5E, sizes, and AC

[Ragnarok_Aeon]

Let me start off with the fact that I really like 5E, it has addressed some of the issues I've had with earlier editions in fairly spectacular ways. But one of the things they got rid of, and I have no idea why, was size bonus to AC. Was it really that much of an issue? Did they just decide to stop caring about smaller creatures?

Let us look at the penalties and benefits of being small rather than medium.

Negative:
Speed usually reduced 25 (Not as bad as in 3.5)
Are at a disadvantage when using a heavy weapon (Still better than what earlier editions gave you, at least damage-wise)
Medium (or larger) sized creatures automatically escape your grapple (Not game breaking, but worse than just a penalty to your roll)
1/2 carrying capacity (Well, now you can carry even less stuff than someone with the same strength score)
Large creatures can just walk right through your square


Positive:
Needing less to hide behind (Not that you get a bonus or anything, just more opportunities)
Can squeeze into a 2.5x2.5 area (Combat in there is still poops if you're willing to fight tiny creatures at a disadvantage, though a medium creature can't squeeze into anything if you take the squeezing rules as is)


Not to say that the races they provided aren't good. The halfling and gnome are well done, and I usually overlooked the smaller races in previous editions. I'm fine without size getting a bonus to hit, but why not an AC bonus. I get that it's kind of weird that it's harder for two small sized creatures to hit each other than two large sized creature, but that's nothing in the face of how hitting the broad side of a barn and hitting a tiny pebble 30 ft away are the same exact difficulty. On the game balance side, magic (like usual) at level 1 breaks the notion fairly quickly. Along with the other flaws of being small, a +1 to AC will not make the small creatures reign.

[Pinnacle]

Lower speed is another negative of the race that usually coincides with smaller size, but it's not actually a penalty for size itself.

Large creatures can step over you, but you can also step under them--it works both ways. And you can block Tiny creatures, which Medium folks can't do.

Small creatures don't have 1/2 carrying capacity. Small and Medium have the same, it's only Tiny and Large or larger creatures that have special rules.

You missed that they can be grappled or shoved by Tiny creatures (although I don't think they're usually built for it, anyway), and can't shove Large ones.

[jmbrown]

What Pinaccle said but small creatures can grapple medium. So really your disadvantages are heavy weapons and slightly reduced speed.

Anyway, the rules make it pretty clear that being large is chiefly better. The enlarge spell gives you a bonus to strength (so an enlarged halfling has an edge over a human of the same strength score) while the reduce effect gives you disadvantage.

Also, given the way ability scores work (with 25 being the upper level for truly powerful creatures) and the fact that natural armor doesn't stack with regular armor, it has lead to large and huge creatures being weakened in general in comparison to small. An ogre is at strength 19 and AC 11.

[Sidmen]

I'm quite content without giving small creatures a bonus to AC. Small creatures tend to be more dextrous than bigger ones (only the Rock Gnome doesn't have a bonus to DEX), which will often translates into being harder to hit. I think that's a perfectly fine way to handle such things.

Small creatures are between 3-4ft tall (give or take), which isn't really small enough to significantly impact how hard they are to hit. Except, maybe with bows at longer ranges.

[Ragnarok_Aeon]

Small creatures don't have 1/2 carrying capacity. Small and Medium have the same, it's only Tiny and Large or larger creatures that have special rules.
I really don't know how I misread that so bad... :|

And although now that I double check, I don't see it anywhere in the book, but it implies through the feat Grappler that normally any creature one size or above automatically escapes your grapple. Maybe it's supposed to be two sizes? Which I guess would make more sense.

[Ragnarok_Aeon]

I'm quite content without giving small creatures a bonus to AC. Small creatures tend to be more dextrous than bigger ones (only the Rock Gnome doesn't have a bonus to DEX), which will often translates into being harder to hit. I think that's a perfectly fine way to handle such things.

Small creatures are between 3-4ft tall (give or take), which isn't really small enough to significantly impact how hard they are to hit. Except, maybe with bows at longer ranges.

Maybe I'm just a grognard and want to validate my houserule for AC of creatures.

