Size Reduction rules?

[Cantroy]

Why is it that I cannot find any rules for a sprite that uses DEX instead of STR for his attacks? I want to be able to build a rogue sprite, but here is the full situation...

Only in a RPG...

I have a level 7 unchained rogue in my group who has obviously gone all in on her dex. 20 dex, and using a dagger (yes, with the weapon finesse and fully focused on the dagger with her rogue skills). Also rolled a 67 on using the Rod of Wonder just a round before this action, and is using boots of springing and ALSO obviously enjoys her acrobatic rolls (had a 31 roll, hard to complain about that part), meaning that I have a less than 5" rogue jumping onto the back of a FLANKED caster, and since the attack was not ONLY a confirmed 20 but it was with ANOTHER 20, and the houserule we have doubles that....)

So yeah, I have a less than 5" rogue using a a blade that can give at MOST a papercut doing over 50 points of damage, as she is "dex-based" and not STR based, and there appears to be NO rules for this in ANYTHING, most especially in Pathfinder, but frankly, I want to open the floor to ANY D&D related base system to get some LOGIC here...

Can someone out there point me to something rational for this situation? It won't change much, I already basically allowed the damage to kill the caster, but I want something to point at for future use. Otherwise, I swear that from now on, ALL of my smaller creatures are going to be rogues with backstab, as after all, why not?

Help!

[Jay R]

A paper cut placed perfectly right on an artery can kill you. A small, unimpressive-looking puncture into the heart can kill you.

DEX bonuses to damage simulate precision attacks.

Stop calling it a dagger; she's wielding a scalpel.

[CharonsHelper]

They're a sprite?

It sounds like they were allowed an OP race and now you're upset that they're OP?

(Though a similar build can be done with a kitsune which spends all of their time in fox form when in combat.)

At least they didn't dip into Mouser (Swashbuckler archetype). :P

Though I do wonder - without the Mouser dip, how did they get the flank to get SA? When you're in their square you can't normally flank them. (Mouser specifically gives you an ability which lets you do so.) Just because a foe is flanked doesn't mean that YOU are flanking them.

[Cantroy]

Wow, look at the non-readers...

No, she is NOT a sprite, she was just shrunk to under 5" tall. She is 4'10" and was reduced to 1/12th her size... and yes, a needle placed in the back of someone's neck can kill them, and there was even a murderer working out of a hospital killing women that way, but he was still eventually caught...

No, the first time, she was on the wizard's back, and I allowed backstab damage for that, but then she jumped down and was near the wizard's feet. She did the 50 points to the guy's shin? Big toe? Yes, she has the improved faint feat and yes, she even pulled off the bluff check, too...

But find me a reason I wouldn't make ALL small creatures in my game rogues from now on, and make them "flank" and backstab every round the entire party. That is the real main point I need from posting here. I want to stamp this out now before it gets ridiculous.

[Cantroy]

Any GM faced with this might just begin making all of his sprites rogues... invisible backstabs to all... death before the party even knows what kills them.

[Lord Torath]

2nd Edition AD&D had the rule that you had to be able to physically reach the target's chest in order to backstab, which would have prevented the second attack on the heels from being a backstab.

Did the rogue use a standard weapon? I presume that shrank along with her? Did you by any chance multiply the damage she inflicted by 1/12 as well? That would take your 50 damage down to about 4. (The 2E spell Enlarge/Reduce worked like that. If you shrunk to 1/10th your height, you inflicted 1/10th your damage. Increased to double your height, you inflict double damage). Or did she really roll 600 damage? :smalleek:

Another thing to consider: Did you apply any "to-hit" penalties to the rogue in the first backstab attack? If not, you probably should have. She is precariously perched on the back of a moving target. Ever been rock climbing? And then try to stab the rock? It's really hard to get the kind of leverage you need to effectively do that. Now imagine doing that while the rock wall is actively trying to throw you off.

Sprites (12" tall, Invisible at will) can make great rogues, but again, their base damage is pretty low (1 to 1d2 in 2E), so even doubling that a couple of times for backstab damage leaves you under 10 points of damage.

