Tiny pcs?

[Rfkannen]

So playing tiny things is awesome. How balanced do you think it would be? or how could it be balanced? Do you think it would matter? Will we ever get a tiny pc race?

[Abithrios]

So playing tiny things is awesome. How balanced do you think it would be? or how could it be balanced? Do you think it would matter? Will we ever get a tiny pc race?
I think monsters have big differences based on size, but I am not sure if a PC would be very different by being tiny. You have fewer options for grappling enemies. Your weapon choices might be even more limited than small characters, but I am not sure if there are any other differences.

[JAL_1138]

Play a long-range spellcaster, should be fine. Melee...beware of orcs with tennis racquets. :smalltongue:

[Rfkannen]

I think monsters have big differences based on size, but I am not sure if a PC would be very different by being tiny. You have fewer options for grappling enemies. Your weapon choices might be even more limited than small characters, but I am not sure if there are any other differences.


Oh yeah, there arent any actual benifits for a pc are there? And it would be no diffrent for a spell caster. So what you would want would be a tiny race that has all its beneifts related to melee combat, that would be pretty balanced.

[Ghost Nappa]

Admittedly, I've always wanted to try a Tinkerbell or Navi sort of mage buffer fairy.

In combat, you're a distraction and annoyance focusing on hit-and-run.

[Maxilian]

Oh yeah, there arent any actual benifits for a pc are there? And it would be no diffrent for a spell caster. So what you would want would be a tiny race that has all its beneifts related to melee combat, that would be pretty balanced.

IMO the tiny races should have advantage on dodges (at least when it comes from medium or bigger size creatures) -i mean you already have a lot of disadvantages)

[Daishain]

IMO the tiny races should have advantage on dodges (at least when it comes from medium or bigger size creatures) -i mean you already have a lot of disadvantages)
3.5 had a system of size dependent bonuses and debuffs to both AC and attack. For instance, a tiny creature had +2 to AC and attack rolls by comparison to an equivalent medium sized creature. At the same time, a huge creature had -2 to the same. Of course, a weapon sized for a huge creature also did a hell of a lot more damage than the one for the tiny guy.

It worked out pretty well when mages weren't deliberately abusing it, but they seem to have scrapped it since.

[Rezby]

3.5 had a system of size dependent bonuses and debuffs to both AC and attack. For instance, a tiny creature had +2 to AC and attack rolls by comparison to an equivalent medium sized creature. At the same time, a huge creature had -2 to the same. Of course, a weapon sized for a huge creature also did a hell of a lot more damage than the one for the tiny guy.

It worked out pretty well when mages weren't deliberately abusing it, but they seem to have scrapped it since.

It WAS abused, a TON, in 3.x in the past. That's why the enlarge/reduce spell now only adds/subtracts 1d4 damage to your weapon die. It does nothing for how accurate or hard to hit you are, probably to avoid breaking bounded accuracy. AND has nothing for when cast from a higher spell level slot than 2nd. I'd wager that's BECAUSE of just how bad 3.x was when it came to that spell. And permanency.

[Occasional Sage]

I'll quote myself, from your nearly identical thread last week on large PCs (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?380281-Do-you-think-we-will-ever-see-a-large-player-race):


I don't think so. There's a flavor of game the devs are obviously fostering, and Large creatures don't fit that. Combine that with the freewheeling "whatever your DM allows" attitude and I expect that you'll need to pass this by each individual DM.

Just, replace the word "large" with "small."

[Scirocco]

Tibbit swordsage, huff said. Horrid, stinking tibbits.

[Rfkannen]

I'll quote myself, from your nearly identical thread last week on large PCs (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?380281-Do-you-think-we-will-ever-see-a-large-player-race):



Just, replace the word "large" with "small."

While on that thread I agreed with you, I don't entirely agree because of one reason, 4e. There were very few race options compared to 3.5, including 0 large races. But they did do one tiny race. And that is why personaly I beleive we will get one this edition as well.

[Selkirk]

encumbrance rules will be a bear :D. i think tiny creatures would work best in a particular setting. i'm thinking of mouseguard for d&d or something like that. they could run into larger creatures but a campaign could be built with faeries fighting say dragonflies or even a toad would be pretty epic.

[Inevitability]

encumbrance rules will be a bear :D. i think tiny creatures would work best in a particular setting. i'm thinking of mouseguard for d&d or something like that. they could run into larger creatures but a campaign could be built with faeries fighting say dragonflies or even a toad would be pretty epic.