[Sidmen]

Maybe I'm just a grognard and want to validate my houserule for AC of creatures.

Think about this real quick: why are you giving small-sized creatures a bonus to AC? I'll guess at your answer:

"Because they're smaller and can dodge out of the way quicker." or some variation thereof.

What do you use to adjudicate the ability to dodge in D&D? Dexterity. Thus, small creatures (all but the Rock Gnome, which is slower than the others) will have a bonus to Dexterity to reflect this. Giving them a bonus to Dexterity AND a bonus to AC seems, IMO, a bit overkill - especially in 5e's bounded accuracy setup.

To help you visualize a small creature, they'll stand between stomach and nipple-height on an average person. Visualize yourself hitting something that tall. Now assume that thing moves no faster than anyone else - will it be appreciably harder to hit it than to hit a person of normal height?

Not that a +/- 1 is all that great, I just think it's an unnecessary house rule.

[Ragnarok_Aeon]

Think about this real quick: why are you giving small-sized creatures a bonus to AC? I'll guess at your answer:

"Because they're smaller and can dodge out of the way quicker." or some variation thereof.

Specifically the small size, regardless of speed or deft. Take my earlier example of hitting a pebble vs hitting the broadside of a barn. Or let's take the idea of hitting a fly or hitting a dragon moving at the same speed (or just stopped in time). In both cases it's just easier to hit something that's large, there's more area to hit. There's a colossal creature in front of you and you miss, how do you miss it? It takes up your entire view! But sure you can go and just catch flies...

[ambartanen]

Your example should be more the difference between hitting a barn and a slightly smaller barn. Also hitting a dragon is a lot more like getting an arrow through the barn's walls to hit something on the other side than it is just hitting the wall.

Anyway, size bonuses to armor class were removed for a reason and that reason is bounded accuracy that drastically reduces min-maxing (both need and ability). Now armor class is almost always calculated as

AC = 10 + B + Dexterity modifier
where
B is one (and only one) of armor, natural armor, spell, constitution, dexterity
This is why bounded accuracy works and only has a few exceptions- shields, defensive armor and haste come to mind. The first two force you to give up other very useful bonuses and the haste spell I just personally dislike but, well, it's still there.

[rlc]

Specifically the small size, regardless of speed or deft. Take my earlier example of hitting a pebble vs hitting the broadside of a barn. Or let's take the idea of hitting a fly or hitting a dragon moving at the same speed (or just stopped in time). In both cases it's just easier to hit something that's large, there's more area to hit. There's a colossal creature in front of you and you miss, how do you miss it? It takes up your entire view! But sure you can go and just catch flies...

those aren't very good examples, though. neither the fly nor the pebble would be considered of small size. small size is more the size of a 6 year old.
why did i specifically say a 6 year old, instead of any other age around that height? well, i have a six year old nephew who threw a ball at me yesterday and i dodged it pretty handily. i'd be considered one size category larger than him right now, just like large creatures are one size category larger than medium creatures. i don't take up his entire view.

[BW022]

It don't see the point in giving small creatures an AC bonus. AC in 5E has been lowered dramatically and does not scale into the insane levels anymore. This is good.

Size AC bonuses then create issues in that small creatures can't hit each other as well as two medium creatures (which is why 3.x had bonuses to attack) and that large creatures would have to get worse AC. I am personally fine removing the entire size bonus thing, the touch AC, shield sizes, etc. in order to simplify the entire AC thing. Removing weapon sizes, armour sizes, shield sizes, penalties for using large/smaller weapons, etc. is also worth it.

Small creatures would benefit in that they typically have higher dexterity scores. They would also have better cover given the same rock, wall, or box to get behind. They would likely be able to operate in smaller spaces without suffering disadvantages (say a narrow ledge or 3' wide passage), on narrower ledges, etc. They can ride medium-sized mounts. Their lower weight means less chance of setting off a trap, being able to climb higher in trees, being carried by another, etc.

Carrying weight seems to be the only big issue. Hopefully not many halflings and gnomes want to have platemail, longswords, and shields.

