Spiders can grapple gnomes AKA the Size system is borked

[Greywander]

I've had my complaints about the size system in 5e before, but it was the epiphany in the title that provoked this post. I'll come back to that later, but first let me lay out some more mundane issues with the size system.

I have a feeling that some of these issues arise from the rules of 5e, though how many I don't know. Some of these rules are written, such as only being able to mount a creature at least one size larger than you (which is why horses are large), while others appear to be unwritten rules (e.g. no Large PC races). That said, let's run through some of the ridiculousness of the size system:

Dwarves, the most iconic "short" fantasy race, are medium sized. Oddly enough, this is probably the least egregious thing you'll see in this post. Dwarves are listed as being 4 to 5 feet tall (which seems a bit tall to me, but YMMV), and a "medium" object is one that fits into a 5-foot cube. Obviously, dwarves don't completely fill the volume of that cube, but they seem like the perfect height for a medium sized creature.
Dwarves and goliaths are both medium sized. Okay, so I can accept that within the parameters defined by D&D that dwarves are medium sized, but how on earth are they considered the same size category as a goliath? Dwarves are much closer to the "small" races of halflings and gnomes than they are to goliaths. It's possible for a goliath to be twice as tall as a dwarf, which is pretty much the definition of being one size category larger.
Horses are large, but not too large. Don't get me wrong, horses are big. And heavy. Apparently they can weigh anywhere from 900 to 2200 lbs. But "large" means that it takes up a 10-foot cube. There are other creatures in the large size category that seem much larger than a horse. This is kind of an issue as you get into the larger size categories, as that size has to cover a larger variety of sizes.
"Small" isn't a real size category, it's just medium with penalties. There are rules for how things change as you move up or down size categories. But for some reason, the small size gets special treatment, acting identical to medium for some things, and like a size smaller than medium for other things. It's kind of like how the Powerful Build trait is used as a sort "diet Large"; "Small" is just "diet Medium".
There are no sizes smaller than tiny. Cats and spiders are considered to be in the same size category. Now, cats are on point; if medium is a 5-foot cube, then tiny is a 1.25-foot cube, which is just right for the furry sneks with legs. Spiders, though... we're literally lumping creatures more than 10 times smaller than cats into the same size category. Which leads us back to the title.

Spiders can grapple gnomes and halflings.
According to the rules, you can grapple a creature that no more than one size larger than you. The smallest size is tiny, and the next size up is small. There is no creature too small to grapple gnomes, halflings, and other small races. So spiders can grappled a gnome and drag them around.

This does come with a caveat, though. Grappling requires a free hand, which neither spiders nor many beasts have. But this feels more than a little pedantic to me. You're kidding yourself if you think a grapple isn't exactly what's happening when a dog/wolf bites into someone and doesn't let go. I think the "free hand" requirement was only ever meant to apply to the players; since PCs aren't supposed to be beasts, it was never considered necessary to write grappling rules for creatures without hands. My houserule is that most beasts (and other handless creatures) can approximate a single hand, typically using mouth + forelegs. It's not as important how you fluff it, just that you limit them to one "hand". For most creatures, they would also lack the precision to wield weapons or use tools.

Grappling aside, another way of looking at this is that a halfling can ride a mastiff, but a spider is (apparently) too big to mount a cat.

Solutions?
I think there are two big changes that would help fix a lot of the issues:

Add one or two size categories below Tiny.
Add half-steps between each size. Small PC races (and dwarves?) become one half-step below medium. PC races one half-step above medium are permitted (goliath?).

If one full step up is twice as big, then a half-step up would be about 41% (i.e. square root of 2) bigger. This means that going up two half-steps (+41%, then +41% of your new size) ends you up at twice as big (this is just another way of saying that squaring the square root of 2 ends up at 2, big shocker).

Most of the existing rules can remain the same. Creatures within one half-step act as if they were the same size, only full-step differences matter in most cases. Carry capacity is also affected, increasing or decreasing by 41%. To keep things simple, if medium creature can carry 15*STR score, then this roughly translates into medium+1/2 carrying 21*STR score, while medium-1/2 carries 11*STR score, though you could just round these off to 20 and 10 respectively.

Now, this is kind of a pain, since it means we have to sort creatures into the proper half-step size, e.g. is this medium creature really medium, or are they medium +1/2, or medium -1/2? Worse, if we add some sizes below tiny, then we have to reevaluate the ability scores for creatures that fall into those size categories. Spiders might actually have decent STR scores, they're just so small that their carry capacity is crap. Although, if STR is all that is affected, and spiders end up as, say, Tiny-2, then all we'd have to do is multiply their STR score by 4 in order to end up with the same carry capacity as before. This means spiders end up with a STR score of 8, but two steps below tiny.

Yards vs. feet?
While we're on the subject, one thing I'd like to look into, though this might be getting a bit complex, would be to convert the spacing/size system to use yards (i.e. 3 feet) rather than 5 feet as the basic increment. This wouldn't actually be that difficult, as most spells and other effects have ranges in increments of 30 feet (i.e. 10 yards), and anything below 30 feet is necessarily within 1 foot of some 3-foot increment. The main advantage of this is that 1 yard = 1 square/hex, as opposed to 5 feet = 1 square/hex. There's no longer a need to divide by 5 in order to figure out how many spaces you can move or how far away you can shoot. This also allows for an easy conversion to metric by substituting meters for yards for our less Freedom-loving brethren across the pond. (More seriously, it makes more sense for a medieval fantasy setting to use imperial or imperial-style units, as metric hasn't been invented yet.)

What would be most affected would be melee (I'd say that unarmed and dagger attacks have a 1 yard range, most other melee weapons have a 2 yard range, and reach weapons have a 3 yard range). Another thing we could do is, instead of just using cubes for sizes, we could specify if a size was "tall" (two cubes stacked on top of each other), "long" (two cubes one in front of the other), or other such modifiers. Humans, for example, are medium-tall, which is to say they occupy a 3x3 foot square, and are 6 feet tall. Horses, rather than being 10 feet wide as they currently are, can use a long variant of a large size, being 6 feet tall/wide but 12 feet long.

(If we want to go small than one yard, we can resurrect some interesting units: The "span" is 9 inches, so half a yard is 2 spans, and half of that is 1 span. Perfect for measuring Small and Tiny creatures. Going even further down, a "nail" is 2.25 inches (1/16 of a yard), so half a span is 2 nails, and half of that is 1 nail.)

[col_impact]

Isn't the size system meant to be simple by design? You want the system to be simple enough for a 10 year old to pick up quickly and without hiccup since DnD is a game and also simple enough to be represented in 2d space, since 3d representation in table top is hard.