Sounds like it may be a variant rule if they do it this way.

[Selkirk]

Sounds like it may be a variant rule if they do it this way.

yeah i think variant rules could work...but for me just a variant setting would work better. i just have a problem with the size. a human that is 6 ft tall is 2 ft taller than a dwarf or halfling..but is 6 times as tall as a grippli or faerie :D(even a gnome would be 3 times as tall as a 1 foot fae creature). so how they fit in typical campaigns is problematic just from a mundane perspective (how would they carry anything of use to the party in their backpack...a gold coin would be half as big as they are...etc...)

and it's obvious that the designers of d&d , at least in earlier editions, have a great love for fae/faerie creatures. in fiend folio alone there are probably 20 small to tiny creatures/races. there is a certain amount of appeal to a separate setting...epic battles and great tales of heroism occurring in a land maybe 5 miles square :D. humans wouldn't even know this stuff is occurring. and of course getting to use all these cool races and cultures...redcaps, brownies, fae, grippli in meaningful ways. i would think for a campaign like this tho you could keep standard d20/5e rules for hp and battles...everything would make sense in a relative way. huge upside is that legendary battles are everywhere...i would love to see a party of fae battling a raccoon :D.

[Rfkannen]

yeah i think variant rules could work...but for me just a variant setting would work better. i just have a problem with the size. a human that is 6 ft tall is 2 ft taller than a dwarf or halfling..but is 6 times as tall as a grippli or faerie :D(even a gnome would be 3 times as tall as a 1 foot fae creature). so how they fit in typical campaigns is problematic just from a mundane perspective (how would they carry anything of use to the party in their backpack...a gold coin would be half as big as they are...etc...)

and it's obvious that the designers of d&d , at least in earlier editions, have a great love for fae/faerie creatures. in fiend folio alone there are probably 20 small to tiny creatures/races. there is a certain amount of appeal to a separate setting...epic battles and great tales of heroism occurring in a land maybe 5 miles square :D. humans wouldn't even know this stuff is occurring. and of course getting to use all these cool races and cultures...redcaps, brownies, fae, grippli in meaningful ways. i would think for a campaign like this tho you could keep standard d20/5e rules for hp and battles...everything would make sense in a relative way. huge upside is that legendary battles are everywhere...i would love to see a party of fae battling a raccoon :D.


You know what? I am busy today and through the weekend, but when I get back I am going to make a write up on a campaign based on tiny pcs.

Epic battles with people rideing dragonflies
trees that house cities
giant humans that could acedently crush a town
and most importantly of all, frogs that are the equivelent of dragons!

Would be interesting to get the right feel though.

[Selkirk]

You know what? I am busy today and through the weekend, but when I get back I am going to make a write up on a campaign based on tiny pcs.

Epic battles with people rideing dragonflies
trees that house cities
giant humans that could acedently crush a town
and most importantly of all, frogs that are the equivelent of dragons!

Would be interesting to get the right feel though.

keep me posted on this...i think this tiny pc campaign theme has promise (if players buy in). you could even have regular pc's in it ..say they got cursed and shrunk down to 1 ft or whatever proportional size...or a mischievous fae shrunk them down. i'm pretty interested in this as well..might put some ideas and sketches together-redcaps ftw :D.

[Ghost Nappa]

You know what? I am busy today and through the weekend, but when I get back I am going to make a write up on a campaign based on tiny pcs.

Epic battles with people rideing dragonflies
trees that house cities
giant humans that could acedently crush a town
and most importantly of all, frogs that are the equivelent of dragons!

Would be interesting to get the right feel though.

So...it's Epic (http://www.epicthemovie.com/)?

[Rfkannen]

So...it's Epic (http://www.epicthemovie.com/)?

crossed with mousegaurd, and with more murder and less slugs.

[Occasional Sage]

Why would you do Mouseguard in D&D, when it has such a lovely native system?

[Rfkannen]

Why would you do Mouseguard in D&D, when it has such a lovely native system?

Mousegaurd does have a wonderful system, the thing is that I am looking for something less mousegaurd and more d&d. I just mean by mousgaurd that animals are an actual threat, and things can get very deadly.

[Selkirk]

just a thought...flying mounts could also be birds. sparrows/bluebirds or even hawks and of course as noted dragonflies :smallcool: