Storm Giants use Huge longswords. They cannot use heavy weapons sizes greater (Garantual) and may use Large heavy weapons one handed.
One size up, heavy is banned and light is +1 to hit.
One size down, heavy is one handed if applicable and light is banned.
I don't know how the +1 to hit would affect balance though.
@rampantStorm Giants use Huge longswords. They cannot use heavy weapons sizes greater (Garantual) and may use Large heavy weapons one handed.One size up, heavy is banned and light is +1 to hit.One size down, heavy is one handed if applicable and ligh
Maybe mechanically it's easier to not have bigger weapons do more damage but it does make sense to my brain. Maybe the solution is to penalize large weapons in different ways.
I don't really see it as a problem, either, but since we're here talking about it here's a stab at showing what I mean.
Big weapons are heavier. They swing harder. They're longer, so they have a greater mechanical advantage. Therefore, they do more damage and that's expressed by a larger damage die.
However, big weapons are also slower, heavier, and require more space to wield. A guy with a 3' long blade needs that + arm length of clearance on all sides to wield effectively (for most folks, that's 5-6'). The amount of room a given person needs starts to get really out of hand when you're talking your heavy weapons with a typical length of 5-8 feet (though pole arms don't necessarily need all that haft length in swinging space. That's a whole other topic).
Let's look at the space to wield it. Looking at your typical D&D convention of a 10'x10' corridor, the large weapons are in trouble. Hell, a stickler DM would penalize anyone wielding anything longer than 3' and they'd probably not allow anyone at all to wield anything longer than 5' without severe penalties in a standard dungeon corridor.
Next, we have speed. Without bringing speed factor back, large weapons probably deserve a - to hit just for what they are: slow to recover. We're talking degrees of difficulty here, and someone winding back with a colossal greatsword is going to be seen a mile off by anyone in striking distance (admitteldy, it's one hell of a striking distance). Someone wielding a medium-sized greatsword can do it a hell of a lot faster and react with lightning speed in relative terms.
Finally we've got the weight. That's both good and bad. It's good because it hits harder, it's bad because you really need to be fracking strong to pick the damned things up. It'd probably be a good idea to make it so anyone without an appropriate str to get a - to hit that becomes more significant the more of a margin there is.
So sticking with the large greatsword doing 3d6 damage instead of 2d6.. By my logic I just explained, that should probably come at a cost of -1 to hit, severe penalties in tight spaces if it's not ruled useless, and it'd require a minimum str to wield. The bigger it goes, the bigger the penalties associated with it and the higher the str you need.
Honestly, that looks pretty balanced to me.
Maybe mechanically it's easier to not have bigger weapons do more damage but it does make sense to my brain. Maybe the solution is to penalize large weapons in different ways.I don't really see it as a problem, either, but since we're here talking ab
If one takes the time to balance the large weapons it can be done, however by the time you do you're better off just going with a greatsword is a greatsword.
If one takes the time to balance the large weapons it can be done, however by the time you do you're better off just going with a greatsword is a greatsword.
If one takes the time to balance the large weapons it can be done, however by the time you do you're better off just going with a greatsword is a greatsword.
yeah but that misses the whole point of bringing variety into the game. We want more stuff to do, not less. We want a huge arsenal to pick from rather than everything being the same. Trimming the game in the name of expedience in this particular case kills depth that we really should be keeping 'cause it's interesting to have big weapons being different from small ones.
Taken to its logical extreme, you might as well call a dagger a greatsword and make 'em both do the same dice in damage but give a flat bonus for wielding the greatsword 2 handed. I know you're not suggesting that, but the spirit of what you're saying supports it.
yeah but that misses the whole point of bringing variety into the game. We want more stuff to do, not less. We want a huge arsenal to pick from rather than everything being the same. Trimming the game in the name of expedience in this particular case
I admit it's an argument for abstraction, I just haven't really seen a system I liked better.
The problem is that a scaled weapon system requires the devs to remain careful thoughout the edition, and historically they tend to have bad years and good years.
I admit it's an argument for abstraction, I just haven't really seen a system I liked better.The problem is that a scaled weapon system requires the devs to remain careful thoughout the edition, and historically they tend to have bad years and good y
This convo is already all over the place, so maybe I can suggest... Would it be acceptable to balance weapons by bringing weapon speed back into account? Let's say that the weapon speed can effect the initiative order.
Barehanded
-2
Dagger
-1
Short Sword
0
Broad Sword
+1
Battle Axe, Bow
+2
Great Sword
+3
Halberd
+4
Maul, Heavy Crossbow
+5
I know! This means more work. DM: "Don't I already have enough to do?"
But the positives: - Gives people a viable choice about keeping the weapon they like best rather than the one that does the most damage.
- Gives dual wielding more of a purpose. With a short sword and a dagger in a fight you could try to act before your opponent with the weaker dagger or wait to do more damage after.
- Gives a reason to carry a variety of weapons other than, "It looks really cool."
Did I just snap the thread?
EDIT - I just realized it would screw up effect duration... DOH! How to solve?
This convo is already all over the place, so maybe I can suggest...Would it be acceptable to balance weapons by bringing weapon speed back into account? Let's say that the weapon speed can effect the initiative order. Barehanded -2 Dagger
I kinda miss speed factor. Not the system but what it represented and the concept of weapon speed is totally worth having.
Plus, modifying initiative isn't relaly that onerous.
I kinda miss speed factor. Not the system but what it represented and the concept of weapon speed is totally worth having.Plus, modifying initiative isn't relaly that onerous.
Plus, modifying initiative isn't relaly that onerous.
Except in that it requires you to declare your actions before your turn. If I roll initiative based on my dagger, I cannot then drop the dagger and fire my heavy crossbow (that I was holding in the other hand) - even if my target went before me and moved out of dagger range.
Except in that it requires you to declare your actions before your turn. If I roll initiative based on my dagger, I cannot then drop the dagger and fire my heavy crossbow (that I was holding in the other hand) - even if my target went before me and
Plus, modifying initiative isn't relaly that onerous.
Except in that it requires you to declare your actions before your turn. If I roll initiative based on my dagger, I cannot then drop the dagger and fire my heavy crossbow (that I was holding in the other hand) - even if my target went before me and moved out of dagger range.
I think at that point we need to suck it up and chuck realism out the window for playability, but we actually do this all ready. For example: if you determine initiative and then something happens to the player that has them lose dex, do you modify when they take their turn in the round or do you let it ride? I let it ride. I might adjust their initiative order the next round, but probably I won't unless I decide to reroll initiative.
If a player was specifically trying to game the system by, say, holding a dagger of warning that they then drop and quick draw their main weapon, I just game the system right back and have rabid badgers pull the player to the ground.
Except in that it requires you to declare your actions before your turn. If I roll initiative based on my dagger, I cannot then drop the dagger and fire my heavy crossbow (that I was holding in the other hand) - even if my target went before me and
I also think that it's usually pretty obvious if someone's taking advantage (dual wielding a dagger and heavy crossbow so they can roll initiative with one and attack with the other) vs a legitimate change of plan (finding oneself without targets, so firing with the crossbow instead) and I'd be willing to bet there could easily be a proviso worked into the text about that.
Something akin to "if your declared action is no longer an option due to the flow of combat, you are free make a different action at no penalty. If you change your mind, the DM can impose -1 to -3 penalty to any associated rolls the new action might require, depending on how different the new action is from your declared one."
That quite neatly ties up any silliness.
I also think that it's usually pretty obvious if someone's taking advantage (dual wielding a dagger and heavy crossbow so they can roll initiative with one and attack with the other) vs a legitimate change of plan (finding oneself without targets, so
Except in that it requires you to declare your actions before your turn.
A simple solution would be to add the "speed" to the next round. Go on 12, swing bigass sword, go on 15 next round. Plus it opens the possibitity of "hold" or "do nothing" simply appying a -5 init (or something) to the next round.
It still leaves the problem of everyone's init values floating all over over the place, but some tables might not even consider that a "problem".
A simple solution would be to add the "speed" to the next round. Go on 12, swing bigass sword, go on 15 next round.Plus it opens the possibitity of "hold" or "do nothing" simply appying a -5 init (or something) to the next round.It still leaves the
A simple solution would be to add the "speed" to the next round.
That actually makes a lot of sense. I could get behind it, if it was used in that way.
I just don't want to be penalized for not deciding whether to swing a sword or cast a spell until it's actually my turn. This is a turn-based game, after all.
That actually makes a lot of sense. I could get behind it, if it was used in that way.I just don't want to be penalized for not deciding whether to swing a sword or cast a spell until it's actually my turn. This is a turn-based game, after all.
Plus, modifying initiative isn't relaly that onerous.
Except in that it requires you to declare your actions before your turn. If I roll initiative based on my dagger, I cannot then drop the dagger and fire my heavy crossbow (that I was holding in the other hand) - even if my target went before me and moved out of dagger range.
When initiative is declared you get the modifier for the weapon drawn. With two weapons in hand you declare which you intend to use. If you don't have a weapon drawn there should be an initiative penalty to draw the one you want.
Actions that don't rely on weapons, like using a magic item, would count as Bare-handed if they are already in hand. If they are not in hand then there is a penalty for drawing them out, the same as drawing a weapon.
Draw weapon/item: +2 to turn order (If the new weapon is of a higher weight class add the difference between the previous and the current weapon.) So it's always at least +2 to draw out something new.
If they move to a slower weapon they can declare on their turn and then their action gets put on hold for the required number of turns to make up the difference.
Once you switch weapons your turn order changes so you can't go from bare hands to heavy crossbow to get an advantage. It's providing options with consequences that the player must weigh.
Man this is quickly becoming overly complicated. Is there a better way to do this? Maybe if there were fewer weight classes?
Except in that it requires you to declare your actions before your turn. If I roll initiative based on my dagger, I cannot then drop the dagger and fire my heavy crossbow (that I was holding in the other hand) - even if my target went before me and
That's why it was abandoned along with the weapon-vs-armor tables.
Just apply speed to the next round. There's a hell of a lot less "what-if" and system-gaming involved.
That's why it was abandoned along with the weapon-vs-armor tables.Just apply speed to the next round. There's a hell of a lot less "what-if" and system-gaming involved.
That's why it was abandoned along with the weapon-vs-armor tables.
Just apply speed to the next round. There's a hell of a lot less "what-if" and system-gaming involved.
Good plan. You can say that they have to recover from the momentum of the attack with a heavier weapon. So it counts towards the next round.
That's why it was abandoned along with the weapon-vs-armor tables.Just apply speed to the next round. There's a hell of a lot less "what-if" and system-gaming involved.[/quote]Good plan.You can say that they have to recover from the momentum of the
Smaller characters use smaller weapons, so they do (average) 1 less damage, right?
How about for every size class your target is smaller than you, you do 1 less damage (minimum 1 on the dice), with the logic that it's hard to apply all of your force against a smaller target.
So the halflings will deal a little less damage, but attacks against them will also deal a a little less damage. Net result they are just as useful in a fight, but with a focus that feels very different. All for a very small change.
Thoughts?
Smaller characters use smaller weapons, so they do (average) 1 less damage, right?How about for every size class your target is smaller than you, you do 1 less damage (minimum 1 on the dice), with the logic that it's hard to apply all of your force a
Except in that it requires you to declare your actions before your turn.
A simple solution would be to add the "speed" to the next round. Go on 12, swing bigass sword, go on 15 next round. Plus it opens the possibitity of "hold" or "do nothing" simply appying a -5 init (or something) to the next round.
It still leaves the problem of everyone's init values floating all over over the place, but some tables might not even consider that a "problem".
That's a good solution, yeah. The initiative creep really depends on a long combat, but I personally reroll initiative periodically in a long combat anyway so that'd not be a big deal to me.
edit: actually, the more I think about this, the more I like it. I'm going to crank out some numbers and put 'em on the table this weekend and let you know how it goes
A simple solution would be to add the "speed" to the next round. Go on 12, swing bigass sword, go on 15 next round.Plus it opens the possibitity of "hold" or "do nothing" simply appying a -5 init (or something) to the next round.It still leaves the
The initiative creep really depends on a long combat
Initiative creep isn't really a big deal. It's just a turn-order list, and a -23 init has no real meaning beyond acting before a 302 init.
The only issue is the added bookkeeping of floating init.
Initiative creep isn't really a big deal. It's just a turn-order list, and a -23 init has no real meaning beyond acting before a 302 init.The only issue is the added bookkeeping of floating init.
You've convinced me. Lets make sure that halflings can't wield battleaxes.
Really, the idea of a halfling as an equal damage warrior is stupid. I know some of you people like the idea of halfling warriors, fantastic. Run with it. You get -1 damage a round and some great reroll abilities, likely you will get feats later that grant ac when around larger people.
Halfling weapon-users should not be equal damage per hit. However they should get some bonus that makes them equal damage per attack.
It's called sneak attack or some other similar ability.
Great. When does a Halfling Fighter get Sneak Attack?
They don't need to do equal damage as fighters to medium creatures.
If they are Fighters, they need to be Fighters. Exactly how they manage to be Fighters can be different, but they need to be Fighters on par with Fighters of other races.
Making everyone equal in someway at everything destroys choices.
If Fred Human can be a good fighter or a rogue, while Joe Halfling can only be a good rogue, that's lots of choice; but if Joe Halfling also can be a good fighter, that's LESS choice?
It makes all choices meaningless since no matter what choice you make.......your equal to everyone else.
You're confusing "equal" and "identical". It's been proven that even if you hand two players copies of the same character sheet, you don't get "identical". So two different ways of accomplishing the same thing also would not be identical.
We WANT everyone pretty much equal to everyone else... while leaving lots of room for variation in how they get to that common level of ability, usefulness, and fun.
Player 1: I'm making a half-ogre fighter and can do 2d10+6 damage per round with my 12 foot greatsword.
Player 2: I'm making a halfling chef and can do 4d6+2 damage per round when I hit you with my rolling pin. Neener neener!
I'm making a halfling chef who begins his day by going out and hunting dinner. Today the clan-chief has decided he wants half-ogre for dinner, and here you are. By the way we barbarians don't have rolling pins.
edit: darnit I can't get this last quote block right
Halfling weapon-users should not be equal damage per hit. However they should get some bonus that makes them equal damage per attack.[/quote]It's called sneak attack or some other similar ability.[/quote]Great. When does a Halfling Fighter get Sneak
Great. When does a Halfling Fighter get Sneak Attack?
If you want to play a halfling fighter, suck it up and take the measly, peasly -1 damage per round. Crying a river over -1 hit point of damage is really...
If Fred Human can be a good fighter or a rogue, while Joe Halfling can only be a good rogue, that's lots of choice; but if Joe Halfling also can be a good fighter, that's LESS choice?
It's also a false statement. -1 damage for a halfling =/= being a bad fighter. As RAW currently stands, both races can be good at both. It's just that halflings are slightly better rogues and humans are slightly better fighters.
You're confusing "equal" and "identical" again.
I'm not. The halfling racials already make them equal but different. I get that. You apparently don't.
If you want to play a halfling fighter, suck it up and take the measly, peasly -1 damage per round. Crying a river over -1 hit point of damage is really...It's also a false statement. -1 damage for a halfling =/= being a bad fighter. As RAW curren
Actually right now it's set up so halflings can suck slightly less as rogues than they do as fighters, Human is still pretty much the optimum choice for any class.
-1 damage per hit over the course of a fighter's career is kind of a big deal.
Furthermore what advantage does the halfling get? and don't say his racial abilities because they suck. Ooooh I can reroll twice a day compared to the human who gets a flat plus 1 or 2 on all attacks and damage. Right now small is pretty much an objectively worse size than medium.
See compared to a human the halfling is out 2 or 3 damage a hit, and is less acurrate.
Actually right now it's set up so halflings can suck slightly less as rogues than they do as fighters, Human is still pretty much the optimum choice for any class.-1 damage per hit over the course of a fighter's career is kind of a big deal. Furtherm
Actually right now it's set up so halflings can suck slightly less as rogues than they do as fighters, Human is still pretty much the optimum choice for any class.
So instead of being slightly worse than humans, they are every so slightly worse?
-1 damage per hit over the course of a fighter's career is kind of a big deal.
Not really. Or to put it another way. Making a ton more saves and hits over the course of the fighter's career is also a big deal.
Furthermore what advantage does the halfling get? and don't say his racial abilities because they suck.
Oh, that's right. Your opinion on what sucks and what doesn't is applicable to the entire rest of the world. I keep forgetting that
So instead of being slightly worse than humans, they are every so slightly worse?Not really. Or to put it another way. Making a ton more saves and hits over the course of the fighter's career is also a big deal. Oh, that's right. Your opinion on w
My opinion ain't worth the bits it's typed on and neither is yours.
The trick here is the math. Right now the Halfling gets to retry two saves a day, the human on the other hand gets +1 to a save sompared to the halfling all the time, and automatically with he ability to put another +1 to a save in there if he's smart, furthermore the human can place their save advantages into common saves like wisdom, or constitution. This is only gonna get worse as rolled and point buy stats get included, where as the halfling isn't gonna change much unless it's entry gets revised (which is despearately needed).
Furthermore like I said compared to a human fighter we're closer to -2 or -3 per hit, and being less accurate, so they'll get less hits.
