Creatures like halflings and gnomes, and especially pixies are just barely big enough to qualify for small size (in fact, pretty sure in 1st-2nd ed. D&D pixie were Tiny), so what about making one that is that little bit shorter? Would the benefits and hindrances balance out?
Hmmm Ok just looked it up and pixie were still small... maybe I remember wrong... but so now a further question then...
What are the height/weight ranges for each category (and where and what Pathfinder book can I find them if they exist?)
I'd be VERY careful about altering racial attributes, especially the size of certain races.
On the surface, it would seem that the size reduction benefits would cancel the size reduction penalties. However, you'll find that no one will build tiny melee or ranged weapon characters, with the possible exception of a rogue, because the damage dice from the weapon will be too low.
A MUCH smarter build would be a tiny wizard, sorcerer, summoner, or some other spellcaster, since the reduction in damage dice from weapons will have little impact. In the end, you'll be giving the character an additional boost to both their AC and the effectiveness of ranged touch attack spells, and increase the bonus to several of their skills, without really giving them any additional penalty to worry about.
By the way, the minimum height of a female dwarf is 3'9", and most sources say that 4ft is the threshold for small/medium size. However, female dwarves are still considered medium for play ballance.
I'd be VERY careful about altering racial attributes, especially the size of certain races.
On the surface, it would seem that the size reduction benefits would cancel the size reduction penalties. However, you'll find that no one will build tiny melee or ranged weapon characters, with the possible exception of a rogue, because the damage dice from the weapon will be too low.
A MUCH smarter build would be a tiny wizard, sorcerer, summoner, or some other spellcaster, since the reduction in damage dice from weapons will have little impact. In the end, you'lle be giving the character an additional boost to both their AC and the effectiveness of ranged touch attack spells, and increase the bonus to several of their skills, without really giving them any additional penalty to worry about.
Well, right I mean that's kinda why I was asking... it would, if I did it like a halfling that was a dwarf (by real world definition) or midget, I'm not talking about changing the actual entire race.
Tiny size is very viable and its only requires reduce person and permanency in a normal game. I wouldn't recommend making this the norm though for the race if you're looking to make that the homebrew standard. Consider the implications for the PC's of the following:
+8 size bonus to stealth. perhaps a bit too much all at once?
Not threatening the squares adjacent to you.
Occupying the squares of medium sized creatures (a bookkeeping nightmare at worst)
Carrying capacity being unrealistic due to the physical size of objects.
Being carried/hiding in backpacks.
Tiny characters have 0 ft range I believe, so actually attacking something means they have to move into the enemies square, whihc provokes an AoO already (for passing through the threatened area).
So as Jason Rice said, most people wouldn't use them for melee characters, probably not even rogues (though the dex bonus would help their acrobatics) and in the end the bonus for being tiny would fully apply to spellcasters while nearly none of the penalties hit them.
So as an NPC? Sure, knock yourself out and send an army of tiny or smaller pixies at them. As PCs... better not.
Well, right I mean that's kinda why I was asking... it would, if I did it like a halfling that was a dwarf (by real world definition) or midget, I'm not talking about changing the actual entire race.
No, I got that. I didn't think you meant the entire race. If you do decide to allow tiny (or large) PCs, I'd saddle them with some other negative. I'm just brainstorming here, but for a smaller than normal PC, add in a -10 to movement? Even with that, I still think that the end result would be a slightly more powerful character, but it is at least something and it makes a certain ammount of sense.
I'd also add in some situational roleplaying penalties as well, to help ballance the advantages. We are talking about a brutal world here, without our modern sense of right/wrong. NPCs could react in various ways, from pity and disgust (I'm thinking of the naration about malformed and runt newborns, at the beginning of the movie "300") to sientific curiosity, to insulting comedy. It's not morally right, but it did happen, even in the real world.