Excellent post btw.

[JoeJ]

The spiders in the MM can lift 30 pounds, and walk around unencumbered with 15. They can kill an ordinary person with two bites. I don't think they're as small as you're imagining them. The spiders you're used to in the real world* wouldn't have (or need) stats.

*unless you live in the Amazon Basin. Some of those suckers are feakin' scary!

[Greywander]

Isn't the size system meant to be simple by design? You want the system to be simple enough for a 10 year old to pick up quickly and without hiccup since DnD is a game and also simple enough to be represented in 2d space, since 3d representation in table top is hard.

Excellent post btw.
True, but I think they might have made it too simple, and plus the unique status of Small as "diet Medium" actually makes it more complicated since it breaks the standard rules for sizes. But it's good to remember not to get carried away "fixing" the issues.


The spiders in the MM can lift 30 pounds, and walk around unencumbered with 15. They can kill an ordinary person with two bites. I don't think they're as small as you're imagining them. The spiders you're used to in the real world wouldn't have (or need) stats.
This is a good point, they're probably not the 1-inch-diameter spiders you might see around the house. This looks more like the "giant" spiders like the goliath birdeater, which can have a legspan of up to 12 inches, putting it much closer to the size of a cat. Still, imagine one of these grappling and dragging a gnome or halfling, even with a larger spider like this it's still a bit silly.

[JoeJ]

This is a good point, they're probably not the 1-inch-diameter spiders you might see around the house. This looks more like the "giant" spiders like the goliath birdeater, which can have a legspan of up to 12 inches, putting it much closer to the size of a cat. Still, imagine one of these grappling and dragging a gnome or halfling, even with a larger spider like this it's still a bit silly.

I once watched a spider that couldn't have been more than 1/2 an inch long grab a moth that was at least three times its size. The moth fluttered and tried to fly away, but the spider was able to hold on to both the moth and the window sill.

[Fable Wright]

Thank you for the next worldbuilding element in my game. :smallbiggrin:

Though, a spider can't lift/carry 30lbs. They have to halve the weight, as Tiny creatures. Your spider can barely lift a 15lb weight, and can only get along with carrying around 5-7lbs of cooking supplies on his own. Takes around a hundred spiders to bring the halfling-cooking cauldron out of the pantry for the special occasion.

But really, spiders? They fast. A spider can grab a gnome by the scruff of the neck and drag him off at a rate of 10ft/second—and that's assuming his buddies don't dogpile on. The real reason why halflings stick together in large families? Someone needs to guard against the spiders and the ants. A halfling sees cobwebs, and he's already around the corner finding a big ol' human to make 'friends' with so there's someone willing to guard him against the spider menace.

Still better than crabs, though. Give those buggers a knife and they'll shank you good.

[Greywander]

I once watched a spider that couldn't have been more than 1/2 an inch long grab a moth that was at least three times its size. The moth fluttered and tried to fly away, but the spider was able to hold on to both the moth and the window sill.
It's not just a matter of proportions, otherwise you'd be able to drag an elephant around, it's also a matter of absolute size, and bigger is not better. This is the essence of the square-cube law: when you make something twice as big, it gets 8 times heavier but only 4 times stronger. Smaller animals can carry much more weight proportional to their own than a larger creature can. In fact, you can make a creature so big that it isn't strong enough to even lift itself (even bigger and not only can it not move, but it would be literally crushed to death under its own weight). This is why the biggest animals live in the ocean, where the water helps support their weight.

Being bigger has certain advantages, and strength is one of them, but only in an absolute sense. It's easier to lift 10 lbs. if you're 6 feet tall than if you're 6 inches tall. In the relative sense, the smaller you are the easier it is to lift something that weighs as much as you do, because although the bigger creature is stronger, they're proportionally heavier compared to their strength. If you want to know what it would be like to be twice as big, just imagine everything (scaled proportionally) being twice as heavy, including yourself.


Though, a spider can't lift/carry 30lbs. They have to halve the weight, as Tiny creatures. Your spider can barely lift a 15lb weight, and can only get along with carrying around 5-7lbs of cooking supplies on his own. Takes around a hundred spiders to bring the halfling-cooking cauldron out of the pantry for the special occasion.
I think those weights are already halved. Spiders have a STR score of 2, and carry weight for medium and small creatures is 15*STR score, tiny is half that. So 2*15/2 = 15 lbs, and push/lift/drag limit is double that, for 30 lbs.


But really, spiders? They fast. A spider can grab a gnome by the scruff of the neck and drag him off at a rate of 10ft/second—and that's assuming his buddies don't dogpile on. The real reason why halflings stick together in large families? Someone needs to guard against the spiders and the ants. A halfling sees cobwebs, and he's already around the corner finding a big ol' human to make 'friends' with so there's someone willing to guard him against the spider menace.

Still better than crabs, though. Give those buggers a knife and they'll shank you good.
Okay, this made me chuckle. It also reminds me of the spiders of Mirkwood in The Hobbit (the book, haven't seen all the movies). Just think of the stories Bilbo told the other hobbits when he got back to the Shire.

[rlc]

I just want to know what you would call the half-steps? Smallish? Largish?

[JNAProductions]

I agree that this is technically an issue within the rules, but I'd argue it's not a big issue in actual play.

I have zero issues adding a Diminutive size or whatever you'd like to call the really small stuff, but I do want to know: Have you ever seen this ACTUALLY happen? Or is it just "This COULD happen?"

[JoeJ]

But really, spiders? They fast. A spider can grab a gnome by the scruff of the neck and drag him off at a rate of 10ft/second

Unless you assume that grappling makes you immune to the encumbrance rules, a spider with Strength 2 can't drag an average gnome at all; all it could do is hold the gnome in place. And even unladen spiders only have a move of 20 feet, so if they dash they can manage 6.7 ft/second.

[No brains]

Regarding horses being large, remember that them taking up a 10-ft cube is an abstraction for simplification in combat.

Out of combat, a horse takes up a horse-worth of space.

In combat, I'm not getting that close to that horse. It can have its 10 feet.:smalltongue:

Though it would probably amuse you to consider that two horses grappling on a grid diagonal could be like 5 feet apart in a telekinetic struggle, leaving enough space for a medium creature to walk in between them.:smallbiggrin:

[da newt]

Yeah - its more than a little off when a 8' tall 488# Bugbear is the same size as a Dwarf or Elf (and why aren't elves a bit shorter in D&D?) and a 25# Kobold can grapple a 488# Bugbear, or anyone can grapple a rhinoceros/draft horse/young red dragon ...

But I also think you need to keep things as simple as possible for game play.