[Cantroy]

Nah, she would have just rolled an acrobatics check, and she has that maxxed... the DAGGER itself did 1 point of damage... it was the backstab ability, the double rolling of crits, and her dex modifier.

No worry about "to hit" when she rolled 2 20s... I kow this was rare.. I just want this to never happen again, or have a way to stop it from getting silly. Everyone will want to play small race rogues from now on.

Just to be clear, there is NO modifier for backstab depending on the size of the stabber. This is why halflings and humans both do the same damage. In this case, it just went extreme.

[braveheart]

As I read this it sounds like the damage was moderate (17 ish) from the sneak attack bonus, I see no real issue with a character being able to do that at mid-low levels (you did fail to specify the level range of the party) the only reason the damage got out of hand was the double critical that is your house rule, if a character can one shot an enemy 1/400 attempts does that really constitute a problem?

[CharonsHelper]

No, the first time, she was on the wizard's back, and I allowed backstab damage for that, but then she jumped down and was near the wizard's feet. She did the 50 points to the guy's shin? Big toe? Yes, she has the improved faint feat and yes, she even pulled off the bluff check, too...

Well - she shouldn't have gotten backstab unless he was flat-footed somehow. (there is no backstab in Pathfinder) But the other one seems valid. (Plus your houserule made the damage more. Though Sneak Attack should never multiply on a crit.)

Just think that she jumped up and got his femoral artery.


Wow, look at the non-readers...

Is that the rod of wonder thing you mentioned? I'm not going to look up an obscure rule because you didn't give any context. And you did mention the rogue being a sprite - and no other mention of character race. Be careful of such metaphors when discussing a fantasy game.

[Elysiume]

Nah, she would have just rolled an acrobatics check, and she has that maxxed... the DAGGER itself did 1 point of damage... it was the backstab ability, the double rolling of crits, and her dex modifier.

No worry about "to hit" when she rolled 2 20s... I kow this was rare.. I just want this to never happen again, or have a way to stop it from getting silly. Everyone will want to play small race rogues from now on.

Just to be clear, there is NO modifier for backstab depending on the size of the stabber. This is why halflings and humans both do the same damage. In this case, it just went extreme.Why do you have the house rule if you're going to be upset when it applies? Are you the DM, or a player jealous of what someone else did at the table?

Also, what was the breakdown of the 50 damage between weapon damage, modifiers, sneak attack, etc.? What level is the party? Sneak attack damage shouldn't be getting multiplied, assuming that's what "the backstab ability" is. You are playing Pathfinder, right?

[Cantroy]

Yeah, I did, in a way, which is why I let that fly... but it doesn't solve the overall problem. Why doesn't every GM out there just suddenly make all of his small creatures rogues? Why not make ALL small creatures dex-based and lose the str modifiers? Look at the sprite stats as just 1 prime example. All of a sudden, with them having that one feat, and let's be honest, I know if I was a sprite, I would swap something out for it, and then my little dagger is a LOT more like it is in the Dresden files. Even a wizard would run from frickin faries (Yes, I hope you all are familiar with the song, too... I wanted to smash this PC for example...)

So do all small humanoids in the D&D type campaigns suddenly need a significant rewrite? p.s. I am asking the player to break down the math again of his attack... although why wouldn't the backstab damage also get multiplied? That would be a helpful avenue of approach.

[JNAProductions]

Because not everyone looks to murder people? Your average sprite doesn't WANT to hurt anyone.

[Cantroy]

The average quickling and such do... and I have 2 courts, light and dark... this would make the darker ones just a wee bit more interesting. BUT I would kill the party in minutes. And a ROGUE isn't exactly an assassin... in fact, the rogue in question supposedly wants to open an art gallery... and avoids killing in most cases. This is really a problem for Pathfinder, and likely other D&D rulesets as I have found nothing in any of them either that is clear, that would explain why every small creature out there wouldn't be a murderous little backstabber just to keep themselves alive in this dangerous world. And, if this IS the case, why they would still be str based, when it is obvious that they should all just go dex immediately.

So point taken, but not applicable in a way. I have a large number of jermlaine for example that would ALL be murderous little rat bas.. well, you get the idea. What I am basically implying is that if you allow the DEX based line of attacks instead of STR, and yoiu have small critters, which ALL get dex bonuses from size, as well as AC bonuses, etc., ALL of them should be changed to it instead.