My opinion ain't worth the bits it's typed on and neither is yours.The trick here is the math. Right now the Halfling gets to retry two saves a day, the human on the other hand gets +1 to a save sompared to the halfling all the time, and automaticall
My opinion ain't worth the bits it's typed on and neither is yours.
You're wrong on both counts. Not a very good batting average.
The trick here is the math. Right now the Halfling gets to retry two saves a day, the human on the other hand gets +1 to a save sompared to the halfling all the time, and automatically with he ability to put another +1 to a save in there if he's smart, furthermore the human can place their save advantages into common saves like wisdom, or constitution. This is only gonna get worse as rolled and point buy stats get included, where as the halfling isn't gonna change much unless it's entry gets revised (which is despearately needed).
Wrong. Right now the halfling gets two saves, re-rolles to hit, or for other checks. It's not just for saves, and that makes it an amazing ability.
You're wrong on both counts. Not a very good batting average.Wrong. Right now the halfling gets two saves, re-rolles to hit, or for other checks. It's not just for saves, and that makes it an amazing ability.
Smaller characters use smaller weapons, so they do (average) 1 less damage, right?
How about for every size class your target is smaller than you, you do 1 less damage (minimum 1 on the dice), with the logic that it's hard to apply all of your force against a smaller target.
So the halflings will deal a little less damage, but attacks against them will also deal a a little less damage. Net result they are just as useful in a fight, but with a focus that feels very different. All for a very small change.
Thoughts?
Doesn't work because it does absolutely nothing to prevent the pigeon-holing problem. The penalty to damage only applies to a very specific subset of characters while all character would benefit from the reduced damage against them. Just play a character that doesn't use weapons (like any caster), and you can reap all of the benefits with none of the drawbacks.
The only proposal I've heard that might work okay (even though I still think it's needlessly complicated) is to have small characters have their weapon damage die reduced but also get a bonus when making attacks with a weapon. Then at least the supposedly balancing benefits and penalties of small size actually only exclusively happen simultaneously. In other words, there's no way of taking advantage of the bonus while ignoring the penalty, and there are no characters that are penalized without also being granted the bonus.
Doesn't work because it does absolutely nothing to prevent the pigeon-holing problem. The penalty to damage only applies to a very specific subset of characters while all character would benefit from the reduced damage against them. Just play a chara
The halfling rerolls don't compensate for the brute numerical superiority of the current human. They have to choose when to reroll, the advantages of playing human are constant.
The halfling rerolls don't compensate for the brute numerical superiority of the current human. They have to choose when to reroll, the advantages of playing human are constant.
What about Small is +1 Dex. Lightfoot Halfing gets +2 Dexter. Stout halfling gets +1 Dex and Cha. Rock gnome +1 Dex and Con, svirfneblin +1 Dex and Wis.
Simple with a penalty and bonus.
What about Small is +1 Dex. Lightfoot Halfing gets +2 Dexter. Stout halfling gets +1 Dex and Cha. Rock gnome +1 Dex and Con, svirfneblin +1 Dex and Wis.Simple with a penalty and bonus.
The halfling rerolls don't compensate for the brute numerical superiority of the current human. They have to choose when to reroll, the advantages of playing human are constant.
A failed save at the wrong time can mean death. I think the halfling re-roll to stay alive compared to the now dead human is huge. Dead human fighters don't deal damage.
A failed save at the wrong time can mean death. I think the halfling re-roll to stay alive compared to the now dead human is huge. Dead human fighters don't deal damage.
Human fighter wouldn't have been anywhere near dead since he hits more often and does more damage and has better saves. By the time the halfling's rerolls make a difference the human's already mopped up the first level of the dungeon.
Human fighter wouldn't have been anywhere near dead since he hits more often and does more damage and has better saves. By the time the halfling's rerolls make a difference the human's already mopped up the first level of the dungeon.
Great. When does a Halfling Fighter get Sneak Attack?
If you want to play a halfling fighter, suck it up and take the measly, peasly -1 damage per round. Crying a river over -1 hit point of damage is really...
If Fred Human can be a good fighter or a rogue, while Joe Halfling can only be a good rogue, that's lots of choice; but if Joe Halfling also can be a good fighter, that's LESS choice?
It's also a false statement. -1 damage for a halfling =/= being a bad fighter. As RAW currently stands, both races can be good at both. It's just that halflings are slightly better rogues and humans are slightly better fighters.
You're confusing "equal" and "identical" again.
I'm not. The halfling racials already make them equal but different. I get that. You apparently don't.
So you admit that being small is a handicap, but you're ok with that?
It looks like WotC did think about this before putting in the size rules. I like that they are staying away from the complicated rules of previous additions. They also put in the bastard sword as a two handed weapon that is not in the heavy category to give small characters a 1d10 two handed weapon option. I'm glad that the 'versitile' weapon limitation from 4E is gone, because that made almost every weapon fighting small character worse off than a medium category.
It's also not just -1 damage. A human will be doing +2 over a halfling because of better ability bonuses, while dwarves will be using a 2D6 weapon over the halflings 1d10. Even an elf can match the halfling damage while still holding a shield in the off hand.
The weapon damage disadvantage is not the only disadvantage either. Not being able to push or knock down large creatures is going to hurt the small fighter as well.
We don't have the full rules yet, so there may be other built in advantages for being small that we don't know about yet.
It's also false to say that the advantages for being small are build into the racial bonuses. I noted in my first post how the 'advantages' of the halfling are not very good, and in no way make up the built in disadvantages for the 'small' trait.
The advantages/disadvantages for being small should be built into the 'small' trait so that it could be applied to any race. That would mean that it could apply to little humans, young dwarves, or a creature who drinks a shrinking potion.
If you want to play a halfling fighter, suck it up and take the measly, peasly -1 damage per round. Crying a river over -1 hit point of damage is really...It's also a false statement. -1 damage for a halfling =/= being a bad fighter. As RAW curren
So you admit that being small is a handicap, but you're ok with that?
Where did I ever say that? I've been saying that it's okay for small races to be handicapped in some areas and better in others. Please don't Strawman my arguments.
It's also not just -1 damage. A human will be doing +2 over a halfling because of better ability bonuses, while dwarves will be using a 2D6 weapon over the halflings 1d10. Even an elf can match the halfling damage while still holding a shield in the off hand.
Humans get +3 or +4 to strength? Or is it +1 to +2 which will result in no more than +1 damage?
The weapon damage disadvantage is not the only disadvantage either. Not being able to push or knock down large creatures is going to hurt the small fighter as well.
This is 100% false. There are many good fighter abilities that don't involve pushing or knockdowns.
It's also false to say that the advantages for being small are build into the racial bonuses. I noted in my first post how the 'advantages' of the halfling are not very good, and in no way make up the built in disadvantages for the 'small' trait.
Your opinion was noted. Factually, though, you cannot be correct. It's a purely subjective comparison. As I noted above, I'd rather be an alive halfling fighter dealing damage in combat due to my second save, than a dead human fighter who doesn't get a second chance. That's huge.
The advantages/disadvantages for being small should be built into the 'small' trait so that it could be applied to any race. That would mean that it could apply to little humans, young dwarves, or a creature who drinks a shrinking potion.
I don't have an issue with it being done this way, but it isn't required. Racial advantages can absolutely do the job.
Where did I ever say that? I've been saying that it's okay for small races to be handicapped in some areas and better in others. Please don't Strawman my arguments.Humans get +3 or +4 to strength? Or is it +1 to +2 which will result in no more tha
I said the human is a lot harder to kill than a halfling.
You said very clearly that the human WOULDN'T BE ANYWHERE NEAR DEATH due to the small bonus they have. The only way that statement can be universally true (which "wouldn't" implies) is if they can't be killed in combat or by spells. If that wasn't what you meant, then you need to retract your statement.
If you had said that due to the small bonuses that humans have, the human might not be near death, that would have been accurate. It also wouldn't have countered my statement in any way. You needed to put up an wildly innacurate statement to have any shot at countering me.......and so you did.
You said very clearly that the human WOULDN'T BE ANYWHERE NEAR DEATH due to the small bonus they have. The only way that statement can be universally true (which "wouldn't" implies) is if they can't be killed in combat or by spells. If that wasn't
Question: What would the stereotypical halfling army or militia look like, especially if they used their racial advantages?
Deadly. Deadlier than a human army. The average human soldier probably only has 4-6 hit points. With missle weapons and short sword AND the ability to roll twice to hit in the first two rounds of combat (assuming two misses), the halfling army would decimate the human one.
Deadly. Deadlier than a human army. The average human soldier probably only has 4-6 hit points. With missle weapons and short sword AND the ability to roll twice to hit in the first two rounds of combat (assuming two misses), the halfling army wou
I like to imagine an army of Pikmin. er.. Pike men. Jumping and leaping and swirling their pikes to keep the big invaders at bay. A spear fighting specialty.
