One thing I'd suggest as you delve into character creation is that there needs to be some parameters on size. Size in 5e is very simple and limited. Example: a Halfling who is a small size should not have every option that an Orc at Medium size has. There should be Strength and Constitution limits and encumbrance rules for differing sizes. Can you really have an 18 Strength with a small sized character and compete with a Medium sized battle-ready Orc? Plate on a Halfling would be half the size as on a full-sized Orc so it should weigh half as much even though the AC is the same. Even bedrolls would be smaller. Therefore, weight for some objects would be different. You almost need to create a differing table of weapons and armors for differing sizes. That being said, smaller characters would be harder to hit and have higher dexterity or other benefits because of their smaller sizes. Sizes should also scale since it's all relative to who you're fighting. There are a lot of things that change sizes such as Giants Might in the game. This size issue should have a better set of rules. What if your weapon gets bigger? Shouldn't it do more damage? Shouldn't your strength and Constitution go up but AC maybe down cause you're a larger target Ect. There's a lot to think about here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To know the light, you must sometimes experience the dark.
I think my dm is stuck on old rules. My autognome fighter has the longsword in the list of weapons he can use, and the d&d beyond character sheet says it does 1d8 damage, but lo and behold the dm rules my weapon does 1d6 because of my size. I'm trying but can't find any rules to rebut him.
If you half the weight of a small creature's gear, and half the weight of their carrying capacity, you've ended up with the same result but more work. The rules do take into account larger sizes being easier to hit in monster creation. Bigger weapons already do more damage, and small creatures can't use them without disadvantage on attacks.
Most of what you want is already in there, but much simpler. Size categories are totally made up anyways. They could have just as easily said that Small was anything under 3 feet. Medium was 3 to 10 feet, and large was over ten feet. Then all PCs would be medium. They would then have to give all the currently small creatures special rules to limit their use of heavy weapons and make grappling harder for them like it is now. Instead they went with generic rules for the small size to make it easier.
That leaves only stat limitations. But the only thing you would end up with is limiting effective race and class options. You would further discourage creative combinations, and that's not much fun. I'm okay with believing a halfling can be a strong as an orc if it means we don't have to relegate all halflings to a life of burglary.
I think my dm is stuck on old rules. My autognome fighter has the longsword in the list of weapons he can use, and the d&d beyond character sheet says it does 1d8 damage, but lo and behold the dm rules my weapon does 1d6 because of my size. I'm trying but can't find any rules to rebut him.
The only size related rule for weapons is the heavy property. Small characters have disadvantage hitting with heavy weapons.
Unfortunately, you're not going to find a rule in the 5e PHB saying "weapon sizes don't exist" because weapon sizes don't exist.
Strength in DnD is an extremely gamey stat to be honest. If we're being totally realistic a brown bear should be much, much stronger than the strongest human, and yet the creature only has 19 STR. Lots of people seem to have their immersion broken by the idea of a 3 feet tall Halfling being able to contend with a 6 feet tall human in melee combat, but ignore the same issue regarding a 200 pound human fighting a 20,000 pound reptile with claws and armor-like scales. A red dragon only has 7 points more strength than a human can have despite being 100 times larger than a human being on average. A hill giant is about 16 feet tall and weighs 4,500 pounds, yet it has only a measly 1 STR more than the PC maximum of 20.
Personally I don't see the strength difference between a halfling and a human nearly as significant as the difference between a human and a hill giant if we're being perfectly realistic.
Strength also doesn't just govern lifting and hitting power. It also governs chance to hit, which is more of a display of skill and speed than anything.
This is probably why size categories don't directly effect the Strength stat. Rather it gives bonuses to things the strength stat governs like carry capacity and grapple restrictions. If a hill giant had a realistic strength score it'd casually bypass the PC's AC and then one-shot them with massive bonus damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One thing I'd suggest as you delve into character creation is that there needs to be some parameters on size. Size in 5e is very simple and limited. Example: a Halfling who is a small size should not have every option that an Orc at Medium size has. There should be Strength and Constitution limits and encumbrance rules for differing sizes. Can you really have an 18 Strength with a small sized character and compete with a Medium sized battle-ready Orc? Plate on a Halfling would be half the size as on a full-sized Orc so it should weigh half as much even though the AC is the same. Even bedrolls would be smaller. Therefore, weight for some objects would be different. You almost need to create a differing table of weapons and armors for differing sizes. That being said, smaller characters would be harder to hit and have higher dexterity or other benefits because of their smaller sizes. Sizes should also scale since it's all relative to who you're fighting. There are a lot of things that change sizes such as Giants Might in the game. This size issue should have a better set of rules. What if your weapon gets bigger? Shouldn't it do more damage? Shouldn't your strength and Constitution go up but AC maybe down cause you're a larger target Ect. There's a lot to think about here.
To know the light, you must sometimes experience the dark.
No.
I think my dm is stuck on old rules. My autognome fighter has the longsword in the list of weapons he can use, and the d&d beyond character sheet says it does 1d8 damage, but lo and behold the dm rules my weapon does 1d6 because of my size. I'm trying but can't find any rules to rebut him.
If you half the weight of a small creature's gear, and half the weight of their carrying capacity, you've ended up with the same result but more work. The rules do take into account larger sizes being easier to hit in monster creation. Bigger weapons already do more damage, and small creatures can't use them without disadvantage on attacks.
Most of what you want is already in there, but much simpler. Size categories are totally made up anyways. They could have just as easily said that Small was anything under 3 feet. Medium was 3 to 10 feet, and large was over ten feet. Then all PCs would be medium. They would then have to give all the currently small creatures special rules to limit their use of heavy weapons and make grappling harder for them like it is now. Instead they went with generic rules for the small size to make it easier.
That leaves only stat limitations. But the only thing you would end up with is limiting effective race and class options. You would further discourage creative combinations, and that's not much fun. I'm okay with believing a halfling can be a strong as an orc if it means we don't have to relegate all halflings to a life of burglary.
Thinking back to 3.X, I'm going to pass.
The only size related rule for weapons is the heavy property. Small characters have disadvantage hitting with heavy weapons.
Unfortunately, you're not going to find a rule in the 5e PHB saying "weapon sizes don't exist" because weapon sizes don't exist.
This old post has links to all the size-related rules: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/86783-creature-sizes-and-limitations
Great link to summarize the rules, since they are scattered around, thank you.
A thousand thank yous.
Strength in DnD is an extremely gamey stat to be honest. If we're being totally realistic a brown bear should be much, much stronger than the strongest human, and yet the creature only has 19 STR. Lots of people seem to have their immersion broken by the idea of a 3 feet tall Halfling being able to contend with a 6 feet tall human in melee combat, but ignore the same issue regarding a 200 pound human fighting a 20,000 pound reptile with claws and armor-like scales. A red dragon only has 7 points more strength than a human can have despite being 100 times larger than a human being on average. A hill giant is about 16 feet tall and weighs 4,500 pounds, yet it has only a measly 1 STR more than the PC maximum of 20.
Personally I don't see the strength difference between a halfling and a human nearly as significant as the difference between a human and a hill giant if we're being perfectly realistic.
Strength also doesn't just govern lifting and hitting power. It also governs chance to hit, which is more of a display of skill and speed than anything.
This is probably why size categories don't directly effect the Strength stat. Rather it gives bonuses to things the strength stat governs like carry capacity and grapple restrictions. If a hill giant had a realistic strength score it'd casually bypass the PC's AC and then one-shot them with massive bonus damage.