[Yakk]

If you have ever played ElfQuest, it has a Size attribute.

In D&D, imagine if instead of Str/Dex/Con, they had Fit/Disc/Size.

Roughly:
Str=Fit+Size-10
Dex=Fit+Disc-10
Con=Disc+Size-10

Then gradiations of size that are not granular categories would become natural.

[Keravath]

Keep in mind that players do not usually play spiders. DMs play spiders. As a result, what any particular spider can or can not do is dependent on DM fiat and not on the guidelines in the rule book.

In addition, as the OP mentioned, the grappling rules appear to be intended primarily for player use (though a DM could apply them to a particular monster if they think it appropriate). For example, if a monster has a specific ability to grapple or restrain a creature then that ability is listed in the monster stat block. Monsters do not have the same options as players. A DM can decide that an NPC or other creature could grapple or shove if it wished to do so but this is n

Look at spiders as an example. A single spider is such a small threat that it isn't even listed in the monster manual. You only get swarms of spiders whose only available action is a bite attack. A swarm of spiders can't grapple or restrain.

In addition there is a specific paragraph in the monster manual that is relevant:

"GRAPPLE RULES FOR MONSTERS
Many monsters have special attacks that allow them to quickly grapple prey. When a monster hits with such an attack, it doesn't need to make an additional ability check to determine whether the grapple succeeds, unless the attack says otherwise.
A creature grappled by the monster can use its action to try to escape. To do so, it must succeed on a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check against the escape DC in the monster's stat block. If no escape DC is given, assume the DC is 10 +the monster's Strength (Athletics) modifier."

The player rules for grappling specifically do not apply to monsters unless the DM decides it makes sense to use them.

Does it make sense to use them for a normal spider? Not to me but opinions may vary.

Basically, a normal sized spider does not have the ability to grapple in its stat block, there is a specific rule for monsters grappling that refers to monster special attacks. It is up to the DM whether a particular monster has any other form of grapple available. If a DM decides that a spider can grapple, it will grapple, it is a DM call since the rules do NOT give the ability to grapple to every creature in the monster manual by default. All the monsters are played by the DM so the DM applies whatever test of reasonableness they like to what the monsters can do and decide to do in their game.

Anyway, the example seems to be so far out there that it doesn't make sense to state that the size system is broken since it may allow for the case in exceptional circumstances if the DM wants to use it but spider's grappling isn't a player option. (the stat block for a shape changed druid in the form of a normal spider would only allow for grappling if the DM says "Yes" ... otherwise you go by what is in the stat block ... which as far as I know doesn't even exist for a normal spider ... so this is entirely up to the DM and not a rule issue).

As for sizes, the size categories are a generalization to simplify game play. Medium size runs from about 4.5 to 8 feet tall. Small is 2.5 to 4.5. Area control has very little to do with exactly how big the creature is. A large creature occupying a 10'x10' area has nothing to do with them being 10'x10' in size, it has to do with the area they can immediately control in combat which is larger than they are and is again a generalization/simplification in line with the spirit of 5e. It seems to work fine for me with a bit of common sense on the part of the DM.

[8wGremlin]

If you have ever played ElfQuest, it has a Size attribute.

In D&D, imagine if instead of Str/Dex/Con, they had Fit/Disc/Size.

Roughly:
Str=Fit+Size-10
Dex=Fit+Disc-10
Con=Disc+Size-10

Then gradiations of size that are not granular categories would become natural.

What is Disc?

[MaxWilson]

I've had my complaints about the size system in 5e before, but it was the epiphany in the title that provoked this post. I'll come back to that later, but first let me lay out some more mundane issues with the size system.

I have a feeling that some of these issues arise from the rules of 5e, though how many I don't know. Some of these rules are written, such as only being able to mount a creature at least one size larger than you (which is why horses are large), while others appear to be unwritten rules (e.g. no Large PC races). That said, let's run through some of the ridiculousness of the size system:

You overlooked the Squeezing Into Smaller Spaces rule which dictates that Large creatures like grizzly bears can fit into any space a human can (since humans can only squeeze into Small spaces and bears can only squeeze into Medium spaces, and Medium space = 5' cube = Small space) while gnomes can squeeze into any space a spider can. Either gnomes can squeeze into gopher holes, or gophers cannot.

Also the oddity that creatures are always square (even giant snakes, which should be long) and that a T Rex in 5e terms can fit into a 10' cube (maybe it's a mini T Rex?).

Also, falling damage, and jumping distances.

5E is definitely not GURPS: GULLIVER with smoothly-scaling size mechanics for any scale.

On the plus side, because 5E's size mechanics are so bizarre, nothing bad will happen if you throw them out and make your own. It's just more work, and enough of that work makes you think you're better off switching game systems.

[JoeJ]

Look at spiders as an example. A single spider is such a small threat that it isn't even listed in the monster manual. You only get swarms of spiders whose only available action is a bite attack. A swarm of spiders can't grapple or restrain.

The stat block for a single ordinary spider is on p. 337.


In addition there is a specific paragraph in the monster manual that is relevant:

"GRAPPLE RULES FOR MONSTERS
Many monsters have special attacks that allow them to quickly grapple prey. When a monster hits with such an attack, it doesn't need to make an additional ability check to determine whether the grapple succeeds, unless the attack says otherwise.
A creature grappled by the monster can use its action to try to escape. To do so, it must succeed on a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check against the escape DC in the monster's stat block. If no escape DC is given, assume the DC is 10 +the monster's Strength (Athletics) modifier."

The player rules for grappling specifically do not apply to monsters unless the DM decides it makes sense to use them.

You missed the section on p. 10 where it specifies that, in addition to the actions listed in the stat block, monsters can also take the actions that are available to all creatures, as listed in the PHB.


You overlooked the Squeezing Into Smaller Spaces rule which dictates that Large creatures like grizzly bears can fit into any space a human can (since humans can only squeeze into Small spaces and bears can only squeeze into Medium spaces, and Medium space = 5' cube = Small space) while gnomes can squeeze into any space a spider can. Either gnomes can squeeze into gopher holes, or gophers cannot.

Sure, if by "gopher hole" you mean the space that a tiny creature can control, which is explicitly stated to be 2.5 by 2.5 feet.

[Yakk]

What is Disc?
Discipline.

[Greywander]

This is starting to drift a bit off topic, so let me re-summarize my primary points:

There's no size smaller than Tiny. Tiny covers too many sizes. Small PCs can be grappled by any tiny creature.
The Small size doesn't follow the same conventions as other sizes. It acts like Medium for some things, but like one size below Medium for others.

