How much does size really mean?

[Lord_Gareth]

I'm considering designing some homebrew races and monsters, but I needed to know something, balance-wise: how much is size worth?

To give an example, let us take a standard human warrior with weapon focus (Longsword) and his trusty Longsword. Fairly standard CR 1 creature. Now make him Huge. How has the challenge changed? What if he was Tiny? What about Tiny with a 30ft fly speed instead of a land speed? Diminutive? Colossal?

[shadow_archmagi]

If I recall correctly, a 30 ft flight speed is to die for

[Shadowknight12]

As a general rule, sizes lower than Medium help casters and sizes higher than Medium help melee. The inverse is often true as well, except for highly specific builds.

Therefore, your problem is not that size is a universal advantage like a fly speed. It's a situational advantage depending on your build. Balancing size is nigh-impossible, unless you add things that benefit the other team, such as a special rule that lets creatures smaller than Medium increase their reach or give them special abilities that increase the bonuses they lose for being smaller. And then, on the other side... well, I honestly would tell casters "screw you," because they don't need more nice things.

[Keld Denar]

Size generally comes with reach. This means you'll take on average 1-3 extra attacks per combat from AoOs, or negate 1-3 extra attacks from foes with reach. Also, a reach weapon doubles natural reach, so the more natural reach you have (which only comes from size), the more a reach weapon has to double.

Given that Enlarge Person is often counted as one of the stronger 1st level spells, not for the stats it gives, but because of the reach it gives, I'd say that it counts for quite a bit.

Other than the jenky half-minotaur template in some DR mag, "fake large", IE Powerful Build, is generally worth about a +1 LA. Real large is worth at least a +2 LA (Half Ogre).

Size smaller than small is generally only good for casters or on a VERY few select builds generally involving Blade Bravo or such. Tiny creatures generally come with some pretty dramatic size modifiers to stats though, like +6 or more Dex and -6 or more Str.

[lesser_minion]

It varies.

For a really general rule, melee tends to do better against smaller things, while magic tends to do better against larger things, as Shadow said.

As far as I'm aware, it's considered unconventional to have a large creature with only one hit die, so you'd probably be looking at 2 RHD for a Large creature.

You could probably add on a few racial traits (I'd eyeball them as something broadly elf-tier) and call the result balanced, although you might want to add on an LA just to be safe.

As far as "Tiny with a flight speed"... you'd have to give it LA. Unfortunately, you need to consider the best possible application of a race when assigning LA/RHD, and that setup would be about as hot as it gets for a low-level caster.

[Salanmander]

As far as "Tiny with a flight speed"... you'd have to give it LA. Unfortunately, you need to consider the best possible application of a race when assigning LA/RHD, and that setup would be about as hot as it gets for a low-level caster.

+1 to this, although I don't think it's unfortunate, it's just how it is. Shadowknight was saying it's hard to balance a bonus because it helps some people and hurts others. However, you don't randomly hand out race-class combinations, people /pick/ them.

When deciding how powerful something is, you put in the context of someone who will use it to its fullest potential. For example, power attack is a good feat, despite the fact that it's useless for a good chunk of characters. Obviously, considering every possibility is impossible, but try to focus on the ones where it fits.

In general I would consider both a high-damage power attacker and a reach-weapon-wielding tripper for larger than medium, and both a rogue-type that relies on sneak attack for damage and a battlefield control caster for small than medium.

I haven't looked at this extensively, but I probably wouldn't put large or tiny on anything with LA less than +1, and wouldn't put huge or diminutive on anything with LA less than +3 (they would also have stat changes, obviously).

[Shadowknight12]

+1 to this, although I don't think it's unfortunate, it's just how it is. Shadowknight was saying it's hard to balance a bonus because it helps some people and hurts others. However, you don't randomly hand out race-class combinations, people /pick/ them.

When deciding how powerful something is, you put in the context of someone who will use it to its fullest potential. For example, power attack is a good feat, despite the fact that it's useless for a good chunk of characters. Obviously, considering every possibility is impossible, but try to focus on the ones where it fits.

