Why is "Small" still a thing? Why not another "Big" PC creature size too?

[Damon_Tor]

So besides having a penalty to use heavy weapons, grappling/shoving restrictions, and slightly more flexibility in mounts, virtually all of the mechanics that differentiated between Small and Medium creatures have been stripped. That's not a bad thing, but it makes one wonder why we even still have it. Do we really need halflings to get a penalty for using a Maul? Why?

And if there is a good reason for it, why not a "big" creature size between medium and large, as a place for races like Minotaurs and Goliaths and Loxodons and anyone else they gave the "powerful build" feature to (because they really should have been Large, but the 2x2 size is problematic for a whole host of reasons). Like Small and Medium they'd occupy a 5x5 space. They could have disadvantage with light weapons if we wanted to have some symmetry. Change grappling/shoving restriction to 3 sizes larger instead of 2 (leaving small and medium creatures able to shove/grapple anything they could grapple before).

[Rusvul]

I think the creature sizes are more or less a sacred cow. Being a small PC is no longer particularly impactful, but everyone would get all angry if they removed it. (I probably wouldn't approve, 3.5 player that I am.)

As far as the "big" size between Medium and Large goes: that's... basically what Powerful Build is. I don't think there's much advantage in adding in a new size (which would be slaughtering a sacred cow in its own right), especially since 5e is all about reducing granularity rather than adding it. You could add another size in there, I don't think it would screw anything up. It just doesn't seem worth it to add a whole new category when a racial feature basically suffices.

If you were looking to make this "big-for-a-medium-creature" size more distinct in your games, houseruling Powerful Build to allow you to grapple 3 sizes larger seems like a good start. Maybe also increase thrown weapon ranges or something? I don't think I'd give disadvantage with light weapons, though. A small man cannot effective stab you with a big sword because it is too heavy for him; a large woman does not have equal difficulty with a small sword. It might be a little uncomfortable, but it's certainly not too heavy for her.

[dgnslyr]

It's not so much that forbidding Large player races is a sacred cow for arbitrary reasons, but more that it provides a large mechanical advantage. Even after 5e removed extra natural reach from large characters, it still lets you threaten a much larger area, which is a really desirable feature and a hard thing to turn down for any melee character. There's a reason why Large races and templates in 3.5 all carried some Level Adjustment; it's a powerful feature to have.

[Theodoxus]

It's not so much that forbidding Large player races is a sacred cow for arbitrary reasons, but more that it provides a large mechanical advantage. Even after 5e removed extra natural reach from large characters, it still lets you threaten a much larger area, which is a really desirable feature and a hard thing to turn down for any melee character. There's a reason why Large races and templates in 3.5 all carried some Level Adjustment; it's a powerful feature to have.

The lack of bugbear overpopulation as player characters kinda ruins that thought...

If consideration were actually given to the difficulties of living as a large creature in a medium sized world; expense for food and drink, clothing and shelter; even reactions of the 'small folk' to such massive critters, it'd be less of a concern. But when you hand wave all the hard to answer questions in favor of a mechanical advantage because 'cool', the only decent decision is to nix it in the bud.

[Damon_Tor]

I don't think I'd give disadvantage with light weapons, though. A small man cannot effective stab you with a big sword because it is too heavy for him; a large woman does not have equal difficulty with a small sword. It might be a little uncomfortable, but it's certainly not too heavy for her.

The problem with that line of reasoning: a str 16 halfling can bench, curl and squat more weight than a str 8 human. So how is there a weapon "two heavy" for the halfling but not for the human? Size and strength are related, but separate.

I expect its less about the absolute weight of the weapon so much as its as issue with the center of gravity: Basically the weapon is engineered with the assumption that the wielder will have his hands a certain distance apart, a distance that isn't practical with shorter arms.

But by that same logic, a weapon that's built to be as light as possible is going to have a very short grip, engineered assuming the wielder has hands of a certain size. For a large creature, that kind of grip would be just as awkward as the heavy weapon is for the small creature.

[Greywander]

I don't have a source handy, but I believe I've heard that the designers have stated that the "Small PCs can't use heavy weapons" was something they regretted.

On the whole, I wonder if Small as a size category can't just be completely removed, with existing Small creatures either becoming Medium or Tiny (which would likely be renamed to "Small", and then have "Tiny" as an even smaller category that doesn't currently exist). Some creatures, like the goliath PC race, have a trait that makes them "pseudo-Large", so you could just as easily give the formerly Small races (now Medium) a trait that makes them "pseudo-Small".

