Reach Weapons for Small People?

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Are the Lance and Whip the only weapons that have the "Reach" property without the "Heavy" property?

It appears that there's no real way for someone like a goblin or a halfling to use a reach weapon that doesn't come with a caveat that will make them not as effective as a medium person with one, since the Lance has disadvantage if you use it against an enemy within 5 feet of you, which is only half as good as a Heavy weapon where the disadvantage is all the time, and the Whip has comparatively puny damage.

[KorvinStarmast]

Are the Lance and Whip the only weapons that have the "Reach" property without the "Heavy" property?

It appears that there's no real way for someone like a goblin or a halfling to use a reach weapon that doesn't come with a caveat Good. Choices have consequences. The choice to play a non medium sized creature has a consequence. This level of verisimilitude isn't a problem that needs solving.

Notes:
a. nobody else gets to turn a 1 in to another roll the way that a halfling does. :smallwink:
b. nobody else gets advantage on three mental saves they way certain gnomes do ... (except for that hot mess that is yuan ti ... blah)

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Oh, and lances don't count for the Polearm Master feat as well. How's a little person supposed to keep bigger monsters from just walking up and squishing them, which is the whole point of using a reach weapon in the first place?

[Unoriginal]

Oh, and lances don't count for the Polearm Master feat as well. How's a little person supposed to keep bigger monsters from just walking up and squishing them, which is the whole point of using a reach weapon in the first place?

All the ways people without Polearm Master do + their special capacities?

Dodging, hiding, etc.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Yeah, the reach weapon restriction should probably be removed. As it is, it mostly exists as one of those "enforced flavor" things that 5e is mostly doing away with in more recent days. Small races not being able to use reach weapons isn't really a balance concern, Goblins aren't better in other ways than a standard race, and such a restriction doesn't effect them at all if they go Rogue or Wizard, it's just a way for the designers to try and discourage Goblin Barbarians. It's outdated design philosophy and absolutely nothing breaks if a DM just disregards it.

[Willie the Duck]

Oh, and lances don't count for the Polearm Master feat as well. How's a little person supposed to keep bigger monsters from just walking up and squishing them, which is the whole point of using a reach weapon in the first place?

The purpose of a reach weapon, as I see it, is to have a larger zone of control, and thus more control over the battlefield (and thus a better chance of stopping the bigger monsters from getting past you to the squishy characters beyond).

Regardless, whips transmit sneak attack and smite damage just fine, as well as dueling fighting style bonus, Hunter's Mark, Hex, and all the other damage boosts in the game. Lances can be wielded with 5' reach weapon in the other hand. I understand if a particular build you wanted to make (say, halfling champion fighter or similar) is not well-supported, and yes that sucks. However, the problem of an effective small person reach-based combat type is a solved problem.

[Unoriginal]

it's just a way for the designers to try and discourage Goblin Barbarians.

Untrue. Barbarians don't require reach weapons.

[Willie the Duck]

Untrue. Barbarians don't require reach weapons.
I think there was an implied jump to the general penalties small characters have with heavy weapons.

[Unoriginal]

I think there was an implied jump to the general penalties small characters have with heavy weapons.

Fair, but Barbarians don't require heavy weapons either.

Also worth noting, not only the Barbarian has an easy time cancelling the disadvantage from using Heavy weapons, there are quite a few ways to (pardon the joke) take advantage of the fact you know you'll have disadvantage anyway (like pile up ways you get disadvantage since it won't affect you more than it already does).

[da newt]

"Lances can be wielded with 5' reach weapon in the other hand."

This is true only if you are mounted. If you are mounted on a LARGE mount it is never an issue as you can act as if you occupy any of the 4 squares your mount occupies.

LANCE - Special: You have disadvantage when you use a lance to Attack a target within 5 feet of you. Also, a lance requires two hands to wield when you aren't mounted.



I find the reach of a short bow, hand crossbow, light cross bow or any of the thrown weapons usually makes up for the lack of small PC reach weapons (other than the whip).

[Amdy_vill]

Fair, but Barbarians don't require heavy weapons either.

Also worth noting, not only the Barbarian has an easy time cancelling the disadvantage from using Heavy weapons, there are quite a few ways to (pardon the joke) take advantage of the fact you know you'll have disadvantage anyway (like pile up ways you get disadvantage since it won't affect you more than it already does).

I think you're missing the point, the "Encouraged" Playstyle is being discouraged by the race. yes, you don't need heavy weapons as a barbarian but it's encouraged both mechanical(Not directly on the class but because of other balance choices) and in RP. there is more to a class than its abilities, how do those abilities abstractly interact with other rules and balance ideas.

[NecessaryWeevil]

I think you're missing the point, the "Encouraged" Playstyle is being discouraged by the race. yes, you don't need heavy weapons as a barbarian but it's encouraged both mechanical(Not directly on the class but because of other balance choices) and in RP. there is more to a class than its abilities, how do those abilities abstractly interact with other rules and balance ideas.

This is not a bug, but a feature. It's ridiculous for a 3-foot-tall halfling to be using a 6-foot-long halberd (or a greatsword) as easily as a 6-foot-tall human. If I nevertheless decide to play a Small Barbarian (as indeed I did) it's precisely because I want to explore and work around those limitations.
Think about Lord of the Rings. Frodo et al. were hobbits. Gimli was a dwarf. Legolas was an elf. Aragorn was a Dunedan. All of these things mattered, made them better at some things and worse at others, and were important aspects of their characters. I don't play RPGs to be a shapeless blob, and if I say "I'm a three-foot tall halfling!" then I want that choice to matter.