Or, in other words, a sprite is a heck of a lot more of a threat this way than the way they are officially in the books. I would just rewrite the entire smaller and such monsters immediately, and watch the chaos fall... Make kobolds rogues, for examples. Start there. Dragon Mountain was bad already. Kobolds already make traps, it isn't a far leap to rogue-dom.

[Lord Torath]

p.s. I am asking the player to break down the math again of his attack... although why wouldn't the backstab damage also get multiplied? That would be a helpful avenue of approach.In 2E AD&D, multipliers all were considered to add a certain multiple of the base damage to the attack (except for enlarge/reduce spells). Your backstab multiplier of 4 means you're effectively adding 3 times base damage to the attack (x + 3x = 4x). If you scored a crit as well (double damage), that adds another base damage to the attack (x+x = 2x). So combined, you'd inflict 5x damage (base + 3x backstab + 1x crit = 5x base), instead of 8x damage if you multiplied them instead of adding them. Again, this is only for 2E. Different systems may have different rules for combining damage multipliers.

Edit: So are you asking for Crunchy reasons to keep the smaller monsters from all being rogues, or for Fluffy reasons?

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, what system is this for, anyway?

[CharonsHelper]

Why not make ALL small creatures dex-based and lose the str modifiers?

All tiny creatures and smaller DO automatically use their Dex for accuracy, though not for damage.


p.s. I am asking the player to break down the math again of his attack... although why wouldn't the backstab damage also get multiplied?

Since you mentioned Unchained Rogues, I'm assuming that you're using Pathfinder.

In Pathfinder "Backstab" doesn't exist. Get that out of your head. It's gone.

In Pathfinder there is "Sneak Attack".


If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every 2 rogue levels thereafter. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet. This additional damage is precision damage and is not multiplied on a critical hit.

With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (such as a sap, unarmed strike, or whip), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack—not even with the usual –4 penalty.

The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with total concealment.

Sneak Attack is never multiplied on a crit. All stop.

You would also sort of be within your rights to say that a small enough creature wouldn't be able to reach one - but that's kinda subjective. (Though with the Acrobatics check you mention above they could probably jump for one in a pinch.)

[Elysiume]

p.s. I am asking the player to break down the math again of his attack... although why wouldn't the backstab damage also get multiplied? That would be a helpful avenue of approach.Echoing the requests on what edition this is for (but still assuming Pathfinder based on this being an unchained rogue):

Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every 2 rogue levels thereafter. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet. This additional damage is precision damage and is not multiplied on a critical hit.


Critical Hits: When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class, and you have scored a "threat," meaning the hit might be a critical hit (or "crit"). [...]

Exception: Precision damage (such as from a rogue's sneak attack class feature) and additional damage dice from special weapon abilities (such as flaming) are not multiplied when you score a critical hit. [...]

[Cantroy]

ok, yes, we are using Pathfinder rules... and I LIKE that rule on sneak attack, as that would likely change everything as far as this particular fight went...

but yeah, I don't see any reason I shouldn't just suddenly give small creatures weapon finesse. A sprite's sword is like a dagger, right? Boom, instead of a -4 or such, it is now a +3 on all damage. That would totally change the world in some ways... It would be like the movie Gremlins come to life, but everywhere. Atomies, Grigs, Brownies, Sprites, Quicklings, and all others would suddenly gain a LOT of oomph...

No, the real reason this all came up as the player was also giggling when he said he wanted to make a sprite as his next PC and do this. No, I wouldn't allow him to be a sprite, that isn't the point. I just cannot come up with any reason the sprites don't already do this, and I think it would change a bit of the power level of the game if suddenly all little folk weren't as little as they were originally.

Give me a fluff reason why Sprites, which are mischievous rogues already aren't considered such? Quicklings are already murderous so I suspect they would relish the idea of sneak attacks...

If a critter has a high dex and a low str, they should be built with that in mind, and I just don't see them set up that way in any of my books.