Yes, and your view is one of pure optimisation. I said what I said because I was considering all factors, the person who optimises to the fullest and the person who doesn't care about optimising, he just wants to play his character concept, even if that means a melee character on a Tiny race.

Your suggestion does nothing to stop an optimiser (since that is simply another obstacle to overcome for the dedicated player) while severely gimping everyone else.

If our standard is the optimiser, gentle caress help us all.

[Salanmander]

Yes, and your view is one of pure optimisation. I said what I said because I was considering all factors, the person who optimises to the fullest and the person who doesn't care about optimising, he just wants to play his character concept, even if that means a melee character on a Tiny race.

Your suggestion does nothing to stop an optimiser (since that is simply another obstacle to overcome for the dedicated player) while severely gimping everyone else.

If our standard is the optimiser, gentle caress help us all.

Lord Gareth was asking from a perspective of game system balance, and specifically said so. That means we're not talking about players and styles, we're talking about how balanced the system is as a whole. In general, a good measure of something's balance is how easily it can be broken. This is why core is widely considered unbalanced.

When figuring out game system balance you need to look at the various possibilities for use and figure that things will be used with at least some synergy. You balance metamagic feats by assuming they will always be taken by people who can cast spells. You balance power attack by assuming it will always be taken by someone who makes melee attacks. You balance sneak attack by assuming the player will put at least some effort into hiding or flanking on a regular basis. And you balance races by assuming that they help the build that the player is aiming for (or, in in-game speak, that races tend to do the things they're good at).

It's true that my suggestion won't allow you to hinder optimizers, really. You can never decrease the attainable power level of a system by adding options. However, /not/ following my suggestion will likely dramatically enable optimizers, by introducing options that are much more powerful for particular situations than what was previously available.

[Amnestic]

As far as "Tiny with a flight speed"... you'd have to give it LA. Unfortunately, you need to consider the best possible application of a race when assigning LA/RHD, and that setup would be about as hot as it gets for a low-level caster.

Hengeyokai's 3.5 update gives them the option for (alternate form) tiny (or smaller?) with flight speed for no LA.

[Shadowknight12]

Lord Gareth was asking from a perspective of game system balance, and specifically said so. That means we're not talking about players and styles, we're talking about how balanced the system is as a whole. In general, a good measure of something's balance is how easily it can be broken. This is why core is widely considered unbalanced.

A game must be balanced considering all levels of optimisation. It cannot be balanced with only one level of optimisation taken into consideration. Core is unbalanced because it considered only one (very, very low) level of optimisation as a standard and then never corrected this.


When figuring out game system balance you need to look at the various possibilities for use and figure that things will be used with at least some synergy. You balance metamagic feats by assuming they will always be taken by people who can cast spells. You balance power attack by assuming it will always be taken by someone who makes melee attacks. You balance sneak attack by assuming the player will put at least some effort into hiding or flanking on a regular basis. And you balance races by assuming that they help the build that the player is aiming for (or, in in-game speak, that races tend to do the things they're good at).

That is incorrect. A metamagic feat is not the same as power attack because power attack can be used by a primary spellcaster too. A cleric with a Persisted Divine Favour and some other Persisted buffs will make great use of Power Attack. Someone without the ability to cast spells cannot say the same about a metamagic feat.

You don't balance by assuming the best possible use for every aspect and then ignoring everything else. You balance by taking into consideration as many possible uses and optimisation levels as possible. Otherwise, you end up severely gimping the low-op crowd and mildly inconveniencing the high-op crowd.


It's true that my suggestion won't allow you to hinder optimizers, really. You can never decrease the attainable power level of a system by adding options. However, /not/ following my suggestion will likely dramatically enable optimizers, by introducing options that are much more powerful for particular situations than what was previously available.

And nobody's saying not to take what you said into advisement. I'm arguing against doing that and ignoring everything else.

[Talya]

Beyond 6 inches, it really becomes a simple matter of how well you can roll the dice.

[Kaeso]

Beyond 6 inches, it really becomes a simple matter of how well you can roll the dice.

:smallamused: I knew somebody would make this joke.

