Size Matters, but not to me.

[revloc09]

I want to discuss the issue of size. The Beginner Box (hereafter: BB) doesn't use size (but then again it doesn't use either of the small races (Halfling or Gnome). In the Core Rulebook, however, the small races get the following traits based on their small size: +1 to Hit, +1 to AC, +4 to stealth, -1 to CMB and -1 to CMD. ALSO (and this is why I'm discussing size), they must use 'small' sized weapons - ALL of which use a die one size smaller to deal damage with than the medium sized version of it (for example a medium longsword uses D8 while a small longsword uses D6).

So for me, the small sized traits are all OK, and well balanced. BUT, the damage reduction for having to use small weapons is more than I can bear, so I have only used these size rules for one of my characters - all others I pretend like they don't exists (kinda like the BB). So
here's an argument to go along with it: If I run you through with a piercing weapon - small vs. medium - is the damage really going to be remarkably different? If we're talking about a small greataxe vs. a medium greataxe, now I can see that chopping with them will be different based on their weight. OK, but I kinda think the weight issue is accounted for by weapon differences (1d8 for battleaxe, 1d12 for greataxe), and instead of having small characters use small weapons, it would be easy enough to put strength requirements on the big ones (i.e. Greataxe requires Str. 16 ... you know like a composite bow). This makes better sense to me because if I've got a halfling barbarian with 18 strength (and I do :) his 18 strength is equal to that of any half-orc with 18 strength. Its not sized down because he's small. So if he's as strong as any other 18 str. character, why not be able to wield a (medium) greataxe (D12) with no penalties?

One final point. The small races already have a -2 modifier to their strength and that's already accounting for the reality that they will deal less damage chopping with an axe than somebody medium sized would. Likewise a halfling gets +2 Dex and therefore +1 AC and that's already accounting for them being harder to hit, so why bring size into the mix and all?

What do you guys think? I would prefer to completely do away size rules (for characters) in my games.

[Gnomezrule]

I love the smaller races and am vexed like you at the disadvanage. However it is perfectly reasonable. Think about this you can jab a sewing needle through you finger or a knitting needle.

[Arcanemuses]

I copied this from a previous thread of mine...

I believe it is unfair, mechanics-wise, to reduce or increase a monk's attack damage dice because of their size. Sneak Attack damage is not converted to d4s or d8s if the rogue small or large. A large-sized or small sized cleric would still channel d6s. A large and small alchemist would still make bombs that deal the same damage as a medium-sized alchemist.

So why is the monk getting cheated out of the same treatment?

Sure, in a realistic sense I can understand that a small fist would do less damage than a medium fist. But the way I would argue that both would be equal is TECHNIQUE. It is not the size of the fist that matters, but how it is used and where on the body it is executed. Monks learn a massive library of striking techniques involving their hands, knees, elbows, and feet. They are the main class that deal lethal damage with their unarmed strikes. It takes practice to kill with ones own limbs. Therefore, even the playing field and give all monks, regardless of size, the same unarmed damage progression.

Size should play a factor, but only when it comes to possible strength modifiers when the damage is dealt.

[Terronus]

Its only 1 point less damage for almost any weapon (on average). At the extreme maybe 2 or 3? Personally, I haven't considered it a huge deal, and have had great fun playing small characters... A gnome 2H fighter being my particular favorite, despite rolling a d10 for damage.

That being said, I don't think there is anything wrong with not using size rules, at least between small and medium (as opposed to fine and colossal) but I personally wouldn't, to me it takes away part of what makes such characters unique.

[Laurefindel]

You could also keep size "as is" but expand the medium range to include gnomes and halflings.

If you want, keep all size modifiers indicated in the racial summary as racial modifiers (halflings are really good to hide, not just small)

'findel

[revloc09]

Terronus wrote:

That being said, I don't think there is anything wrong with not using size rules, at least between small and medium (as opposed to fine and colossal) but I personally wouldn't, to me it takes away part of what makes such characters unique.

Yes, in the end, there's a reason I chose a halfling barbarian... it's unconventional, unlikely, and FUN. I guess sticking with the rules stays true to that element of oddity that I like so much about this character.

[Goth Guru]

You could include a feat, giant strike. This extra efficiency makes weapons(natural or not) hit like a larger weapon.

Also, let halflings use full sized weapons, but fumble becomes 01-02 on the attack dice.

You could ignore the weapon size rules, and have anime like giant swords wielded by little girls. :)