I like to imagine an army of Pikmin. er.. Pike men. Jumping and leaping and swirling their pikes to keep the big invaders at bay. A spear fighting specialty.
Humans get +3 or +4 to strength? Or is it +1 to +2 which will result in no more than +1 damage?
+1 average damage from using a large weapon and another +1 damage from having a +2 to the main stat versus a +0 for the only small race we have so far.
This is 100% false. There are many good fighter abilities that don't involve pushing or knockdowns.
You mentioned that a handicap in one area is ok if there is an advantage in another area. Where is the fighter abilities that work better when you are a small race? If there are none, then it looks like disadvantages with no advantages to me.
That means that a halfling would make a bad Protector Warrior because of the size penalties to push and knock down and a bad Slayer or Sharpshooter Warrior because of the weapon damage restrictions. The level 1 maneuver for the Duelist is already part of the Halfling racial abilities, so that is a wasted maneuver for them. So, there are no warrior builds that favor a halfling over another race. In fact, they are inferior in any Warrior Fighting Styles that we have so far.
The disadvantages of being small are very focused on heavy weapon weilders or any class that may have pushes/pulls/knockbacks/knockdowns as a class ability. We can't say that racial abilities make up for that, or we would be saying that any class that does not use any of those proficiencies/abilities would be better if they were playing a small race. We can't say that, and I'd argue that we can say the opposite if we go by the small race we have in the current package.
It's always seems ok to have built in disadvantages for a race that you never plan on playing. I'd love to hear the cries if WotC decided that dwarves will be a small race in DnDN or that the medium size trait gives -1 AC and Dex saves.
+1 average damage from using a large weapon and another +1 damage from having a +2 to the main stat versus a +0 for the only small race we have so far. [/quote]You mentioned that a handicap in one area is ok if there is an advantage in another area.
Question: What would the stereotypical halfling army or militia look like, especially if they used their racial advantages?
Deadly. Deadlier than a human army. The average human soldier probably only has 4-6 hit points. With missle weapons and short sword AND the ability to roll twice to hit in the first two rounds of combat (assuming two misses), the halfling army would decimate the human one.
Sounds like it's time for a few rounds of simulation. Put up or shut up you two!
Deadly. Deadlier than a human army. The average human soldier probably only has 4-6 hit points. With missle weapons and short sword AND the ability to roll twice to hit in the first two rounds of combat (assuming two misses), the halfling army wou
Humans get +3 or +4 to strength? Or is it +1 to +2 which will result in no more than +1 damage?
+1 average damage from using a large weapon and another +1 damage from having a +2 to the main stat versus a +0 for the only small race we have so far.
Am I mistaken or are starting stats still limited to 18? So they could have the exact same strength bonus.
+1 average damage from using a large weapon and another +1 damage from having a +2 to the main stat versus a +0 for the only small race we have so far. [/quote]Am I mistaken or are starting stats still limited to 18? So they could have the exact same
Humans get +3 or +4 to strength? Or is it +1 to +2 which will result in no more than +1 damage?
+1 average damage from using a large weapon and another +1 damage from having a +2 to the main stat versus a +0 for the only small race we have so far.
Am I mistaken or are starting stats still limited to 18? So they could have the exact same strength bonus.
The limit is 20, and you get a +1 to stats every 4 levels or so. That means that they could even out eventually. Using point buys would mean that a halfling would sacrifice more stats if they wanted to max out STR before they are max level.
+1 average damage from using a large weapon and another +1 damage from having a +2 to the main stat versus a +0 for the only small race we have so far. [/quote]Am I mistaken or are starting stats still limited to 18? So they could have the exact same
I'm tapped out on suggestions here. I actually liked the 3e way of handling size by giving smaller than M scaling bonuses to AC and hit and larger than M scaling penalties to AC but greater reach and better weapon damage (with all the penalties in tight spaces I outlined earlier).
It's not perfect but it gives you a reason to go large and go small. And yes it was exploitable but I somehow doubt 5e will be any less exploitable on that front if they want to allow for a variety in the mechanic that doesn't just penalize people for doing something different.
I'm tapped out on suggestions here. I actually liked the 3e way of handling size by giving smaller than M scaling bonuses to AC and hit and larger than M scaling penalties to AC but greater reach and better weapon damage (with all the penalties in ti
So you see a halfling fighting force as being so lucky that the first volley of slingshots would repel most invaders.
So their small size is balanced by their bonus damage to certain weapons and high accuracy at the start of combat.
So Halfling fighter are best played as ranged berserkers?
@MaxpersonSo you see a halfling fighting force as being so lucky that the first volley of slingshots would repel most invaders.So their small size is balanced by their bonus damage to certain weapons and high accuracy at the start of combat.So Halfli
+1 average damage from using a large weapon and another +1 damage from having a +2 to the main stat versus a +0 for the only small race we have so far.
Since not all human fighters will use large weapons, you cannot assume large weapons for the human race. That bonus is invalid, leaving us with +1 over a halfling.
You mentioned that a handicap in one area is ok if there is an advantage in another area. Where is the fighter abilities that work better when you are a small race? If there are none, then it looks like disadvantages with no advantages to me.
It's in another class where the halfling is better than the human.
That means that a halfling would make a bad Protector Warrior because of the size penalties to push and knock down and a bad Slayer or Sharpshooter Warrior because of the weapon damage restrictions.
So what. They are better at stealth making them better at stealth classes. You are making the incorrect assumption that racial advantages and disadvantages have to be equal in every class. They don't. It's balanced if a race is weaker at one class and stronger in another.
Since not all human fighters will use large weapons, you cannot assume large weapons for the human race. That bonus is invalid, leaving us with +1 over a halfling. It's in another class where the halfling is better than the human. So what. They
@Maxperson So you see a halfling fighting force as being so lucky that the first volley of slingshots would repel most invaders. So their small size is balanced by their bonus damage to certain weapons and high accuracy at the start of combat. So Halfling fighter are best played as ranged berserkers?
Not just at ranged. Even with small weapons, they will be doing enough with each hit to put down a typical human soldier. Their ability to get lucky means that in the first 4 rounds of combat, they will far surpass the human army. They get two re-rolls and since many will hit in the first round or two without a re-roll, those halflings will have those re-rolls for the third and fourth rounds. The halfling army will just have a tremendous advantage over a human one.
Not just at ranged. Even with small weapons, they will be doing enough with each hit to put down a typical human soldier. Their ability to get lucky means that in the first 4 rounds of combat, they will far surpass the human army. They get two re-
+1 average damage from using a large weapon and another +1 damage from having a +2 to the main stat versus a +0 for the only small race we have so far.
Since not all human fighters will use large weapons, you cannot assume large weapons for the human race. That bonus is invalid, leaving us with +1 over a halfling.
You mentioned that a handicap in one area is ok if there is an advantage in another area. Where is the fighter abilities that work better when you are a small race? If there are none, then it looks like disadvantages with no advantages to me.
It's in another class where the halfling is better than the human.
That means that a halfling would make a bad Protector Warrior because of the size penalties to push and knock down and a bad Slayer or Sharpshooter Warrior because of the weapon damage restrictions.
So what. They are better at stealth making them better at stealth classes. You are making the incorrect assumption that racial advantages and disadvantages have to be equal in every class. They don't. It's balanced if a race is weaker at one class and stronger in another.
The idea of this thread is that the small trait is a disadvantage on top of any racial features. Some of us feel that small can be done in a way where it's not 'just' a handicap that needs to be worked around for a player. Removing valid options for a player is not going to make players happy. That's why we no longer have maximum ability scores, ability score penalties, or class/race/level restrictions.
WotC also seem to want to simplify things, so that's why we don't have large charts comparing the size difference between you and your target to figure out AC/hit bonuses.
We should be able to apply small to any race and you could still work around it when picking a class or build. We also should be able to add large races without needing to force Minotaur and half-giants into being medium sized characters to keep them from being overpowered. I don't think the answer is to say 'then don't play that type of character'.
We want to be able to work with our characters strengths to make a playable character. I think WotC wants that as well. That's why we get things like thug builds for rogues, and +wis options for dwarves. Players want ways to make their character concepts work.
The easiest way to do that for the 'small' trait is to put the advantages in with the disadvantages in the core rules. That way we don't have to compensate for the handicap with additional content like new specialties.
When we get rangers, paladins, and barbarians we are going to have the same issues that we have now with small warriors.
Since not all human fighters will use large weapons, you cannot assume large weapons for the human race. That bonus is invalid, leaving us with +1 over a halfling. It's in another class where the halfling is better than the human. So what. They
"The easiest way to do that for the 'small' trait is to put the advantages in with the disadvantages in the core rules. That way we don't have to compensate for the handicap with additional content like new specialties."
So, it's all right for Small characters to use smaller weapons and do less damage, you just think the rules for it should be in a different section of the book?