[Ragnarok_Aeon]

No, I get why they did it. I've conceded that I was wrong on a number of points. Still, this is a house rule that I'm using that doesn't really break the game (I'm not playing with anyone who would abuse this minor tweak). And I agree that a small creature isn't "that" much smaller with the house rule it's a +1, but at the same time when it comes to diminutive flies and colossal dragons, the lack of applying size to AC starts to really show. With the robustness of 5E, I feel like I can make this minor tweak to reassert my verisimilitude without breaking the whole game.

[rlc]

well, specifically talking about the diminutive things, the fly would have massive dexterity (but you can stomp ants all day, if you want because they're slower) and the pebble would have at least 3/4 cover in grass, if not full cover (plus, being a pebble, you could make an argument that it's petrified and immune to damage anyway, but...). so yeah, what you're suggesting is actually already in the game.
but, hey, if you want to house rule it that way, that's up to you. i just don't think it's needed.

[Sidmen]

No, I get why they did it. I've conceded that I was wrong on a number of points. Still, this is a house rule that I'm using that doesn't really break the game (I'm not playing with anyone who would abuse this minor tweak). And I agree that a small creature isn't "that" much smaller with the house rule it's a +1, but at the same time when it comes to diminutive flies and colossal dragons, the lack of applying size to AC starts to really show. With the robustness of 5E, I feel like I can make this minor tweak to reassert my verisimilitude without breaking the whole game.

Oh, I have no problem or complaint (I know neither of those are appropriate words for a house rule that doesn't affect me) about AC mods for significantly smaller creatures. I can understand why you're doing it, I just feel that "Small" creatures like Halflings and Gnomes aren't significant enough to warrant even a +1 (which is considerable in this edition).

If I were to try and simulate something tiny with the agility of a fly, or something tiny the players were shooting at, I'd just use a high Dexterity score and possibly give Disadvantage to the attack rolls. If one of my players wanted to attack something absurdly huge - like a warship or whatever - the AC I give would reflect it's abysmal Dexterity and the resistance to it's attack (the latter being the biggest contribution to the AC). Attacking a giant dragon and hitting it is easy, but most of those hits will harmlessly slide off it's hide - that's what it's AC reflects.

[Sartharina]

those aren't very good examples, though. neither the fly nor the pebble would be considered of small size. small size is more the size of a 6 year old.
why did i specifically say a 6 year old, instead of any other age around that height? well, i have a six year old nephew who threw a ball at me yesterday and i dodged it pretty handily. i'd be considered one size category larger than him right now, just like large creatures are one size category larger than medium creatures. i don't take up his entire view.As an adult, you also have significantly greater strength and dexterity. However - it's harder to hit him with the ball than it would to hit an adult with the ball. You're striking a target with a surface area 1/4th of a 'normal' one. There's a reason targets have fewer points for larger radii - it's harder to hit at least the "25" ring on a Dartboard than at least the '10' ring simply because it's smaller.

It has nothing to do with whether the target's moving or not, which dexterity requires.

[Zweisteine]

Positive: You can just walk through large creatures' squares.

[Felandria]

I am glad they finally addressed the problems with Enlarge Person.

Granted, it doesn't give you a huge benefit, but at least it doesn't actually hinder you now.

[TheOOB]

If being small granted you an AC bonus, there would be no reason to not play small characters. AC bonuses are really really valuable in this edition.

Honestly, I feel that being small is a disadvantage, though not an unmitigated one, and honestly I'm fine with that. It makes the races feel different gameplay wise. I mean, the halfling is still great(lucky is an amazing ability), and Gnomes are not too bad(as an uncommon race they're defiantly more specialized).

[LordVonDerp]

Specifically the small size, regardless of speed or deft. Take my earlier example of hitting a pebble vs hitting the broadside of a barn. Or let's take the idea of hitting a fly or hitting a dragon moving at the same speed (or just stopped in time). In both cases it's just easier to hit something that's large, there's more area to hit. There's a colossal creature in front of you and you miss, how do you miss it? It takes up your entire view! But sure you can go and just catch flies...

They already get bumped up a step on their cover bonus. Do they really need more?

[Knaight]

Maybe I'm just a grognard and want to validate my houserule for AC of creatures.