My solution to the first issue is to add some sizes below Tiny. Two seems like it would do it. Tiny, as it currently exists, is a 2.5-foot cube, so I'd expect it to encompass creatures anywhere from 1 to 3 feet tall/long, so cats are actually at the lower end of that. One size below Tiny would be a 1.25-foot cube, and cats would probably fall here. Another size down would be a 0.625-foot cube, probably for things mouse and spider sized. An even smaller size might be required to model the smallest insects.

For the second issue, adding half-step size categories allows us to move current small races into a half-step below medium and make the rules for sizes consistent across all of them. Something like a goliath or centaur could be a half-step above medium, allowing them to satisfy the requirement of "technically not large" without trying to justify fitting them into a 5-foot cube.

I wanted to create a table listing out an example of such a system, but tables on the forums are kind of weird so I did it in a Google doc instead:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DYETzNLomcqYxcDpOplfRoU5hHkNC-Z6msBzgPzhoKE/edit?usp=sharing

Some of these are based on the size system from 3.5, which included Colossal as well as Diminutive and Fine. I filled in the rest of the gaps as best I could. Something to note is that most of the time you won't need to use any sizes above Gargantuan or below Tiny, but they're there if the need does arise.

Now, I noticed something while doing this. It seems sizes are already based on steps of 1.414 (square root of 2). Basically, in the vanilla system, each size increase comes with a space occupied increase of ~41.4%, but with a size missing between Medium and Large (which should be about 7 feet). Small is ~3.5 feet, so too big to fit more than one per square. The next size after Gargantuan, which in 3.5 is Colossal, would have a size of roughly 28 feet, rounded to 30. Seems like someone already did most of the math for 3.5, but with some oddities for Diminutive and Fine, which break from this standard.

I'm considering reworking sizes below Tiny to halve carry weight for each half step, rather than each full step. As it stands now, I'm skeptical that an average 4-inch tall creature can lift 10 lbs. But maybe this makes sense for magical creatures that size, like fairies. Actual bugs 'n stuff can just have really low STR scores.

[JoeJ]

I'm considering reworking sizes below Tiny to halve carry weight for each half step, rather than each full step. As it stands now, I'm skeptical that an average 4-inch tall creature can lift 10 lbs. But maybe this makes sense for magical creatures that size, like fairies. Actual bugs 'n stuff can just have really low STR scores.

Under what circumstances would you need to give a creature that small a stat block? Playing out a fight between a dwarf and, for example, a mouse would seem to be a pointless waste of time.

[MeeposFire]

Under what circumstances would you need to give a creature that small a stat block? Playing out a fight between a dwarf and, for example, a mouse would seem to be a pointless waste of time.

Of course fighting mice is silly...now if it were rats then you need to get killing you have a job to to do go get them!

[Greywander]

Under what circumstances would you need to give a creature that small a stat block? Playing out a fight between a dwarf and, for example, a mouse would seem to be a pointless waste of time.
Unless the dwarf is a druid and has wild shaped into such a small form before encountering the mouse.

Or maybe the dwarf is a wizard with a very small familiar. Or a Pact of the Chain warlock with a familiar who can shapeshift into such small forms.

Maybe the Polymorph spell is in play.

There's any number of reasons such a situation might come up. Most of the time you won't have to worry about it, but should the need ever arise, it's there for you. It's true, in a straight up dwarf-vs-mouse fight, there's no reason to stat out the mouse, just reduce the entire fight to one ability check or attack roll. It would really only matter in edge cases, but it's nice to already have rules ready to go when those edge cases come up.

[Dr. Cliché]

Regarding size categories, don't forget the centaur.

A horse is a large creature.

A horse with a human-torso in place of a head is a medium creature.

:smallconfused:

[JoeJ]

Unless the dwarf is a druid and has wild shaped into such a small form before encountering the mouse.

If they're close in size to one another, it would be easiest to just count one of them as medium and the other appropriately larger or smaller.


Or maybe the dwarf is a wizard with a very small familiar. Or a Pact of the Chain warlock with a familiar who can shapeshift into such small forms.

Maybe the Polymorph spell is in play.

There's any number of reasons such a situation might come up. Most of the time you won't have to worry about it, but should the need ever arise, it's there for you. It's true, in a straight up dwarf-vs-mouse fight, there's no reason to stat out the mouse, just reduce the entire fight to one ability check or attack roll. It would really only matter in edge cases, but it's nice to already have rules ready to go when those edge cases come up.

How would you actually use those size categories in play? A creature that small doesn't control space or block movement, and it's carrying capacity is effectively nothing. It has a reach of 0, which is irrelevant because it won't have any meaningful attacks. (Something like a black widow spider is a trap, not a fight - if you see it, you can avoid it. If you don't, make a saving throw.)


Regarding size categories, don't forget the centaur.

A horse is a large creature.

A horse with a human-torso in place of a head is a medium creature.

:smallconfused:

My copy of the MM has centaurs as large.

[Dr. Cliché]

My copy of the MM has centaurs as large.

Cool. Now go look at the player race.

[col_impact]

Cool. Now go look at the player race.

Congrats! You have unlocked the secret that player races can be no larger than medium or something balance-wise breaks!

[Dr. Cliché]

Congrats! You have unlocked the secret that player races can be no larger than medium or something balance-wise breaks!

If playing a large race in a game full of large and exotic creatures is enough to break your game then the solution is for the designers to go back and try again.

[col_impact]

If playing a large race in a game full of large and exotic creatures is enough to break your game then the solution is for the designers to go back and try again.

Or not! You have no idea how certain key balance areas get hidden under the rug so to speak! All of DnD is an abstraction. Races cannot be larger than medium or something breaks . . . and you do not need to know.

[Dr. Cliché]

Or not! You have no idea how certain key balance areas get hidden under the rug so to speak! All of DnD is an abstraction. Races cannot be larger than medium or something breaks . . . and you do not need to know.

{Scrubbed}

[col_impact]

{Scrubbed post, scrubbed quote}

Ha ha! If you think that pc as no more than medium size is NOT a design restriction then . . . carry on, nothing to see here!

[JoeJ]

Cool. Now go look at the player race.

Where do you see a centaur PC race? It's not in the PH,SCAG, or VGtM, and the one in Kobold Press's World of Midgard is large.

[Luccan]

I mean, size categories have had at least some of these excentricities since 3rd edition. Ok, there were smaller size categories, but dwarves and goliaths have been the same size category since then.

And Small acting near identical to Medium is pretty much identical to 3rd too, though I admit it's closer to being a penalty in this edition (as opposed to 3rd, when it was always a bonus outside a narrow set of builds). But it isn't so bad that the existing Small races are worthless.

Grappling is the weirdest interaction, but grappling is rarely ideal anyway (particularly for low Str creature like spiders). Still, I imagine any Tiny creature is roughly the size of a cat and I'm unaware of any description that counters this. If you're 3 1/2 feet tall, I think a feral cat is probably more of a threat, including in a grapple, than if you're the size of most human adults.

Edit: also, somewhat pedantic, but the player centaur was created for Ravnica; perhaps all Ravnican centaurs are smaller and it's just our assumption that the race is suitable for other settings that's causing an issue. Mind you, Large size only has two real benefits: carrying capacity and reach. It already has the first and doesn't get the penalty for being Large, being able to be hit from more squares. Actually, the designers may consider Large to be too negative, rather than positive. Bugbears basically get the entire benefit of increased size with none of the drawback, nor any other noted drawbacks.

[Fable Wright]

Edit: also, somewhat pedantic, but the player centaur was created for Ravnica; perhaps all Ravnican centaurs are smaller and it's just our assumption that the race is suitable for other settings that's causing an issue. Mind you, Large size only has two real benefits: carrying capacity and reach. It already has the first and doesn't get the penalty for being Large, being able to be hit from more squares.

They also get double weapon dice on every attack, though the Enlarge spell only sets that to an extra d4.

[Luccan]

They also get double weapon dice on every attack, though the Enlarge spell only sets that to an extra d4.

My bad. Still, that actually does seem to be a sensible balancing issue.

[JackPhoenix]

Cool. Now go look at the player race.

You assume the centaur in Ravnica is half-human, half-horse, when it clearly is half-human, half-ass-ed.


Edit: also, somewhat pedantic, but the player centaur was created for Ravnica; perhaps all Ravnican centaurs are smaller and it's just our assumption that the race is suitable for other settings that's causing an issue. Mind you, Large size only has two real benefits: carrying capacity and reach. It already has the first and doesn't get the penalty for being Large, being able to be hit from more squares. Actually, the designers may consider Large to be too negative, rather than positive. Bugbears basically get the entire benefit of increased size with none of the drawback, nor any other noted drawbacks.

It's also a fey, rather than monstrosity, like MM centaurs (it's actually the only non-humanoid playable race).


They also get double weapon dice on every attack, though the Enlarge spell only sets that to an extra d4.

Assuming you're using optional rule for creating NPCs.

[micahaphone]

Newtonian Physics and the Bohr model of the atom are still taught and used in schools, despite the fact that they're wrong. Why? Because in most cases these models work "good enough". If you're not dealing with anything too small/large or too fast, Newton's equations will get you the same answer as Einstein's, but in a much easier way. The Bohr model is useful for most chemistry, as the quantum state of electrons rarely matters when determining reactions and bonds.

5e's size categorizing system is a model. It works "good enough" for most scenarios, and the game devs trust you to adjucate in the scenarios outside of its bounds.

[JoeJ]

You assume the centaur in Ravnica is half-human, half-horse, when it clearly is half-human, half-ass-ed.

As an aside, a centaur that was a cross between a halfling and a miniature horse would be adorable.

[Greywander]

Regarding size categories, don't forget the centaur.

A horse is a large creature.

A horse with a human-torso in place of a head is a medium creature.

:smallconfused:
Ravnica centaurs appear to be pony-sized rather than horse-sized, so the medium size is justified. However, I don't know if the lore supports this, or if it was a concession made in order to introduce a playable centaur that isn't large.

I don't know that it's ever been confirmed, but there definitely seems to be a design rule against creating playable large races (though I think they've popped up in UA a couple times). I can understand that there might be some balance issues for large PCs, but it seems like an odd point to quibble over, especially since large creatures do exist and it's more than possible a PC might want to play one.

Perhaps this is more trouble than it's really worth. There might be an easier way to address the issues I mentioned.

[NaughtyTiger]

Or not! You have no idea how certain key balance areas get hidden under the rug so to speak! All of DnD is an abstraction. Races cannot be larger than medium or something breaks . . . and you do not need to know.

it's okay, the designers don't know either.

nothing would break if goliaths, centaur, minotaur were large. it would be different, not broken.


Mind you, Large size only has two real benefits: carrying capacity and reach. and the ability to grapple/shove Huge creatures.

[MaxWilson]

and the ability to grapple/shove Huge creatures.

And to hold chokepoints against Huge creatures.

And to move through chokepoints held by Small creatures (as difficult terrain).

And advantage against DMG Disarm.

[Lord Torath]

My copy of the MM has centaurs as large.
Cool. Now go look at the player race.In 2E Dark Sun, Thri-Kreen were Large, but had size M torsos, meaning they needed two hands for most Size L weapons (lances excepted). I would assume something similar would apply to centaurs, wemics, dracons, and similar creatures.

[Nagog]

I like the idea of adding new sizes smaller than Tiny (PF has a few names for ease of conversion), and I'd just get rid of the "Diet" sizes all together. Goliath is a good example, but I think a better one would be Loxodon or perhaps Bugbear. I'd go ahead and let them be Large PCs, with the modifier that they can fit in a 5x5 square (rather than 10x10, so that such PCs aren't forever locked out of buildings due to door sizes). Considering the only difference I can see between the Diet and regular sizes is carrying capacity, the only real change would be the ability to grapple huge creatures. With this change, may as well grant things like advantage to grappling things smaller than you (a loxodon could easily pick up a gnome by it's collar) and disadvantage when they are larger. The benefits to being Large are typically situational (beyond the Reach ability, but Bugbears already have that and even with that it's rare to see them used as a race).

As for changing the measurement system, I don't think there's much need to. I used to use Giger's 5e to look up 5e stats and the like (before it was privatized) and they already had their measurements in meters. I can only assume that the site was EU based, or at the very least not American based, and infer that books printed overseas already have the conversion. Idk how accurate to irl the measurements are (considering this thread exists, neither are the American measurements), but it doesn't matter too much to me.

[Dr. Cliché]

In 2E Dark Sun, Thri-Kreen were Large, but had size M torsos, meaning they needed two hands for most Size L weapons (lances excepted). I would assume something similar would apply to centaurs, wemics, dracons, and similar creatures.

Okay. So why aren't they Large creatures with that as a rule?

[MaxWilson]

Okay. So why aren't they Large creatures with that as a rule?

Because WotC does not excel at elegant game rule design.

And maybe also because WotC thinks of adventures in terms of five foot wide corridors, forgetting about the Squeezing Into Smaller Spaces PHB rule.

[Rukelnikov]

Assuming you're using optional rule for creating NPCs.

None (or all) of the rules under "Creating a Monster" are optional

[Garfunion]

As an aside, a centaur that was a cross between a halfling and a miniature horse would be adorable.
I now need a name for this race so I can stat it out and add it to my collection.

[micahaphone]

I now need a name for this race so I can stat it out and add it to my collection.

Shetlandos?

Shetlandians?

Dulmen?

Garrano?

[Garfunion]

Dulmen?
That name seems simply enough.
Thank you.

[micahaphone]

I just picked a few off a list of pony breeds :smallsmile:

[Demonslayer666]

Strength should be related to the size category. A small creature with a strength 10, is basically half the strength of a medium creature with strength 10. At least that's how I picture it.

Strength and size don't really matter in 5th, or matter little - unless the DM makes it so.

[Greywander]

Another potential use I thought of for this system is for shapeshifting. Some shapeshifting abilities give you the statistics of the creature you turn in to, while others allow you to retain your own statistics. In the latter case, one could imagine a scenario where someone with a STR of 20 transforms into, say, an ant, retaining their STR of 20. This gives them a carry capacity of 150 lbs, as they are a Tiny creature with a STR of 20. Using the alternate sizing system I propose, they would only have a carry capacity of 20 lbs, which is still wildly unrealistic, but not necessarily out of place in a high fantasy setting (or an anime setting, take your pick).

Something else occurs to me with regards to size and STR. STR is typically used for melee attacks, so artificially lowering STR to simulate a smaller creature will also lower their chance to hit and damage dealt. While this makes sense against larger targets, it could lead to a hilarious situation wherein one of that creature is trying to kill another, e.g. two ants fighting one another, but are either unable to hit, or even on a hit aren't able to inflict damage (due to damage penalty from low STR). This says to me two things:

A creature's stats, particularly STR, should be normalized against fighting similarly sized creatures. Are ants stronger or weaker than other creatures their own size?
Size differences should potentially inflict damage and/or to-hit penalties, making smaller creatures less dangerous to larger creatures. Many large creatures already reflect this with more HP and natural armor.

For that second point, I could see either (a) each full size step difference grants 1 point of damage reduction against all attacks (including magic?) from the smaller creature, or (b) each full size step difference grants +1 AC against the smaller creature. I'm not sure it's necessary to do both.

As for getting rid of half-step sizes (which someone mentioned), what about only retaining Small and Big as half-steps (i.e. the ones you'll probably see regularly for PC races), and getting rid of the other half steps? Well, even here, I think it's not so much "getting rid of" them as it is moving them into the optional, "they're here if you need them" category.

[Yakk]

Some shapeshifting abilities give you the statistics of the creature you turn in to, while others allow you to retain your own statistics.
What 5e mechanic permits you to shapeshift into an ant while keeping your strength intact?

[MaxWilson]

What 5e mechanic permits you to shapeshift into an ant while keeping your strength intact?

I got nothing, except a vague notion of stacking Small race + Reduce spell to become Tiny + Alter Self to become even tinier... But then you have to be a bipedal ant, or you need to be hexapedal originally. So I still got nothing.

[JoeJ]

What 5e mechanic permits you to shapeshift into an ant while keeping your strength intact?

Also, where is there a stat block for an ant? Shapeshifting into anything that doesn't have published stats obviously requires a good deal of DM fiat even before you consider anything else.

[Greywander]

What 5e mechanic permits you to shapeshift into an ant while keeping your strength intact?
It's true that such an ability does not currently exist that I am aware of. However, it would be incredibly shortsighted not to anticipate that such an ability or a similar ability might be introduced to the game at some point. The very existence of shapeshifting abilities that allow you to retain your own statistics implies it as a possibility, and it just makes sense to future-proof the game by making sure such an ability wouldn't break it. In fact, such an ability is already available to players in the form of a racial feat for yuan-ti purebloods, though this ability turns them into a medium snake so it eschews this particular issue. For now.

Another, similar ability is the imp's shapechange feature which allows them to turn into, among other forms, a spider, retaining their statistics while doing so. Imps are available to players via the warlock Pact of the Chain, and while it's not currently possible to alter the imp's stats it already has an impressive 6 STR, making it three times stronger than the spider that is in the MM. But just because it isn't currently possible doesn't mean it might not be at some point in the future. Taking the Sidekicks UA and applying it to your familiar gives it access to ASIs, allowing you to beef up its STR and make it a hulk of a spider. Heck, you don't even need an imp to do this, just be a wizard with a spider familiar. Or, if the Sidekick UA can't be applied to familiars, just get a pet spider, or a pet ant. This may only be UA for now, but anything that is UA could eventually be released as official.

Then there's the possibility of homebrew being introduced. And yes, I understand it's not the devs job to make sure your homebrew is balanced, but an ability that lets you shapeshift into a tiny insect has precedence in the rules so it shouldn't be too far out of line to make something like that available to PCs. Tweaking something that already exists in the rules is one of the least risky types of homebrew you can do. Heck, why not have a tiefling with imp heritage that trades their Infernal Legacy ability for the imp's Shapechanger ability? Entirely plausible.

It just baffles me that you think because something doesn't exist right now there's no reason to ensure we could handle it should it arise later on. Doubly so when there are already a number of similar things in the rules that are only one or two steps away from becoming the exact type of situation I'm talking about. This is just called "planning ahead", being able to anticipate a potential problem down the road and developing a strategy to deal with that problem should it arise. I'm not saying the rules have to handle "literally everything", just that it should be able to handle a slight tweak to something that is already present in the rules and has been since the release of the PHB.

[Yakk]

Oh god yes, we shouldn't add an extra rule just to handle a non-existent ability combination. That way lies madness. You end up with a pile of rules that handle corner cases that you can't actually reach.

We aren't designing a physics system, we are designing a game. And a game should have the least number of rules that produce the desired experience. Rules to deal with things in the game you cannot experience are rules you shouldn't have, unless you want to change the game to experience those things.

Here we are talking about adding rules to handle becoming a super-strong 1 cm sized spider without (a) a case why we'd want that to be in the game experience, or (b) any way to do that in the game as it stands, or (c) a reason to think that this rule would improve other parts of the game experience.

No.

Using handling "a 1 cm sized super-strong spider" to inspire rules, and seeing if we get a good game experience out of the resulting rules or improve other game experiences? Great. Go for it. Good muse-grist for the design-mill.

Now, this does mean "the game should be really careful with allowing you to change to arbitrary tiny sized creatures while keeping your physical stats unchanged". But that seems like a better way of handling it than layering on a size-scaling mechanism.