[Shadowknight12]

Beyond 6 inches, it really becomes a simple matter of how well you can roll the dice.

*groan*

That was painful. :smalltongue:

[Mike_G]

Beyond 6 inches, it really becomes a simple matter of how well you can roll the dice.


You win this thread, hands down.

[Talya]

*groan*

That was painful. :smalltongue:


Must have been too large.

[Shadowknight12]

Must have been too large.

If I had a dime...

[Salanmander]

(I'm replying in a different order than the original, so that the most central aspects of this conversation come later in the post.)



That is incorrect. A metamagic feat is not the same as power attack because power attack can be used by a primary spellcaster too. A cleric with a Persisted Divine Favour and some other Persisted buffs will make great use of Power Attack. Someone without the ability to cast spells cannot say the same about a metamagic feat.


Er, I said "someone who makes melee attacks", not "someone who doesn't cast spells". Many clerics fall into that category, so I would consider those clerics when deciding whether or not power attack is balanced.
(Note: My disagreement here is mostly a wording nitpick. While I feel compelled to point it out, I will refrain from focusing on it in the future.)



A game must be balanced considering all levels of optimisation. It cannot be balanced with only one level of optimisation taken into consideration. Core is unbalanced because it considered only one (very, very low) level of optimisation as a standard and then never corrected this.



You don't balance by assuming the best possible use for every aspect and then ignoring everything else. You balance by taking into consideration as many possible uses and optimisation levels as possible. Otherwise, you end up severely gimping the low-op crowd and mildly inconveniencing the high-op crowd.

That's a fair point. What I'm hearing you say is that, in order for something to be balanced, it must be a fun and viable option for people at all optimization levels. Is that accurate?

I have a couple questions for you about that. Do you think it is also important to avoid making an option too powerful at some optimization levels? I would generally assume so, but I can't actually tell from what you've said.

Second, do you think it's important for all options to be viable for all character types? I feel like you do based on your statement that it should be fun to play a tiny race melee character. If this is the case, then I don't really understand how we can balance anything. Let's take a race with -2 str and con, and +6 cha. That race will be dramatically more powerful for a sorcerer than it will be for a barbarian. I would probably give that race a +1 LA. Does that mean that I am gimping the low-op end because there might be people who want to play barbarians of that race?



And nobody's saying not to take what you said into advisement. I'm arguing against doing that and ignoring everything else.

In that case we are in less disagreement than I thought. I also think you should consider people who are making characters that aren't that optimized. For example, I think our tiny flying character should be a fun option (not necessarily the /best/ option, but a fun option) for a bow user and a melee rogue, as well as a sneaky rogue and a battlefield control caster. I just don't think that it needs to have it's LA and abilities set such that a two-handed wielder who relies on strength bonus and power attack to do damage will be as effective with that race as it would be if it were a half orc.

[Shade Kerrin]

Problem might be that the LA system will only assume one level of optimization.
I find it a little odd that the system recommends fiddling with the CR when a monster takes class levels that don't match with its race, but LA remains constant regardless.

If a race with +6 Cha had a higher LA for Charisma Primary classes, and a lower LA for classes that had no purpose for Charisma, would it be viable for more classes?

[ffone]

It's fascinating how LA and weird PC races produce an "entitlement mentality" - "a Half-Giant Rogue is suboptimal? That's horrible and unfair! I must be given some compensation!" If you spent a level on a Level Adjustment race, you *must* be made as powerful (for your level) as before.

Whereas people are more accepting of the fact that, say, spending that level on a random 1 level multiclass / dip may not be useful or optimal. A single Sorc level may not be a good idea for your Cha 8 Rogue (well, the arcane wand/scroll using is actually kinda nice, but Wizard would certainly be better if your Int is good) but people rarely complain about that.

Perhaps it's RL mores concerning "race" (i.e. political correctness) or a blurring between what the *player* chooses (race and class) and what the *character* chooses (usually class, but not race; although occasionally a char might somehow be 'forced' into some class, or use PaO / reincarnation tricks to change race.) Or the idea that being race X is more fundamental to roleplaying.