[Elysiume]

ok, yes, we are using Pathfinder rules... and I LIKE that rule on sneak attack, as that would likely change everything as far as this particular fight went...

but yeah, I don't see any reason I shouldn't just suddenly give small creatures weapon finesse. A sprite's sword is like a dagger, right? Boom, instead of a -4 or such, it is now a +3 on all damage. That would totally change the world in some ways... It would be like the movie Gremlins come to life, but everywhere. Atomies, Grigs, Brownies, Sprites, Quicklings, and all others would suddenly gain a LOT of oomph... Weapon Finesse lets you attack with your dexterity, it doesn't let you damage with your dexterity. Unchained Rogue has Finesse Training, which lets you deal damage with dex, with chosen weapons:

Finesse Training (Ex): At 1st level, a rogue gains Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat. In addition, starting at 3rd level, she can select any one type of weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse (such as rapiers or daggers). Once this choice is made, it cannot be changed. Whenever she makes a successful melee attack with the selected weapon, she adds her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier to the damage roll.

That said, there's the Agile weapon enhancement (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-weapons/magic-weapon-special-abilities/agile/) and Fencing Grace feat (rapier only, additional restrictions) (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/fencing-grace-combat/).

[Cantroy]

And by the way, just in case I forget to say this later... THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP

[Cantroy]

ok, so all quicklings just became level 1 rogues with daggers as their training... LOL

[CharonsHelper]

but yeah, I don't see any reason I shouldn't just suddenly give small creatures weapon finesse.

Most creatures which are Tiny or smaller DO get Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat, but as Elysiume says, that doesn't add Dex to damage on its own.


Quicklings are already murderous so I suspect they would relish the idea of sneak attacks...

They do. Quicklings get 1d6 Sneak Attack racially. Frankly, if you play them well, quicklings are freakin' annoying without any levels. Their damage is mediocre, but with Spring Attack and a movement of 120ft they can pretty go in and out of combat and do SA every round, spending the other 1/2 of their movement to find cover & stealth again (or wait for their natural invisibility to kick in). Note: this mostly works if there are other foes keeping the PCs from reading an action to hit the quickling, but still really mean.

Adding 3 levels of Unchained Rogue would be much meaner, but it'd double their CR, and then the casters would likely be high enough to hit them with Glitterdust or cast Haste on their buddies so that the quickling can't get out of range with Spring Attack.


ok, so all quicklings just became level 1 rogues with daggers as their training... LOL

It takes 3 levels of Unchained Rogue to get dexterity to damage with a weapon. And why would they pick a dagger? Unless you're taking the Pharasima feat for +2 attack (which would make the quickling non-evil), a dagger is sub-par to using a shortsword.

[Jay R]

There are a lot of things in the rules that don't make sense, but are the consequence of the fact that the rules are a simplification of a world.

But if dwarves or halflings can do large amounts of sneak attack damage to frost giants, then there's no reason that this shrunken rogue can't do the same thing here.

[Malimar]

Most of the other points that needed addressing have already been raised. As for the "why would a Tiny creature ever be anything other than a rogue?" question: Is everybody in your world a druid, cleric, or wizard because those are by far the most powerful classes? No? There you go then. (Note that this answer involves two lines of reasoning: first is that regardless of what size you are, being a druid is still more powerful than being a rogue; second is that not every character makes all their lifestyle decisions based on optimization.)

[SilverLeaf167]

Most of the other points that needed addressing have already been raised. As for the "why would a Tiny creature ever be anything other than a rogue?" question: Is everybody in your world a druid, cleric, or wizard because those are by far the most powerful classes? No? There you go then. (Note that this answer involves two lines of reasoning: first is that regardless of what size you are, being a druid is still more powerful than being a rogue; second is that not every character makes all their lifestyle decisions based on optimization.)

This in spades, and also:

Yes, to be honest, I'd expect the vast majority of Tiny creatures with class levels (which really aren't that common, to be honest) that prefer physical combat to be Rogues or other finesse-style characters. Even from an in-character point of view, it'd be plain stupid or suicidal for them not to use their size as an advantage. I'd be more surprised to see a sprite flying around in full plate or raging and swinging a greataxe - amusing, sure, but I think it's far from unreasonable for Rogues etc. to be the most common. Apparently that's something I and the OP disagree on.

[The_Jette]

If I were going to play a tiny or smaller creature, I would not look at Rogue twice. Why? Because I'm a tiny creature. The dagger a tiny creature holds does 1 damage, maybe 1d2. However, the Fireball a tiny creature throws is just as big as the one that a medium creature throws. Plus, I get to stand far away from the raging orc with an axeblade that is bigger than my body...

[Cantroy]

The last remaining questions I have appear to be from the pathfinder side of reduction itself. For example, if I take a medium sized creature and use the reduce person, http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/reduce-person/ this is what happens: This spell causes instant diminution of a humanoid creature, halving its height, length, and width and dividing its weight by 8. This decrease changes the creature’s size category to the next smaller one. The target gains a +2 size bonus to Dexterity, a -2 size penalty to Strength (to a minimum of 1), and a +1 bonus on attack rolls and AC due to its reduced size.

Ok.. so what if it was cast again? Now I have a rogue with +4 to dex... In this case, the normal sized character was reduced to fine. So, a difference of medium to small to tiny to diminutive to fine, 4 size differences, now giving this rogue +8 to dex, and yes, it would apply to damage and to hit, and frankly, I know reach is an issue, but as I said in this case it wasn't.

Which leads me to THIS situation. Why doesn't every medium sized creature who uses dex and who can get around easily not just reduce their size for the dex bonus? The weapon damage won't matter, as the 1 point versus 1d4 wouldn't matter that much in the end, the +8 to dex more than makes up for it as that alone is +4 already. And if the weapon is magical, say +2, that makes it even less of a difference.

Full size :
1d4 +5 dex +2 magic weapon +3d6 sneak attack +anything else such as 2d6 flaming or such
1 +9 dex +2 magic weapon +3d6 sneak attack +anything else such as 2d6 flaming or such

The smaller you are, the better you are. Makes being a halfling silly when it would be much better to be a medium creature who "reduces" and gets the +2 to dex that way. I am using the weapon size chart from here: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/#TOC-Creating-New-Weapons and while I can see that by all rights from this, it should just be - I.e. no damage at all, it IS a magic weapon, and can still do a papercut...

I could even ask about a normally sized weapon with a magical flame effect that adds say 1d6 of damage suddenly being changed into what would basically be a flash from a bic lighter and rule THAT out, or even make it from a reduced sword of wounding or vampiric suddenly hardly doing any damage at all from that size of a weapon, but I think I might leave that for a later discussion. I just think Pathfinder doesn't really have good rules for this circumstance.

If you have any thoughts, and are NOT part of my group, please feel free to respond to these additional thoughts. As it is, I am looking at the Monster Codex, and even the listed kobolds include a rogue type that I might alter a little bit, but in a way kinda verifies my thoughts, but seriously, take one of the GIANTS in the same book set up as rogues and then reduce them to kobold size. +8 to dex, possibly more... This just seems like an almost "free" way to get bonus dex temporarily. What was that giant type that reduced in size at will? How would THAT work? /shakes head

[JNAProductions]

How are they getting reduced in size? Not everyone has access to magic-in fact, most don't.

Plus, two Reduce spells do not stack.

[CharonsHelper]

How are they getting reduced in size? Not everyone has access to magic-in fact, most don't.

Plus, two Reduce spells do not stack.

Plus eating that AOO as you get into their space sucks. And they can just 5ft step away every turn. That's why a half dozen stirges are freakin' scary at low levels... unless you're a Dex character with Combat Reflexes

[Cantroy]

I wish people would read the initial posting... as I said, it was NOT a reduce spell, I was merely using that to create the effects game-wise for a 1 stage reduction in size. It was a ROD, to 1/12 size, and 4 steps. So yeah, I know reduce spells don't stack in Pathfinder, but frankly, I usually play wizards, and if I wanted a higher level reduce spell than just a mere 1, I would research it, and in fact I have. Improved Reduce, level 3... but this is NOT the point I am trying to get at in any case..

I easily allowed the troll behind the character to get their AOO... and remember, due to size differences, there is a modifier to AC. 8 in this case, so yeah, the troll missed. Heck, the troll missed so badly it bit the other BG as a crit.