That seems an oddly fine distinction for a discussion that's gone on this long, but ok.
"The easiest way to do that for the 'small' trait is to put the advantages in with the disadvantages in the core rules. That way we don't have to compensate for the handicap with additional content like new specialties."So, it's all right for Small c
The idea of this thread is that the small trait is a disadvantage on top of any racial features. Some of us feel that small can be done in a way where it's not 'just' a handicap that needs to be worked around for a player. Removing valid options for a player is not going to make players happy. That's why we no longer have maximum ability scores, ability score penalties, or class/race/level restrictions.
Just because you want to make small a non-racial trait, doesn't mean that it will just be so because that's what you want. Small is part of the RACE. It is a RACIAL trait. That means that any bonuses or penalties it gives are matched against the other racial features.
We should be able to apply small to any race and you could still work around it when picking a class or build. We also should be able to add large races without needing to force Minotaur and half-giants into being medium sized characters to keep them from being overpowered. I don't think the answer is to say 'then don't play that type of character'.
I disagree. Choices should have meaning.
We want to be able to work with our characters strengths to make a playable character. I think WotC wants that as well. That's why we get things like thug builds for rogues, and +wis options for dwarves. Players want ways to make their character concepts work.
Halflings are currently VERY playable, even good at every class. A slightly better race for a class doesn't render the halfling unplayable or bad.
Just because you want to make small a non-racial trait, doesn't mean that it will just be so because that's what you want. Small is part of the RACE. It is a RACIAL trait. That means that any bonuses or penalties it gives are matched against the o
My only fear is that other races won't get powerful racials that are balanced by being small. Like goblins, what would they get? Is Dirty fighting worth being small?
Halflings are fine as is in every current class. Lucky is pretty good.My only fear is that other races won't get powerful racials that are balanced by being small. Like goblins, what would they get? Is Dirty fighting worth being small?
The idea of this thread is that the small trait is a disadvantage on top of any racial features. Some of us feel that small can be done in a way where it's not 'just' a handicap that needs to be worked around for a player. Removing valid options for a player is not going to make players happy. That's why we no longer have maximum ability scores, ability score penalties, or class/race/level restrictions.
Just because you want to make small a non-racial trait, doesn't mean that it will just be so because that's what you want. Small is part of the RACE. It is a RACIAL trait. That means that any bonuses or penalties it gives are matched against the other racial features.
It's not a halfing racial feature. It may just apply to halflings for current player characters, but it also applies to NPC creatures and any future playable small race. In the full rules the restrictions/benefits for size will be listed outside of the halfing racial entry.
WotC has gone away from penalties for races in their rules, but 'small' has stuck around. For the most part, the absence of a bonus has become the new penalty for racial choices.
While it's pretty easy to have a game world where the NPC haflings are not as strong as the NPC dwarves, we don't have that distinction with the player characters. A halfing fighter will have the exact same STR as a dwarf warrior because neither one gets a bonus to STR from race. I doubt people would back having females be classified as 'small' since they will lack the mass of the male heroes even if they have the same STR. We want our heroes to be heroes. We want our chain mail bikini ladies to have the same AC as the guy who is covered with mail from head to toe. We don't need 'realism' in our fantasy game. The DM can always add in ability score or class restrictions if they want to add 'realism' and keep small/female characters from trying to do what the big boy heroes are doing.
If you notice, the only racial penalty we have so far in DnDN is 'small' and a movement speed penalty. The movement penalty for dwarves is countered by not having a heavy armor movement penalty. It looks like the halfling movement speed penalty is supposed to be countered by Halfling Nimbleness. Small NPCs like goblins and kobold do no share the speed reduction so it does not look like movement speed is based on size.
Just because you want to make small a non-racial trait, doesn't mean that it will just be so because that's what you want. Small is part of the RACE. It is a RACIAL trait. That means that any bonuses or penalties it gives are matched against the o
It's not a halfing racial feature. It may just apply to halflings for current player characters, but it also applies to NPC creatures and any future playable small race. In the full rules the restrictions/benefits for size will be listed outside of the halfing racial entry.
And the other small races will have abilities to compensate.
WotC has gone away from penalties for races in their rules, but 'small' has stuck around. For the most part, the absence of a bonus has become the new penalty for racial choices.
That's because, more accurately, they have gone away with stat penalties for races in their rules. That doesn't mean that races don't get penalized in other ways.
While it's pretty easy to have a game world where the NPC haflings are not as strong as the NPC dwarves, we don't have that distinction with the player characters. A halfing fighter will have the exact same STR as a dwarf warrior because neither one gets a bonus to STR from race. I doubt people would back having females be classified as 'small' since they will lack the mass of the male heroes even if they have the same STR. We want our heroes to be heroes. We want our chain mail bikini ladies to have the same AC as the guy who is covered with mail from head to toe. We don't need 'realism' in our fantasy game. The DM can always add in ability score or class restrictions if they want to add 'realism' and keep small/female characters from trying to do what the big boy heroes are doing.
Halflings are currently heroic in every class. -1 damage is not nearly enough to take that away.
And the other small races will have abilities to compensate.That's because, more accurately, they have gone away with stat penalties for races in their rules. That doesn't mean that races don't get penalized in other ways.Halflings are currently her
I would still much rather see a universal-to-Small give-and-take, more like 3e. Use smaller weapons (-1 damage die on all weapons), +1 attack with all weapons.
The current restriction is, honestly, just dumb. "I can wield a 10 lb. battleaxe, sized to a medium creature, in one hand just fine, but I can't pick up the 15 lb. greataxe, even with both hands." I'm not usually a stickler for "realism", but "Halflings have never crafted, and never wielded, most types of 2-handed weapons - especially anything that would have given themselves a reach advantage over other small opponents" rubs me entirely the wrong way.
Heck, it's mostly unrelated, but I wouldn't even mind something "flavorful" attached to small as well, like "Disadvantage on all Opposed Strength checks against creatures larger than you" - though that could just be a universal rule, now that I think of it. Could maybe given Advantage on all Opposed Dexterity checks against the same. Hm.
I would still much rather see a universal-to-Small give-and-take, more like 3e. Use smaller weapons (-1 damage die on all weapons), +1 attack with all weapons. The current restriction is, honestly, just dumb. "I can wield a 10 lb. battleaxe, sized
I would still much rather see a universal-to-Small give-and-take, more like 3e. Use smaller weapons (-1 damage die on all weapons), +1 attack with all weapons.
I would be fine extending that to spells, as well. A "fist-sized ball of flame" is going to be much smaller in their hands, after all.
I would be fine extending that to spells, as well. A "fist-sized ball of flame" is going to be much smaller in their hands, after all.
Halflings using greatswords is "unrealistic", but the existence of 20-foot tall beings with human proportions is ok?
Humans using Polearms porportionately larger is ok.? ... widen the grip on the damn sword shift its weight a bit further to the hilt.. make the weights realistic you know like real two handed swords top out weighing maybe 6 lbs (check out the thearma site )
And dont forget these are imaginary adults not toddlers and like the wee folk of myth were not necessarily weak just as Tinkerbelle in recent movies. Who seemed about as mighty as Arnold most of the time.
Humans using Polearms porportionately larger is ok.? ... widen the grip on the damn sword shift its weight a bit further to the hilt.. make the weights realistic you know like real two handed swords top out weighing maybe 6 lbs (check out the thearma
I would still much rather see a universal-to-Small give-and-take, more like 3e. Use smaller weapons (-1 damage die on all weapons), +1 attack with all weapons.
The current restriction is, honestly, just dumb. "I can wield a 10 lb. battleaxe, sized to a medium creature, in one hand just fine, but I can't even pick up the 15 lb. greataxe, even with both hands." I'm not usually a stickler for "realism", but "Halflings have never crafted, and never wielded, most types of 2-handed weapons - especially anything that would have given themselves a reach advantage over other small opponents" rubs me entirely the wrong way.
Heck, it's mostly unrelated, but I wouldn't even mind something "flavorful" attached to small as well, like "Disadvantage on all Opposed Strength checks against creatures larger than you" - though that could just be a universal rule, now that I think of it. Could maybe given Advantage on all Opposed Dexterity checks against the same. Hm.
I kinda like the idea of advantage to DEX contests vs. a creature larger than you and advantage to STR contests vs. creatures smaller than you. Of course that would mean that small creatures get advantage on stealth checks and medium guys get stealth advantage against large creatures.
That would probably lead to exploitable combat manuvers however. If every fight against small creatures end up with a STR contest to grab weapons out of the little guys hands then it may get silly.
I kinda like the idea of advantage to DEX contests vs. a creature larger than you and advantage to STR contests vs. creatures smaller than you. Of course that would mean that small creatures get advantage on stealth checks and medium guys get stealth
That would probably lead to exploitable combat manuvers however. If every fight against small creatures end up with a STR contest to grab weapons out of the little guys hands then it may get silly.