[Salanmander]

It's fascinating how LA and weird PC races produce an "entitlement mentality" - "a Half-Giant Rogue is suboptimal? That's horrible and unfair! I must be given some compensation!" If you spent a level on a Level Adjustment race, you *must* be made as powerful (for your level) as before.

Whereas people are more accepting of the fact that, say, spending that level on a random 1 level multiclass / dip may not be useful or optimal. A single Sorc level may not be a good idea for your Cha 8 Rogue (well, the arcane wand/scroll using is actually kinda nice, but Wizard would certainly be better if your Int is good) but people rarely complain about that.

Perhaps it's RL mores concerning "race" (i.e. political correctness) or a blurring between what the *player* chooses (race and class) and what the *character* chooses (usually class, but not race; although occasionally a char might somehow be 'forced' into some class, or use PaO / reincarnation tricks to change race.) Or the idea that being race X is more fundamental to roleplaying.

I understand there being a difference there. Knowing that orcs exist, you would expect orcs to have spellcasters, and some people would be drawn towards that archetype (shamanistic savage spellcaster). I mean, this is basically why ogre magi exist, albeit not really in a playable way, in the monster manual.

LA is designed to, ideally, let people play using strange races in the same party as people using normal races, and be able to contribute about the same amount. It's qualitatively different from many other character choices in that it often is tied up in the character concept. Now, LA fails HARD at that goal, but the concept is there. It's true that my pixie who happened to become a barbarian is fighting an uphill battle, but that just means he should be traveling with people that he /is/ comparable with, right?

Personally I think that actually makes a lot of sense. In an organic world, people would probably tend to party with people of roughly their power level. That means some people with subpar training combinations (like a barbarian/sorcerer) would probably have more levels than some of their companions, but that's okay as long as everyone is contributing at similar levels.

The problem with this is that it's very hard to judge and implement, and would no doubt lead to miffed players who feel like they're being punished for building well in a number of situations. However, the varied LA depending on what you're playing could probably be implemented without too many problems. It would certainly need to be subject to DM discretion, but that could be done at the character creation, so people would be forewarned. The DM would also need to establish multiclassing rules, so that you don't start moving into classes that use cha because you have a +0 LA, +6 cha race, that is +0 LA only because you don't have a way of using cha.

In short, I like the idea of varying LA, and may do so if I DM another game. However, it requires a DM who is very comfortable with the rules, and good at being firm and fair with their players.

[Ravens_cry]

If I had a dime...
. . .you would have 10 cents.

[Shadowknight12]

(I'm replying in a different order than the original, so that the most central aspects of this conversation come later in the post.)

Er, I said "someone who makes melee attacks", not "someone who doesn't cast spells". Many clerics fall into that category, so I would consider those clerics when deciding whether or not power attack is balanced.
(Note: My disagreement here is mostly a wording nitpick. While I feel compelled to point it out, I will refrain from focusing on it in the future.)

Fair enough.


That's a fair point. What I'm hearing you say is that, in order for something to be balanced, it must be a fun and viable option for people at all optimization levels. Is that accurate?

That is correct.


I have a couple questions for you about that. Do you think it is also important to avoid making an option too powerful at some optimization levels? I would generally assume so, but I can't actually tell from what you've said.

That is correct.


Second, do you think it's important for all options to be viable for all character types? I feel like you do based on your statement that it should be fun to play a tiny race melee character. If this is the case, then I don't really understand how we can balance anything. Let's take a race with -2 str and con, and +6 cha. That race will be dramatically more powerful for a sorcerer than it will be for a barbarian. I would probably give that race a +1 LA. Does that mean that I am gimping the low-op end because there might be people who want to play barbarians of that race?

Unless the entire race is actually made up of casters, one should make at least a token attempt to justify why the race has people who take melee classes. If melee is a clearly suboptimal and crippling choice, logic dictates that this will be reflected when NPCs choose which classes to take. Normally, however, it is generally assumed that a race has representatives from all classes in its midst, except perhaps for races that tend towards conflicting alignments (Chaotic races will not have many paladins and monks, while lawful races won't have many bards and barbarians).

If the DM is actively creating a race that plays up to a class's strength, he can either embrace this and assume that almost all the members of that race tend towards that class (or classes) or he can be silly, like WotC, and pretend that grigs make good meleers.


In that case we are in less disagreement than I thought. I also think you should consider people who are making characters that aren't that optimized. For example, I think our tiny flying character should be a fun option (not necessarily the /best/ option, but a fun option) for a bow user and a melee rogue, as well as a sneaky rogue and a battlefield control caster. I just don't think that it needs to have it's LA and abilities set such that a two-handed wielder who relies on strength bonus and power attack to do damage will be as effective with that race as it would be if it were a half orc.

I would tend to agree, but in my opinion, I would try to avoid gimping as many builds as possible. Or make a wide-ranging patch for all races of a certain size (such as a feat or houserule) to avoid building the compensation directly into the race.


. . .you would have 10 cents.

And a shiny coin.

[Salanmander]

Unless the entire race is actually made up of casters, one should make at least a token attempt to justify why the race has people who take melee classes. If melee is a clearly suboptimal and crippling choice, logic dictates that this will be reflected when NPCs choose which classes to take. Normally, however, it is generally assumed that a race has representatives from all classes in its midst, except perhaps for races that tend towards conflicting alignments (Chaotic races will not have many paladins and monks, while lawful races won't have many bards and barbarians).


That's a good point, and it's something that D&D is bad at modeling. The justification in my head as to why those races would have a variety of classes is that LA is an abstraction that is used by WotC to figure out who would travel together, but isn't actually in-universe truth (drow have no harder time gaining fighter training than humans).

Of course, that leaves us with a system that doesn't accurately predict character power (which is what ECL is: a prediction of character power, basically), but in any sort of system that is at all modular, that's going to happen.

Anyway, I agree that that's a suboptimal situation, and to the extent that it's worth trying to do something about.

So back to the original topic, I still think that if you're going to go with one fixed LA, I would make sure that large or tiny don't appear on anything with LA less than +1, and huge or diminutive don't appear on anything with LA less than +3. However, if you're willing to work with individual players, lowering that for non-synergistic concepts is definitely reasonable.

[Shadowknight12]

That's a good point, and it's something that D&D is bad at modeling. The justification in my head as to why those races would have a variety of classes is that LA is an abstraction that is used by WotC to figure out who would travel together, but isn't actually in-universe truth (drow have no harder time gaining fighter training than humans).

Of course, that leaves us with a system that doesn't accurately predict character power (which is what ECL is: a prediction of character power, basically), but in any sort of system that is at all modular, that's going to happen.

Anyway, I agree that that's a suboptimal situation, and to the extent that it's worth trying to do something about.

I agree, but that's precisely why I said it was a tricky thing. I think this is very much a case of "be willing to make exceptions for players who want to play suboptimal builds."

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

Some people irrationally think that large races are the imbalanced part while ignoring the incredible ease for playing very small races. Half-Ogre is not the problem. Assuming you have taken the size bonuses into account:

Fine: LA3+
Dimiuitive: LA2+
Tiny: LA1+
Small: LA0
Medium: LA0
Large: LA0
Huge: LA1
Gargantuan: LA2
Colossal: LA3

Have a manditory plug of my balance ECL variant for yet another thread that f

[Salanmander]

I agree, but that's precisely why I said it was a tricky thing. I think this is very much a case of "be willing to make exceptions for players who want to play suboptimal builds."

Then I think we're pretty much in agreement. =)

(Huzzah, an internet disagreement that came to a productive conclusion!)

[Shadowknight12]

Then I think we're pretty much in agreement. =)

(Huzzah, an internet disagreement that came to a productive conclusion!)

As I live and breathe!

Welp, I think it's been good advice all around.

[Lord_Gareth]

Alright, allow me to ask the part of the question no one got to: how much is size worth on an antagonist? How much does size alone affect how much of a challenge something is to the players?

[Shadowknight12]

Casters: As long as their save-or-dies don't require attack roles, size doesn't matter in the slightest. If it requires attack rolls, bigger is better (because it's easier to hit).

Melee: Bigger is better all the time.