The main point is that I don't really see any good rules for size reduction in ANY version of D&D/Pathfinder, etc. THIS is what started this whole thing, and frankly, I know the game scenario I described basically went the way it was supposed to within the rules as written.

I just don't think they make any logical sense at all. Not for the weapon damage, not for the magical effects... For Jette, why wouldn't the magical effects of one's spells ALSO be reduced? Where are the rules for such... yes, I KNOW giants don't cast giant sized spells, for example. It is all based on the game "rules" but if I change the caster size, why doesn't it change the size of the spells they cast? Would a bastard sword +5 do the same damage as a toothpick +5? Would the +5 still be +5?

After some research into this as well, frankly, I want to play an elven archer with reduce myself now... +2 to dex, smaller weapons, but the ARROWS become full size after they leave the bow, so they do the same damage as they normally do. Per Pathfinder, at least.

[SilverLeaf167]

I wish people would read the initial posting... as I said, it was NOT a reduce spell, I was merely using that to create the effects game-wise for a 1 stage reduction in size. It was a ROD, to 1/12 size, and 4 steps. So yeah, I know reduce spells don't stack in Pathfinder, but frankly, I usually play wizards, and if I wanted a higher level reduce spell than just a mere 1, I would research it, and in fact I have. Improved Reduce, level 3... but this is NOT the point I am trying to get at in any case..

I easily allowed the troll behind the character to get their AOO... and remember, due to size differences, there is a modifier to AC. 8 in this case, so yeah, the troll missed. Heck, the troll missed so badly it bit the other BG as a crit.

The main point is that I don't really see any good rules for size reduction in ANY version of D&D/Pathfinder, etc. THIS is what started this whole thing, and frankly, I know the game scenario I described basically went the way it was supposed to within the rules as written.

I just don't think they make any logical sense at all. Not for the weapon damage, not for the magical effects... For Jette, why wouldn't the magical effects of one's spells ALSO be reduced? Where are the rules for such... yes, I KNOW giants don't cast giant sized spells, for example. It is all based on the game "rules" but if I change the caster size, why doesn't it change the size of the spells they cast? Would a bastard sword +5 do the same damage as a toothpick +5? Would the +5 still be +5?

After some research into this as well, frankly, I want to play an elven archer with reduce myself now... +2 to dex, smaller weapons, but the ARROWS become full size after they leave the bow, so they do the same damage as they normally do. Per Pathfinder, at least.

Okay, I feel like this is going around in circles. You keep hopping back and forth between the rules as written, the rules as interpreted and blatant houserules, and I'm not even sure what the question is supposed to be at this point. So let's break it down, though I'm sure you already understood most of this:

No, precision damage isn't affected by size reduction in any way (except possibly not being "able to reach such a spot"), just as it isn't affected by size expansion, or by almost anything for that matter. It also isn't multiplied on a crit.
Super-crits and critical fumbles are both houserules.
No, spell effectiveness isn't affected in any way by the size of the caster or the target, barring some very specific examples.
No, a bastard sword wouldn't deal the same damage as a toothpick +5, but the +5 enhancement bonus would be the same (because magic).
No, arrows fired from a reduced-size bow don't deal normal damage, but damage based on the size of the bow. It says so right in Reduce Person (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/reduce-person/). Somewhat weird, but there you go.
Yes, size reduction is a net positive for Dex-based characters, assuming they can deal with their inability to flank and the AoOs their enemies get. It makes mechanical sense for them to use it if applicable, just as Str-based characters usually benefit from larger size.
Effects capable of reducing your size by several steps are extremely rare and thus this issue rarely becomes relevant. Reducing your size by one step is comparable to increasing your Dexterity by +4, with some pros and cons.

You are free to change any of these, but it'll be a houserule of your own, and it's silly to complain about the side effects of rulings you make yourself. So... is that what you're looking for? Help with making sensible houserules for this issue?

[Andezzar]

And why would they pick a dagger? Unless you're taking the Pharasima feat for +2 attack (which would make the quickling non-evil), a dagger is sub-par to using a shortsword.While the dagger does less damage than a short sword, it can deal piercing or slashing damage, which might be a huge plus against certain foes. Also daggers can be thrown without penalty.

[The_Jette]

I wish people would read the initial posting... as I said, it was NOT a reduce spell, I was merely using that to create the effects game-wise for a 1 stage reduction in size. It was a ROD, to 1/12 size, and 4 steps. So yeah, I know reduce spells don't stack in Pathfinder, but frankly, I usually play wizards, and if I wanted a higher level reduce spell than just a mere 1, I would research it, and in fact I have. Improved Reduce, level 3... but this is NOT the point I am trying to get at in any case..

I easily allowed the troll behind the character to get their AOO... and remember, due to size differences, there is a modifier to AC. 8 in this case, so yeah, the troll missed. Heck, the troll missed so badly it bit the other BG as a crit.

The main point is that I don't really see any good rules for size reduction in ANY version of D&D/Pathfinder, etc. THIS is what started this whole thing, and frankly, I know the game scenario I described basically went the way it was supposed to within the rules as written.

I just don't think they make any logical sense at all. Not for the weapon damage, not for the magical effects... For Jette, why wouldn't the magical effects of one's spells ALSO be reduced? Where are the rules for such... yes, I KNOW giants don't cast giant sized spells, for example. It is all based on the game "rules" but if I change the caster size, why doesn't it change the size of the spells they cast? Would a bastard sword +5 do the same damage as a toothpick +5? Would the +5 still be +5?

After some research into this as well, frankly, I want to play an elven archer with reduce myself now... +2 to dex, smaller weapons, but the ARROWS become full size after they leave the bow, so they do the same damage as they normally do. Per Pathfinder, at least.

The spell is the same regardless of who casts it, which is why a fireball cast by a dragon is the same as a fireball cast by an awakened squirrel (had one in one of my games... it was weird). The reason it doesn't change? For one thing, logistics. It's hard enough to keep track of weapon damage when you change sizes. Imagine trying to figure out how much more or less damage a spell does. For another, it would make damaging spells even less useful than they already are when compared to Save or Die, or Save or Suck, spells. Honestly, it just doesn't make sense for a spell to change based on the size of the caster.

[Cantroy]

Yes, all questions answered, but I think it is still weird.

If I have a bastard sword +5 and roll a 1 for damage, (no str for simplicity) I would do the same damage as when the sword is shrunk to a toothpick size. Both do 6.

Same goes for a smaller rogue versus a large one, EXCEPT when the large one is shrunk to the same size, then they have a definite advantage.

Spell effectiveness makes a sprite level 10 mage cast the same fireball as a giant mage, relatively speaking. That still just seems wrong, and makes a giant spellcaster less useful at least as far as ranges, area of effects, etc.

There are items which do shrink and enlarge characters, and this was an odd one, I admit. 1/12 original size.

There should be a rule somewhere that accounts for size, and say set medium as "1" and make the size be the factor for it, but yes, combat is already slow enough without adding more math. Be very wary of fine creatures casting spells!

[Bakkan]

If I have a bastard sword +5 and roll a 1 for damage, (no str for simplicity) I would do the same damage as when the sword is shrunk to a toothpick size. Both do 6.


But if you roll max damage, you do 15 damage while the toothpick still only does 6. Also, as larger creature you will almost certainly have a strength advantage, so it's more like 10 vs 6 (min damage) and 19 vs 6 (max damage).



Same goes for a smaller rogue versus a large one, EXCEPT when the large one is shrunk to the same size, then they have a definite advantage.

Spell effectiveness makes a sprite level 10 mage cast the same fireball as a giant mage, relatively speaking. That still just seems wrong, and makes a giant spellcaster less useful at least as far as ranges, area of effects, etc.

There are items which do shrink and enlarge characters, and this was an odd one, I admit. 1/12 original size.

There should be a rule somewhere that accounts for size, and say set medium as "1" and make the size be the factor for it, but yes, combat is already slow enough without adding more math. Be very wary of fine creatures casting spells!

The point of having a variety of such mechanics as precision damage and spellcasting is to make various race/role combinations viable. If all damage, including precision and spell damage, scaled based on your size, then smaller creatures would always be at a large disadvantage in combat. This would lead to only the larger creatures surviving to higher levels.