, have them function as small. This is how I've handled really large half-orcs or goliaths - Andre the Giant sized or larger. They are imposing and would force me to consider some sort of mechanical benefit but I treat them as Medium-sized PCs because things get out of control otherwise.
What I might allow is a once per day mechanical advantage as a result of size. The extra large goliath (though medium sized) can bypass a check to break a door (object AC, damage, bludgeoning weapon, etc.) by simply saying, "I'm just gonna Fezzik the door. I'm massive. Can I just Juggernaut my way through it?" I'll say yes, ONCE PER DAY because it's cool and hardly gamebreaking when we find one instance where it pushes against the rules.
I'm sure you can come up with a similar once per day scenario as a result of being tiny, though in normal gameplay, day by day, fight after fight, you're treated as small.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
I dunno to me that kind of ruins part of the fun of playing a character that deviates from the norm, I guess to each their own on how they would decide to run such a thing if they would even allow it in the first place but from the perspective of the player part of the fun of playing a handicapped character is finding ways to overcome the unique challenges that such a character would face and finding areas where your character does excel, from the perspective of the DM part of the fun is seeing how the player adapts to those challenges and plays their character.
I mean yeah a tiny character is going to have trouble on strength saving throws and ability checks, carrying items and melee combat but there are still plenty of ways that they can contribute to the group, for most of the games I have played strength based checks outside of combat usually only require one or 2 characters to participate and are generally handled by the burliest characters, a lot more common are the nature, perception and investigation type checks in which size isn't really a factor, then there are always stealth checks which I imagine tiny creatures would have advantage in and if they play a caster then they have a much larger toolbox to interact with that is not disadvantaged by their size, there are still plenty of ways a tiny creature can contribute to the group outside of strength based challenges and in situations where their size does present a challenge it can be fun to see how they handle it, do they get another player to help or in a situation where they don't have the help of another player what solutions do they come up with to overcome the obstacle?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yjq3ohDAeM