I'd need to check to see what the differences are between creatures of different size (off the top of my head they are: carry weight, space occupied, grappling, and mounting) and where the existing Small size is an exception (off the top of my head: Small creatures have the same carry weight and space occupied as Medium creatures).

[Willie the Duck]

The lack of bugbear overpopulation as player characters kinda ruins that thought...

Bugbears only get reach on their turn. They don't exactly create huge threatening zones in terms of battlefield control.

But I think there are also rules about large creatures getting to use increased-damage versions of weapons.

Regardless, those are the designers own rules--if they had wanted to, they could have made size large have no intrinsic benefits at all. It is unclear why they gave them enough benefits as to not allow them to then allow any large PC races, and then do fan-angering things like suggest size M centaurs and the like.

[superstrijder15]

The problem with that line of reasoning: a str 16 halfling can bench, curl and squat more weight than a str 8 human. So how is there a weapon "two heavy" for the halfling but not for the human? Size and strength are related, but separate.

I expect its less about the absolute weight of the weapon so much as its as issue with the center of gravity: Basically the weapon is engineered with the assumption that the wielder will have his hands a certain distance apart, a distance that isn't practical with shorter arms.

But by that same logic, a weapon that's built to be as light as possible is going to have a very short grip, engineered assuming the wielder has hands of a certain size. For a large creature, that kind of grip would be just as awkward as the heavy weapon is for the small creature.

This is why the 'Large Weapons' from the DMG 278 in 'Making a Monster, step 11: Damage' exist. Large weapons do 1 die extra, huge ones do 2 dice extra, gargantuan do 3 dice extra. If a creature takes a weapon one size up, it becomes one category heavier. Thus for a human a large Rapier is normal, a large shortsword is heavy and a large halberd is unwieldable. I also apply this the other way: Small creatures are incapable of wielding Heavy weapons only, with no other changes so as to keep things depending on the Light property possible without too much houseruling. Tiny creatures either only use Light weapons two-handedly, or they can use weapons designed for Tiny creatures, which do less damage.

[NaughtyTiger]

The "large weapons do extra die of damage" thing is only for NPCs.

The enlarge/reduce spell explicitly only adds/subtracts 1d4.



The problem with that line of reasoning: a str 16 halfling can bench, curl and squat more weight than a str 8 human.
the str 16 halfling can bench, curl, squat the SAME as a str 8 human. D'oh!

[Damon_Tor]

the str 16 halfling can bench, curl, squat the SAME as a str 8 human.

Not in 5e.

[Rusvul]

Yeah. In 5e, carrying capacity for Small and Medium creatures is the same (though it does increase for Large and larger, and decrease for Tiny.)

Your point about handle size doesn't really make sense either, though, Damon. A mace's handle isn't really designed for Large hands any more than a light hammer's is. You would certainly have issues with a smaller dagger or a basket-hilted rapier, but "light" doesn't consistently and uniquely translate to "small handle."

Given the somewhat nonsensical nature of the rules concerning Small creatures, I think a more important question for this hypothetical "size Big" is "does a Big humanoid using daggers mess with your suspension of disbelief." For me, no, it doesn't really, at least not any more than Small creatures using human-sized swords does.


Again, though: is there anything you want that couldn't be accomplished by one or two additions to Powerful Build? Adding a new creature size seems more complicated and inelegant to me, even if it probably wouldn't break much.

[Pex]

Being big implies two things, high strength and reach. 5E does allow PCs to have some of it. There are +2 ST races and reach weapons, but if a PC race is bigger than that it wouldn't be enough to justify. +4 ST would hurt Bounded Accuracy and a natural 10 ft reach for any weapon and 15 ft with a reach weapon affects combat too much as a constant. It's passable by spell because it uses up a resource and they can limit the spell effect. A player always having it could cause game balance problems. Maybe not, but it could be what the designers are concerned about. If being big doesn't have any extra mechanical effect than what already exists then it becomes flavor text. I don't think extra carrying capacity would be enough.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Honestly, I think that having small races (that take up the same size space and all) was a mistake on the designer's part, sacred cow or not. It's both a leaky abstraction and an absurdity, since body sizes/shapes are already all over the map.

I'd prefer the following:
Size only refers to how much space you take up in combat. All playable races are medium. Halflings and gnomes get an additional trait allowing them to fit in smaller areas without squeezing. No expectation that large size = more damage dice. Greatswords/longbows for everybody!

Tiny: 16 creatures/5' square (?)
Small: 4 creatures/5' square
Medium: 1 creature/5' square
Large: 10'x10'
Huge: 15'x15'
Gargantuan: 20'x20'