Definitely something to watch out for - but you could easily cast "Grabbing weapons out of someone's hands" as Str vs his choice of Dex or Str."
Though honestly, I did just intend it to be on Str vs Str, or Dex vs Dex, checks. Though extending it out could be... interesting.
Definitely something to watch out for - but you could easily cast "Grabbing weapons out of someone's hands" as Str vs his choice of Dex or Str."Though honestly, I did just intend it to be on Str vs Str, or Dex vs Dex, checks. Though extending it out
YEah the human fighter is vastly superior to the halfling fighter, doesn't make the Human fighter unkillable, just less killable than a halfling fighter. An owlbear is vastly superior to a goblin but that doesn't render it immune to death.
YEah the human fighter is vastly superior to the halfling fighter, doesn't make the Human fighter unkillable, just less killable than a halfling fighter. An owlbear is vastly superior to a goblin but that doesn't render it immune to death.
Overall I agree, but a halfling being as strong as an ogre is something I have a problem with.
Hill Giant, actually. 18 base, +1 Fighter, mayhaps, and we have 19 Str Halfling. Human, on the other hand, can be as strong as a Stone Giant. 17 base, +2 Str(Race) and +1 Str (Class) or 18 base +2 (Race), or +1 (Race) and +1(Class). There we have the 20 Str Human. Doesn't even need be of a Strength bonus class.
Just saying...
Hill Giant, actually.18 base, +1 Fighter, mayhaps, and we have 19 Str Halfling. Human, on the other hand, can be as strong as a Stone Giant. 17 base, +2 Str(Race) and +1 Str (Class) or 18 base +2 (Race), or +1 (Race) and +1(Class). There we have the
Overall I agree, but a halfling being as strong as an ogre is something I have a problem with.
Hill Giant, actually. 18 base, +1 Fighter, mayhaps, and we have 19 Str Halfling.
Actually, Stone Giant (20): 18 base, +1 for fighter, +1 for ability score increase at 4th level.
Hill Giant, actually.18 base, +1 Fighter, mayhaps, and we have 19 Str Halfling. [/quote]Actually, Stone Giant (20): 18 base, +1 for fighter, +1 for ability score increase at 4th level.
Cross-species statistics comparisons rarely mean much of anything because D&D's scale doesn't scale enough. For example, a strength-based task that's meaningfully tough but still doable some of the time for an average human (say, busting down a flimsy door) is very challenging but still totally possible for a toad if it gets a lucky shot in, because a toad, with Str 1, only has a -5 penalty to Str, so Strength-based tasks are tougher for it, but it'll still be able to bust down doors a significant percentage of the time in situations where an average human would succeed about half the time. Now, it's possible to imagine the toad hitting the door in just like the absolute perfect spot that he somehow busts it, but that's not something that should happen a quarter of the time. When it says that humans are around 10, and 0 means no strength at all, and every two points means plus or minus 1, D&D forfeits the ability to represent how strong a toad is. The statistics numbers assigned to monsters are total fantasies that don't meaningfully represent how much better you'd actually expect the monster to be at tasks related to that statistic whatsoever, based on a mixture of tradition, guesswork, bad comparisons to numbers that are already bad, and completely failing to care what any particular number actually signifies. That a halfling can be "as strong as a stone giant" is a failure of the game to have given a stone giant the strength score it should actually have based on what the numbers actually do mechanically (as opposed to what the numbers say they do on some scale that reflects their actual effects incredibly poorly), not a failure of the game to properly limit halflings.
Cross-species statistics comparisons rarely mean much of anything because D&D's scale doesn't scale enough. For example, a strength-based task that's meaningfully tough but still doable some of the time for an average human (say, busting down a flims
Cross-species statistics comparisons rarely mean much of anything because D&D's scale doesn't scale enough. For example, a strength-based task that's meaningfully tough but still doable some of the time for an average human (say, busting down a flimsy door) is very challenging but still totally possible for a toad if it gets a lucky shot in, because a toad, with Str 1, only has a -5 penalty to Str, so Strength-based tasks are tougher for it, but it'll still be able to bust down doors a significant percentage of the time in situations where an average human would succeed about half the time. .
Yes the fault of the -5 being insuffient relative to your d20 if we doubled the modifier so that your staight attributes were used for everything ... the toad might get a -10..ofcourse nothing is perfect obviously...
In effect one could also alot a separate relative mass penalty when strength is used in simple direct fashions against innanimate objects for instance. That mass penalty could be a mass bonus for the larger creatures.
Assuming the toad was a sentient being they might be using skill like thieving to find the vulnerable spots on the innanimate objects to apply that brute strength of theres ...
Obviously this not be a simulation DMs should determine things which are rediculous are just laughed at with good natured humor or allowed anyway for the giggles of it.
Yes the fault of the -5 being insuffient relative to your d20 if we doubled the modifier so that your staight attributes were used for everything ... the toad might get a -10..ofcourse nothing is perfect obviously... In effect one could also alot a
Giants get higher strength. Smallfolk get greater reaction and coordination.
That doesn't solve the pigeon-holing problem because the DEX bonus is something that anybody can benefit from while the penalty is something that is only a detriment to certain characters. If it is trivially easy to build a character that takes advantage of all of the bonuses for being small here while being completely unaffected by the penalties, then that bonus and that penalty do not balance out.
That doesn't solve the pigeon-holing problem because the DEX bonus is something that anybody can benefit from while the penalty is something that is only a detriment to certain characters. If it is trivially easy to build a character that takes advan
Giants get higher strength. Smallfolk get greater reaction and coordination.
That doesn't solve the pigeon-holing problem
That's because there is no pidgeon-holing problem. For a problem to be solved, it has to exist in the first place. In order to actually pidgeon hole someone, the penalty has to be significant, not incredibly minor like the current halfling issue.
That doesn't solve the pigeon-holing problem[/quote]That's because there is no pidgeon-holing problem. For a problem to be solved, it has to exist in the first place. In order to actually pidgeon hole someone, the penalty has to be significant, not
Really? what part of systematically inferior did you not understand? Can't use controll powers have the time, takes a -2 to damage vs a human even using finesse weapons. And daily re-rolls fail to increase power to compensate for the extra advantages humans get all the time.
Really? what part of systematically inferior did you not understand? Can't use controll powers have the time, takes a -2 to damage vs a human even using finesse weapons. And daily re-rolls fail to increase power to compensate for the extra advantages
Really? what part of systematically inferior did you not understand? Can't use controll powers have the time, takes a -2 to damage vs a human even using finesse weapons. And daily re-rolls fail to increase power to compensate for the extra advantages humans get all the time.
First, a minor penalty is not inferior enough to pidgeon hole anyone. The only way you get pidgeon holed is if you volluntarily do it to yourself.
Second, it's only a -1 damage. You cannot count the +1 for two handed weapons since humans will not inherently all use two handed weapons.
Third, you cannot say that the re-rolls fails to compensate, since that is subjective and your opinion is not fact. You can say that you THINK or FEEL that they dont compensate, but that's about it.
First, a minor penalty is not inferior enough to pidgeon hole anyone. The only way you get pidgeon holed is if you volluntarily do it to yourself. Second, it's only a -1 damage. You cannot count the +1 for two handed weapons since humans will not
It's not a minor penalty, we're looking at -1 damage and accuracy from having lower stats than a human, and another -1 damage compared to a medium race using a two handed weapon. The halfling shield bearer does a little better compared to big races because the humans don't get a weapon boosters it's just their +1 attack and damage over the halfling. On the other hand compared ot the elven or dwarven shield bearer the halfling is still coming out short on damage.
Furthermore a halfling fighter has trouble making use of the control powers in a fighters repetoire, not to mention get's nothing from all the heavy weapon profs they can't use.
Since there is currently no upside to being small, the only classes that don't take a power hit are the classes like rogue, wizard, or warlock who don't get the weapon profs to care anyways. That's pigeonholing.
A reroll is worth approximately a +5 bonus, a halfling get's 2 a day, so call that +10.
A human get's +1 attack compared to the halfling, and +2 on saves, I won't even bother with damage. So over the course of a day a human needs only to make 10 attack rolls or saves using the stats that are higher than the halfling's to equal the halfling's bonus, and one more to exceed. If we assume 3 attack rolls per encounter, and 1/2 relevant save per encounter, then it takes 3 encouters in a day to get to 12.
So even ignoring the damage bonus the halfling can only pretend to be even at a rate of 2.5 fairly simple encounters per day. Longer, harder fights skew towards the human. Furthermore this doesn't take into account the human's increased damage.
This is basic math, and not any of that mushy feely crap you keep bringing up.
It's not a minor penalty, we're looking at -1 damage and accuracy from having lower stats than a human, and another -1 damage compared to a medium race using a two handed weapon. The halfling shield bearer does a little better compared to big races b
Basically until a downside/upside pair that actually works on a mechanical level can be devised, I don't think they should penalize small characters.
Find a pair that works and I'll support it.
To work it has to be both numerically balanced, and not create situations where significant franctions of the availiable class combos are UP or OP
Nobody respects the math.Basically until a downside/upside pair that actually works on a mechanical level can be devised, I don't think they should penalize small characters.Find a pair that works and I'll support it.To work it has to be both numeric
It's not a minor penalty, we're looking at -1 damage and accuracy from having lower stats than a human, and another -1 damage compared to a medium race using a two handed weapon.
Please show me the racial requirement that a human use a two handed weapon. Otherwise, two handed weapons cannot be used when comparing two RACES. Jesus! Get a clue!
A reroll is worth approximately a +5 bonus, a halfling get's 2 a day, so call that +10.
Huge in a bounded system, especially when used for a save to stay alive where a human would die.
Please show me the racial requirement that a human use a two handed weapon. Otherwise, two handed weapons cannot be used when comparing two RACES. Jesus! Get a clue!Huge in a bounded system, especially when used for a save to stay alive where a hu
I covered that max, read the post. I said specifically that Halfling shield beaerers do better because they're only down the attack and accracy, but two-handed builds get an additional damage drop. I compared both builds. One handed and two handed, and did the math with the build that favored the halfling, or well, not really favored, so much didn't favor the human quite as much.
Yes a +5 is nice, however as I demonstrated a few rounds of combat quickly starts to favor the smaller constant bonuses.
8 rounds to be precise.
I covered that max, read the post.I said specifically that Halfling shield beaerers do better because they're only down the attack and accracy, but two-handed builds get an additional damage drop. I compared both builds. One handed and two handed, an
I covered that max, read the post. I said specifically that Halfling shield beaerers do better because they're only down the attack and accracy, but two-handed builds get an additional damage drop. I compared both builds. One handed and two handed, and did the math with the build that favored the halfling, or well, not really favored, so much didn't favor the human quite as much.
Yes a +5 is nice, however as I demonstrated a few rounds of combat quickly starts to favor the smaller constant bonuses.
8 rounds to be precise.
Two handed builds cannot be included. By including them you are arguing that humans are inferior to humans because two handed human builds get +1 over one handed human builds. The argument fails becaus "two handed" is not a racial ability.
P.S. Avoiding the saving throw advantage given to halflings by the re-roll reflects really poorly on you. Dead humans don't deal damage.
Two handed builds cannot be included. By including them you are arguing that humans are inferior to humans because two handed human builds get +1 over one handed human builds. The argument fails becaus "two handed" is not a racial ability.P.S. Avo
Still think easiest method is +1 Dex for small. I can accept halfling and gnomes being better duelists and being better wearing lighter armor.
I'm okay with further small bonuses. I'm not okay with those others in this thread crying that the sky is falling over +1 and offering up irrelevant arguments about non-racial abilities for humans.
I'm okay with further small bonuses. I'm not okay with those others in this thread crying that the sky is falling over +1 and offering up irrelevant arguments about non-racial abilities for humans.
+1 Dex is easy - but it's really just a boost to the general power of the race, and not really any sort of "compensation" for the weapon restrictions. It's already easy enough to avoid the "penalty" here, by not using two-handed weapons.
My issues with the weapon restriction are that (a) all it does do is discourage players from a very specific option - regardless of the "real" magnitude of the penalty; and (b) it's just really dumb, from a "realism" standpoint.
Adding +1 Dex on top of the current stuff doesn't really address either of those issues - if anything, it exacerbates (a).
Now, if you applied the universal damage-die reduction, and offset that with +1 Dex, it would make a bit more sense. Still not great, because you could very easily reap the benefit without incurring the penalty (step 1: play a caster), and because I feel like +1 Dex is probably more useful than just +1 on weapon attacks (since it could apply to weapon attacks, weapon damage, AC, saves, and skills).
Maxperson, would you mind addressing this previous post? I'm just curious what your opinions are other than "it's just -1" and "Humans aren't immortal" and "the sky is blue" - and why you're willing to accept the current (really dumb) restriction, beyond "because that's what it says in the book packet."
I would still much rather see a universal-to-Small give-and-take, more like 3e. Use smaller weapons (-1 damage die on all weapons), +1 attack with all weapons.
The current restriction is, honestly, just dumb. "I can wield a 10 lb. battleaxe, sized to a medium creature, in one hand just fine, but I can't pick up the 15 lb. greataxe, even with both hands." I'm not usually a stickler for "realism", but "Halflings have never crafted, and never wielded, most types of 2-handed weapons - especially anything that would have given themselves a reach advantage over other small opponents" rubs me entirely the wrong way.
Heck, it's mostly unrelated, but I wouldn't even mind something "flavorful" attached to small as well, like "Disadvantage on all Opposed Strength checks against creatures larger than you" - though that could just be a universal rule, now that I think of it. Could maybe given Advantage on all Opposed Dexterity checks against the same. Hm.
+1 Dex is easy - but it's really just a boost to the general power of the race, and not really any sort of "compensation" for the weapon restrictions. It's already easy enough to avoid the "penalty" here, by not using two-handed weapons. My issues
I would still much rather see a universal-to-Small give-and-take, more like 3e. Use smaller weapons (-1 damage die on all weapons), +1 attack with all weapons.
I'm okay with this. I can live or without the +1 to attack, but I do think there should be universal small weapons. Using a medium battleaxe one handed is something that I would like to see changed.
Heck, it's mostly unrelated, but I wouldn't even mind something "flavorful" attached to small as well, like "Disadvantage on all Opposed Strength checks against creatures larger than you" - though that could just be a universal rule, now that I think of it. Could maybe given Advantage on all Opposed Dexterity checks against the same. Hm.
I think disadvantage is probably too harsh. A blanket -2 or -4 would be better I think.
I'm okay with this. I can live or without the +1 to attack, but I do think there should be universal small weapons. Using a medium battleaxe one handed is something that I would like to see changed. [/quote]I think disadvantage is probably too h
I would still much rather see a universal-to-Small give-and-take, more like 3e. Use smaller weapons (-1 damage die on all weapons), +1 attack with all weapons.
I'm okay with this. I can live or without the +1 to attack, but I do think there should be universal small weapons. Using a medium battleaxe one handed is something that I would like to see changed.
But you could live with it. That, honestly, seems like the middleground to strive for here.
Heck, it's mostly unrelated, but I wouldn't even mind something "flavorful" attached to small as well, like "Disadvantage on all Opposed Strength checks against creatures larger than you" - though that could just be a universal rule, now that I think of it. Could maybe given Advantage on all Opposed Dexterity checks against the same. Hm.
I think disadvantage is probably too harsh. A blanket -2 or -4 would be better I think.
Adv/Disadvantage would be pretty significant (though barely more than a -4) - quite possibly too much - but I think it would be much more in line with the "differences" that some folks want to see between a 20 Str Halfling and a 20 Str Half-Orc and a 20 Str Half-Giant.
I'm okay with this. I can live or without the +1 to attack, but I do think there should be universal small weapons. Using a medium battleaxe one handed is something that I would like to see changed.[/quote]But you could live with it. That, honestl
Adv/Disadvantage would be pretty significant (though barely more than a -4) - quite possibly too much - but I think it would be much more in line with the "differences" that some folks want to see between a 20 Str Halfling and a 20 Str Half-Orc and a 20 Str Half-Giant.
I'm looking a bit farther out than that, though. A great many creatures are large, huge, gargantuan, etc. That leave two problems. 1) It makes it incredibly difficult to do anything against anything larger than the PCs (large or bigger). 2) What do you do against something multiple categories larger than you? Advantage/Disadvantage doesn't compound, so you have to leave it alone (which doesn't make sense), come up with a second mechanic to add, or just say that two sizes above and you can't do it at all.
With a static penalty, say -2, you can expand that to -2 per size category larger than the PC.
I'm looking a bit farther out than that, though. A great many creatures are large, huge, gargantuan, etc. That leave two problems. 1) It makes it incredibly difficult to do anything against anything larger than the PCs (large or bigger). 2) What
Well damn, I wasn't thinking about multiple size categories at all. But why not just use the same for any amount larger? Or why not just auto-fail against something two or more sizes larger than you?
(Bearing in mind that I originally intended this just for Str vs Str checks, and Dex vs Dex checks - anything that would mix them wouldn't have the same benefit/disadvantage.)
A -2 (per size larger) just seems so... minor? But honestly, it would probably be easier to implement.
What about making it exponential? -2 for one size larger, -4 for two sizes larger, -8 for three sizes larger, -16 for four sizes larger? (This is pretty close to how 3e did it, I think.)