Heck, if you look above, I talked about adding a "Size" attribute to the game, so instead of T/S/M/L/H/G we have a numerical stat we can hook into formulas. That might improve the general game experience (and it might even handle the 1 cm spider case). I even pointed out an existing RPG that does this (ElfQuest). But I would never, ever say we needed Size to handle a non-existent ability combo; rather, take the experiences you do want to handle (a creature between goliath and halfling size fighting everything from dragons to dire wolves to goliaths to humans to dwarves to gnomes to pixies to swarms of insects) and see if it gives you a better game experience.

I mean, in Redwall D&D this could be really valuable.

[JoeJ]

If you use the variant encumbrance, a rat can only manage 5 lbs before being slowed by the weight. That's probably still too high, but not ridiculously so if you assume these are big brown rats nearly a foot long (not counting the tail), not the little things you see in pet stores. And the spider in the MM isn't of a kind you'd find in your house, it's something you yell "attercop" at.

[Greywander]

Perhaps you're right. All I was asking was for some scalability and consistency, but D&D isn't built to handle scalability. "Bounded Accuracy" is just the same old broken system from earlier editions, but with the values capped off before they get into the absurd range. I've heard it said before that most systems either do a good job of portraying superheroes or of portraying average Joes, but few systems are able to handle both well. Handling tiny insects is a similar issue.

The fact is that a system is generally built around handling a specific power level, and everything else is built around that. D&D, for example, is built around human-level adventurers. Dragons are implemented in a way that is relative to adventurers. The system is designed to handle adventurer vs. dragon combat, but not dragon vs. dragon combat. Spiders and other such insects are also implemented relative to adventurers, and spider vs. spider combat was never part of the design consideration. You were never meant to play a spider. Or a dragon. We could create rules to handle this, but they necessarily won't be as elegant as the existing rules because the system wasn't built to handle it.

I've wanted to create my own system for a while, likely based on Fudge. Maybe I should just go do that. Fudge actually does have built-in scalability, though this comes at the cost of other things, of course.

[MagneticKitty]

Regarding horses being large, remember that them taking up a 10-ft cube is an abstraction for simplification in combat.

Out of combat, a horse takes up a horse-worth of space.

In combat, I'm not getting that close to that horse. It can have its 10 feet.:smalltongue:

Though it would probably amuse you to consider that two horses grappling on a grid diagonal could be like 5 feet apart in a telekinetic struggle, leaving enough space for a medium creature to walk in between them.:smallbiggrin:

Yeah let's hope people aren't a 5 x 5 feet cube

[MaxWilson]

I've wanted to create my own system for a while, likely based on Fudge. Maybe I should just go do that. Fudge actually does have built-in scalability, though this comes at the cost of other things, of course.

Check out GURPS: GULLIVER and other stuff by T-Bone. You appear to have similar tastes in game systems including a desire for consistency at all scales.

Ref: http://www.gamesdiner.com/gurps-diner

For the record: GURPS GULLIVER is significantly different from standard GURPS 3E, although 4E is substantially more similar to it due to many GULLIVER fixes also getting incorporated into 4E (not necessarily because of GULLIVER). Standard GURPS 3E is still about as human-centric as D&D 5E is, but GURPS: GULLIVER smoothly handles things (like mountain-sized giants wrestling each other) that make both GURPS 3E and D&D 5E explode.

If you want skeletons with normal human strength and 1/10 normal human weight who therefore have fantastic jumping abilities as long as they don't try to carry anything heavy, you want negative encumbrance, which means you want GURPS: GULLIVER.

[pming]

Hiya!


I've had my complaints about the size system in 5e before, but it was the epiphany in the title that provoked this post. I'll come back to that later, but first let me lay out some more mundane issues with the size system.
==SNIP==


I'd just add a sentence or two at the end of the "Size" entry in the book that reads: "NOTE: Use the Size rules as guidelines, but toss them aside if they are going to break everyone's suspension of disbelief. A Spider (Size T) can not successfully Grapple a Gnome...that obviously makes no sense; so don't do it. Use your best judgement and keep playing".

Problem solved.

:)

Or...I guess you could write a multi-page document going into the minutia of weight vs torque vs pull vs footing, etc and wait for the cracks in it to show...and then do the whole process over again. I suppose. If you wanted to. I guess. *shrug* Hey, it's your game..."You do you, Boo-Boo!". :)

[JoeJ]

Hiya!



I'd just add a sentence or two at the end of the "Size" entry in the book that reads: "NOTE: Use the Size rules as guidelines, but toss them aside if they are going to break everyone's suspension of disbelief. A Spider (Size T) can not successfully Grapple a Gnome...that obviously makes no sense; so don't do it. Use your best judgement and keep playing".

Problem solved.

:)

Or...I guess you could write a multi-page document going into the minutia of weight vs torque vs pull vs footing, etc and wait for the cracks in it to show...and then do the whole process over again. I suppose. If you wanted to. I guess. *shrug* Hey, it's your game..."You do you, Boo-Boo!". :)

Or just accept that a spider big enough to block a space 2 1/2 feet square can indeed grapple a gnome (although with a strength of 2 it can't do it very well). I still fail to see why that idea blows anybody's mind.

[MaxWilson]

Or just accept that a spider big enough to block a space 2 1/2 feet square can indeed grapple a gnome (although with a strength of 2 it can't do it very well). I still fail to see why that idea blows anybody's mind.

Because it misses the point: this thread isn't about grappling, it's about the strangeness of 5E size categories. What happens when you cast Reduce on such a spider? Would it still be Tiny, or are you arguing that it ceases to exist? If it's still Tiny, find a spider which is naturally that size and assume we were talking about *that* spider all along. Rinse and repeat until you see the contradiction.

[JoeJ]

Because it misses the point: this thread isn't about grappling, it's about the strangeness of 5E size categories. What happens when you cast Reduce on such a spider? Would it still be Tiny, or are you arguing that it ceases to exist? If it's still Tiny, find a spider which is naturally that size and assume we were talking about *that* spider all along. Rinse and repeat until you see the contradiction.

If you cast Reduce on a tiny creature it has to remain tiny, because there is no smaller size category. If that's a problem, it will always be one as long as there are a finite number of size categories; one of them most, necessarily, be the smallest. Otherwise, everything just does what the spell description says. The dimensions are halved, it does less damage with weapon attacks, and it has disadvantage on strength checks, (including the one to grapple).

An ant, or a house spider, or any other creature of that size can't grapple anything at all, barring DM fiat, because it has no stat block. (And creating stat blocks for such things is IMO a solution in need of a problem.)

[MaxWilson]

An ant, or a house spider, or any other creature of that size can't grapple anything at all, barring DM fiat, because it has no stat block. (And creating stat blocks for such things is IMO a solution in need of a problem.)