Specifically the small size, regardless of speed or deft. Take my earlier example of hitting a pebble vs hitting the broadside of a barn. Or let's take the idea of hitting a fly or hitting a dragon moving at the same speed (or just stopped in time). In both cases it's just easier to hit something that's large, there's more area to hit. There's a colossal creature in front of you and you miss, how do you miss it? It takes up your entire view! But sure you can go and just catch flies...


As an adult, you also have significantly greater strength and dexterity. However - it's harder to hit him with the ball than it would to hit an adult with the ball. You're striking a target with a surface area 1/4th of a 'normal' one. There's a reason targets have fewer points for larger radii - it's harder to hit at least the "25" ring on a Dartboard than at least the '10' ring simply because it's smaller.

Regarding all these quotes - it's useful making a distinction between melee attacks and ranged attacks. If you're talking about ranged shots, then yes, them simply being smaller makes things a lot easier - though larger creatures do tend to have a higher movement speed, and targets moving substantially faster are generally harder to hit, provided that they aren't moving straight towards you. Being harder targets makes a lot of sense there.

In melee? Not so much. You've got better angles to attack the head, upper shoulders, maybe even the back. Smaller things will have a smaller pace, and be less able to dodge. There's a reach advantage that can be leveraged pretty majorly, even just from the arm, with much less of an issue of being closed in on than with longer weapons. So on and so forth. In the context of a melee fight, smaller targets are often easier to hit. Obviously this is only up to a point - trying to cut a wasp out of the air is obviously difficult, and even if it isn't moving there's some real precision involved. Still, I'd expect a Medium or Large character to find it easier to hit a Small character than a Medium one, assuming equal fighting skills, dexterity, etc.

[Chacha]

Small creatures can be up to, what, 4 feet tall?

Humans in the real world range in size between 5 feet to 6.5 feet, with outliers on either end.

It seems arbitrary to say that a 4' tall creature (small) is harder to hit for a 5'5" tall human (medium) than that same human is for a 6'5" human (medium).

[Sartharina]

In melee? Not so much. You've got better angles to attack the head, upper shoulders, maybe even the back. Smaller things will have a smaller pace, and be less able to dodge.But they don't need to dodge because while the upper shoulders/head/back may be somewhat easier to get an attack angle on, the target's much smaller, and it can actually be awkward to try and land a hit.

Then again - the reach advantage overshadows all that.

[Knaight]

But they don't need to dodge because while the upper shoulders/head/back may be somewhat easier to get an attack angle on, the target's much smaller, and it can actually be awkward to try and land a hit.

Then again - the reach advantage overshadows all that.

In practice, I've found that smaller people are generally easier to hit. The reach advantage alone is a pretty big deal, there's generally a helpful strength advantage (I've overpowered more than a few smaller people, letting me put them where I could hit them better - this is huge when dealing with people closing against you when you've got a polearm, but generally relevant), so on and so forth. In practice, I'd say that being small is a definite disadvantage in melee.

[Malifice]

Maybe I'm just a grognard and want to validate my houserule for AC of creatures.

Youll have to add an equal bonus to hit as well equal in value to the AC boost.

Otherwise Gargantuan creatures never miss each other, and Tiny ones always do.

And seeing as they are the same size relative to each other, that shouldnt happen.

[Knaight]

Youll have to add an equal bonus to hit as well equal in value to the AC boost.

Otherwise Gargantuan creatures never miss each other, and Tiny ones always do.

And seeing as they are the same size relative to each other, that shouldnt happen.

It depends on a few factors, really. To use a more vehicular example, early planes missed each other all the time - particularly if you look at an "attack" more as positioning to fire. They were small, they were fast moving, they generally aren't accurate. The same was true with contemporary smaller attack boats and similar. With much bigger boats, volleys exchanged tended to hit in aggregate, though individual shots might miss (though within a few decades, individual shots were pretty consistently hitting). The nature of the combat changed.

Should that be the case in D&D? Maybe. It depends on how much you want absolute size to matter. There's a case to be made for just scaling things up so that it isn't particularly relevant and only relative size is, and there's also a case to be made for a qualitative change in how fighting works at larger sizes.