I really wish they just had Adv/Disadvantage stack. Yeah, it would lead to some extreme situations, but it would just be... cleaner.
Well damn, I wasn't thinking about multiple size categories at all. But why not just use the same for any amount larger? Or why not just auto-fail against something two or more sizes larger than you?(Bearing in mind that I originally intended this
A -2 (per size larger) just seems so... minor? But honestly, it would probably be easier to implement.
A -2 penalty can actually be much worse than disadvantage in a wide number of situations, merely because it stacks. It's just one of the many, many flaws inherent to the dis/advantage system (at least in its current incarnation).
For what it's worth, though, disadvantage for one size category and impossible for two size categories seems like the least repugnant method that would still be consistent with existing design decisions.
A -2 penalty can actually be much worse than disadvantage in a wide number of situations, merely because it stacks. It's just one of the many, many flaws inherent to the dis/advantage system (at least in its current incarnation).For what it's worth,
Well damn, I wasn't thinking about multiple size categories at all. But why not just use the same for any amount larger? Or why not just auto-fail against something two or more sizes larger than you?
(Bearing in mind that I originally intended this just for Str vs Str checks, and Dex vs Dex checks - anything that would mix them wouldn't have the same benefit/disadvantage.)
A -2 (per size larger) just seems so... minor? But honestly, it would probably be easier to implement.
What about making it exponential? -2 for one size larger, -4 for two sizes larger, -8 for three sizes larger, -16 for four sizes larger? (This is pretty close to how 3e did it, I think.)
I really wish they just had Adv/Disadvantage stack. Yeah, it would lead to some extreme situations, but it would just be... cleaner.
I think it should either be -2 or -4 for one size, -8 for two sizes, and impossible for 3 or more. However, I would also be okay with -2 or -4 for one size, and impossible for 2 or more. I still think that a penalty is better than disadvantage. It's faster and not quite a severe for that one size up.
I think it should either be -2 or -4 for one size, -8 for two sizes, and impossible for 3 or more. However, I would also be okay with -2 or -4 for one size, and impossible for 2 or more. I still think that a penalty is better than disadvantage. It
It's faster and not quite a severe for that one size up.
I think that's where our "disagreement" stems from - I kind of want that one size difference to be "severe".
The more I think about it, the more "Advantage/Disadvantage if they're (at least one size) bigger than you - no matter how many sizes bigger than you they are" feels like a match for how Next is handling things. My reasoning is how they deal with "advantage": no matter how many sources of Advantage you might have, you just have Advantage, or you don't. So if you're getting Advantage for being bigger/smaller, it doesn't matter how much bigger/smaller you are - you either have Advantage, or you don't. Put the "And sometimes you just auto-fail/auto-succeed" thing in there for DMs, as well.
That feels like the best fit for Next's mechanics - but yeah, I don't know that that's a good enough reason to use it.
I think that's where our "disagreement" stems from - I kind of want that one size difference to be "severe".The more I think about it, the more "Advantage/Disadvantage if they're (at least one size) bigger than you - no matter how many sizes bigger t
I personally like that suggestion, greatfrito. It aids the 'believability' of size differences.
I think I'm going to start calling myself a 'Believest', instead of 'Simulationist' or 'Realist'.
I personally like that suggestion, greatfrito. It aids the 'believability' of size differences.I think I'm going to start calling myself a 'Believest', instead of 'Simulationist' or 'Realist'.
It's faster and not quite a severe for that one size up.
I think that's where our "disagreement" stems from - I kind of want that one size difference to be "severe".
The more I think about it, the more "Advantage/Disadvantage if they're (at least one size) bigger than you - no matter how many sizes bigger than you they are" feels like a match for how Next is handling things. My reasoning is how they deal with "advantage": no matter how many sources of Advantage you might have, you just have Advantage, or you don't. So if you're getting Advantage for being bigger/smaller, it doesn't matter how much bigger/smaller you are - you either have Advantage, or you don't. Put the "And sometimes you just auto-fail/auto-succeed" thing in there for DMs, as well.
That feels like the best fit for Next's mechanics - but yeah, I don't know that that's a good enough reason to use it.
I could live with disadvantage, but I would prefer 2 sizes or more to be auto failure with the option for DMs to grant advantage/disadvantage if they feel that the situation warrants it. Perhaps even including bonus/penalty on top of advantage/disadvantage if the DM is so inclined.
I think that's where our "disagreement" stems from - I kind of want that one size difference to be "severe".The more I think about it, the more "Advantage/Disadvantage if they're (at least one size) bigger than you - no matter how many sizes bigger t
It's faster and not quite a severe for that one size up.
I think that's where our "disagreement" stems from - I kind of want that one size difference to be "severe".
The more I think about it, the more "Advantage/Disadvantage if they're (at least one size) bigger than you - no matter how many sizes bigger than you they are" feels like a match for how Next is handling things. My reasoning is how they deal with "advantage": no matter how many sources of Advantage you might have, you just have Advantage, or you don't. So if you're getting Advantage for being bigger/smaller, it doesn't matter how much bigger/smaller you are - you either have Advantage, or you don't. Put the "And sometimes you just auto-fail/auto-succeed" thing in there for DMs, as well.
That feels like the best fit for Next's mechanics - but yeah, I don't know that that's a good enough reason to use it.
I could live with disadvantage, but I would prefer 2 sizes or more to be auto failure with the option for DMs to grant advantage/disadvantage if they feel that the situation warrants it. Perhaps even including bonus/penalty on top of advantage/disadvantage if the DM is so inclined.
That'd work. Really, just having some solid guidelines and options would be most "in the spirit of" Next, and would (hopefully) make everyone happy.
I think that's where our "disagreement" stems from - I kind of want that one size difference to be "severe".The more I think about it, the more "Advantage/Disadvantage if they're (at least one size) bigger than you - no matter how many sizes bigger t
Just don't think it works quite as well, for the job LOL.
heh. I didnt like playing a fighter because it was not evocative enough of the variety of things one might do in a fight I make its hp go away was insufficient. At the time I thought I wanted more realism.. but now I am sure "realistic" is not what I am after. For example. Saving throws on every hit and more after the battle was done would be realistic and eratic.. and suck at making me feel like I was playing a heroic fantasy character, and gygax told me so years ago but I think I had to make up my own system like a very nasty form of Mutants&Masterminds with regular D&D deadliness before I realised it wasnt at all heroic feeling
heh.I didnt like playing a fighter because it was not evocative enough of the variety of things one might do in a fight I make its hp go away was insufficient. At the time I thought I wanted more realism.. but now I am sure "realistic" is not what I
i didn't include the two-handers in the math max, i made a point of comparing two-handed fighters to one handed fighters, and the halfling sucked less at one-hand. So the shield bearer is the one the math is based on because it was better for the halfling. The two-handed build for halflings is a bloody bad joke.
i didn't include the two-handers in the math max, i made a point of comparing two-handed fighters to one handed fighters, and the halfling sucked less at one-hand. So the shield bearer is the one the math is based on because it was better for the hal
It looks like the 'small' issue has been bouncing around WotC while trying to figure out the basic rules for vanilla DnDN.
They no longer have the complicated charts comparing sizes of weapons or size differences between opponents. That's a good thing, because we don't need the basic game to be more complicated.
They don't have static advantages/disadvantages by size that can be worked around to make characters that just take the advantages while ignoring the disadvantages. That's good because we don't want cases where being small (or large) will always be the best choice for different classes.
They no longer have the 4E weapon restrictions that made small characters worse with almost every weapon build.
What I like that they've done with Next is how they made a 'heavy weapon' category for the weapons they want to keep out of the hands of the little folk. That means that a small character can still be a sword/shield guy without having to use a short sword or scimitar. Having the bastard sword be a two handed weapon but not be in the heavy catagory means small guys still get to have a two handed sword even if it is one step worse in damage than the medium characters with a great sword.
What I don't like is that small is still a penalty with no offsetting advantages. I think the game designers are on the right track, and being small is less penalized in Next than it was in 4E, but it still needs work.
We'll have to see what happens when we get more of the rules, but I still say that any small advantages/disadvantages should balance out.
We know that little guys will be worse at the Protector Fighter style because of size limitations on push and knock down, but will that also affect other things like bull rush or grapple like it did in 4E? Will we get another defender style that is not as dependant on size or will have advantages for being small?
Are there advantages we don't know about that will benefit the little guys in other situations?
We should be able to apply the 'small' trait to any race and have the race still be viable. If your DM says that dwarves in his world are considered a small race, would anyone still want to play one with the current rules?
It looks like the 'small' issue has been bouncing around WotC while trying to figure out the basic rules for vanilla DnDN. They no longer have the complicated charts comparing sizes of weapons or size differences between opponents. That's a good thin
to apply that brute strength of theres ... 