See, it's not the idea of a humongous spider grappling a gnome that people have a problem with, it's this idea that rules are discontinuous at small sizes. "It has no stat block" just because it's small? So a druid wildshapes into a spider, an animal he's clearly seen before and the DM should be able to provide stats for, you... what? Tell him he can't because WotC didn't give you any stats for spiders?

Some of us find that approach untenable, and that's who this thread is for: people who like elegant gamerule design.

Edit: And BTW it's not like we haven't identified non-spider issues too, like a 5E T-Rex being able to cram itself into a 10' cube, a 15' tall Hill Giant being able to grapple a thousand-mile-long Stellar Dragon because it's Gargantuan, or a goblin being able to fit into all the exact same holes as a gopher because they can both fit into Tiny-sized spaces.

Extending the size system with sizes like Tiny 2, 3, 4... and Gargantuan 2, 3, 4... doesn't fix all of the problems but it at least gives the DM a framework with which to make sane rulings for some of them.

[JoeJ]

See, it's not the idea of a humongous spider grappling a gnome that people have a problem with, it's this idea that rules are discontinuous are small sizes. "It has no stat block" just because it's small? So a druid wildshapes into a spider, an animal he's clearly seen before and the DM should be able to provide stats for, you... what? Tell him he can't because WotC didn't give you any stats for spiders?

Some of us find that approach untenable, and that's who this thread is for.

Even if a druid wildshapes into it why does it need stats? A wizard can true polymorph somebody into a rock; does that need stats too?

[Keltest]

See, it's not the idea of a humongous spider grappling a gnome that people have a problem with, it's this idea that rules are discontinuous are small sizes. "It has no stat block" just because it's small? So a druid wildshapes into a spider, an animal he's clearly seen before and the DM should be able to provide stats for, you... what? Tell him he can't because WotC didn't give you any stats for spiders?

Some of us find that approach untenable, and that's who this thread is for.

Edit: And BTW it's not like we haven't identified non-spider issues too, like a 5E T-Rex being able to cram itself into a 10' cube, a 15' tall Hill Giant being able to grapple a thousand-mile-long Stellar Dragon because it's Gargantuan, or a goblin being able to fit into all the exact same holes as a gopher because they can both fit into Tiny-sized spaces.

Extending the size system with sizes like Tiny 2, 3, 4... and Gargantuan 2, 3, 4... doesn't fix all of the problems but it at least gives the DM a framework with which to make sane rulings for some of them.

Why would you ever need a stat block for a common house spider, or a garden variety ant? What possible interaction could they have with, well, anything that would even require stats for? If you step on a spider, you don't need to roll for damage, it just dies. If the outcome of a scenario seems like it should be obvious, then the DM should just declare it and move on. That's why we have people as the DM instead of just using a flow chart of rule interactions.

[MaxWilson]

Even if a druid wildshapes into it why does it need stats? A wizard can true polymorph somebody into a rock; does that need stats too?

Sometimes, yes, like if the rock gets attacked you need to know how hard it is to destroy.

I don't understand why you'd think that being able to create various types of stats for things in the game world is "a solution in search of a problem." It's fundamental to the DM's job of content creation and world-management.


Why would you ever need a stat block for a common house spider, or a garden variety ant? What possible interaction could they have with, well, anything that would even require stats for? If you step on a spider, you don't need to roll for damage, it just dies. If the outcome of a scenario seems like it should be obvious, then the DM should just declare it and move on. That's why we have people as the DM instead of just using a flow chart of rule interactions.

What is this thing "a stat block" you speak of? This thread is about one stat: Size, and one of the examples involves another stat, Strength. Why would you bother creating a whole bunch of stats if you're only using two?

When the druid attempts to grapple a goblin, he needs to know his Size and his Strength, and oddly enough it's not impossible because the smallest Strength is 0 and the smallest Size is Tiny. But you don't need to create "a stat block" for him to know that.

[AHF]

See, it's not the idea of a humongous spider grappling a gnome that people have a problem with, it's this idea that rules are discontinuous at small sizes. "It has no stat block" just because it's small? So a druid wildshapes into a spider, an animal he's clearly seen before and the DM should be able to provide stats for, you... what? Tell him he can't because WotC didn't give you any stats for spiders?

Some of us find that approach untenable, and that's who this thread is for: people who like elegant gamerule design.

Edit: And BTW it's not like we haven't identified non-spider issues too, like a 5E T-Rex being able to cram itself into a 10' cube, a 15' tall Hill Giant being able to grapple a thousand-mile-long Stellar Dragon because it's Gargantuan, or a goblin being able to fit into all the exact same holes as a gopher because they can both fit into Tiny-sized spaces.

Extending the size system with sizes like Tiny 2, 3, 4... and Gargantuan 2, 3, 4... doesn't fix all of the problems but it at least gives the DM a framework with which to make sane rulings for some of them.

One of the nice things is that 5E does give the DM the flexibility to make whatever rulings they believe are sane for their group and game. I don't have the same range of experience as many here, but I would think this is probably only an issue in practice at tables with people who don't want the DM to exercise that discretion and instead are trying to make arguments for "insane" rulings based on technical readings of the rule arguments (these people could include the DM). At the tables where I've played, this is a non-issue in practice. The Hill Giant wants to grapple the Stellar Dragon? Nope. Not happening. That is silly. Done.

For the OP, I agree with some of the flavor (like the Goliath / Dwarf contrast) you are flagging.

[Keltest]

Sometimes, yes, like if the rock gets attacked you need to know how hard it is to destroy.

I don't understand why you'd think that being able to create various types of stats for things in the game world is "a solution in search of a problem." It's fundamental to the DM's job of content creation and world-management.

Theres a difference between creating a system for a DM to handle a corner case that comes up unexpectedly, and trying to hard-weld those specific solutions onto the rules. We don't need a stat block for house spiders because the number of games in which the PCs meaningfully interact with them in a way that isn't just resolved with the DM declaring that the spider dies almost certainly numbers in the single digits.

[Telok]

Correct my math if I'm wrong, but a str 2 non-proficent spider has about a 1/40 chance to win a grapple against a 20th level str 20 proficent character. And about a 1/10 chance on a str 16 char with +2 proficency.

[MaxWilson]

Correct my math if I'm wrong, but a str 2 non-proficent spider has about a 1/40 chance to win a grapple against a 20th level str 20 proficent character. And about a 1/10 chance on a str 16 char with +2 proficency.

Why 20th level and Str 20? Are you trying to highlight how absurd d20 ability checks are, because the spider's odds against a legendary hero are not zero?