[Amdy_vill]

This is not a bug, but a feature. It's ridiculous for a 3-foot-tall halfling to be using a 6-foot-long halberd (or a greatsword) as easily as a 6-foot-tall human. If I nevertheless decide to play a Small Barbarian (as indeed I did) it's precisely because I want to explore and work around those limitations.
Think about Lord of the Rings. Frodo et al. were hobbits. Gimli was a dwarf. Legolas was an elf. Aragorn was a Dunedan. All of these things mattered, made them better at some things and worse at others, and were important aspects of their characters. I don't play RPGs to be a shapeless blob, and if I say "I'm a three-foot tall halfling!" then I want that choice to matter.

but the point is 5e specifically move away from this, that why people dislike it when 5e enfocusess the flavor of a race. 5e was built around your fundamental choices opening up avenues of play not shutting them down. I also just flys in the face of the rule of cools in early editions there was ways around the size restrictions that let you be effective.

Also, what are you talking about ridiculous, I can play a ****ing devil who specializes in telling jokes and killing people with laughter in this game. the possibility of options from a real-world standpoint is just dumb in this system.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

This is not a bug, but a feature. It's ridiculous for a 3-foot-tall halfling to be using a 6-foot-long halberd (or a greatsword) as easily as a 6-foot-tall human. If I nevertheless decide to play a Small Barbarian (as indeed I did) it's precisely because I want to explore and work around those limitations.
Think about Lord of the Rings. Frodo et al. were hobbits. Gimli was a dwarf. Legolas was an elf. Aragorn was a Dunedan. All of these things mattered, made them better at some things and worse at others, and were important aspects of their characters. I don't play RPGs to be a shapeless blob, and if I say "I'm a three-foot tall halfling!" then I want that choice to matter.

The 3-foot tall halfling can have 20 strength and be unable to use the halberd effectively, whereas a 10-strength human is not penalized. Would you say that's "Ridiculous"?

DnD doesn't purport to be a Physics Simulator or to be at all based in realism. I mean, creating energy out of nothing like a Fireball is pretty ridiculous, too!

[stoutstien]

The heavy tag is purely a mechanical feature and has nothing to to with the relative size or weight of the weapon. The same way if you are a barbarian in rage you can't cast spells or if you are a human you don't have dark vision. They aren't perfect as far as balance is concerned but 5e runs with pretty loose tolerances.

[kingcheesepants]

The 3-foot tall halfling can have 20 strength and be unable to use the halberd effectively, whereas a 10-strength human is not penalized. Would you say that's "Ridiculous"?

DnD doesn't purport to be a Physics Simulator or to be at all based in realism. I mean, creating energy out of nothing like a Fireball is pretty ridiculous, too!

I was kinda thinking that it seems silly to have a halfling with a glaive or whatever, but you're absolutely right. If you're strong you're strong and there doesn't seem to be a good reason to deny a small paladin the same ability to wield a polearm as their otherwise equal medium counterpart. Maybe change heavy to something like you have disadvantage using this weapon unless you have a strength of 14 or higher. Thus we can keep the mechanical restrictions but also not have it tied to race.

[JonBeowulf]

Just jumping in to say I really like threads like these. It lets me know which of y'all I'd allow at my table and which of you I'd drop before Session 0.

I'm not saying anyone's having fun wrong overall, but it's certainly wrong for the games I run.

[BamBam]

Kobold's Pack Tactics can remove the disadvantage from using a lance to allow you to consistently attack normally with it. Same with net.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I was kinda thinking that it seems silly to have a halfling with a glaive or whatever, but you're absolutely right. If you're strong you're strong and there doesn't seem to be a good reason to deny a small paladin the same ability to wield a polearm as their otherwise equal medium counterpart. Maybe change heavy to something like you have disadvantage using this weapon unless you have a strength of 14 or higher. Thus we can keep the mechanical restrictions but also not have it tied to race.

Its not about strength, its about having the proper leverage to use something of that size. The tail end of the weapon would hit the ground if you aren't tall enough. Now if the halfling was flying that would take care of the issue but ON the ground the ground will get in the way of swinging the weapon.

[kingcheesepants]

Its not about strength, its about having the proper leverage to use something of that size. The tail end of the weapon would hit the ground if you aren't tall enough. Now if the halfling was flying that would take care of the issue but ON the ground the ground will get in the way of swinging the weapon.

Ah, yes that makes sense. In which case I suppose Heavy should probably be renamed to Large or Long or something like that to indicate that it's the size rather than weight causing the issue and maybe indicate that a flying character can use it without an issue even if they're small. Although I feel like there should be ways around the problem. As Bam Bam said pack tactics is one way to get around disadvantage but that requires being a kobold and doesn't really solve the problem since then you don't benefit from the advantage like you would had you been using a sword or whatever. Maybe there can be a racial feat for small characters something like; Adaptable fighter, you can use weapons with the heavy property without suffering from size penalties normally associated with such weapons. Maybe let them raise Str by 1 as well.

[Amdy_vill]

Its not about strength, its about having the proper leverage to use something of that size. The tail end of the weapon would hit the ground if you aren't tall enough. Now if the halfling was flying that would take care of the issue but ON the ground the ground will get in the way of swinging the weapon.

I don't think you understand how weapons work. most of the leverage of a weapon comes from the center of mass in regards to the hilt. you can make a great sword from a 3ft tall kid and if the blacksmith knows what he's doing you can balance the sword for the kid. mostly by increasing the weight of the hilt but Ficatioal dnd metals could help. is it practical no it would cost a ridiculous amount but dnd also makes other high-quality weapons rather cheap.

[Willie the Duck]

Okay, with regards to realism --
small creatures (human children or adult halflings and such) have a smaller reach, less leverage, and are less able to wield longer items effectively. In theory, all 'S' characters should have some kind of penalty when wielding weapons not made for them, when using said weapons as a size 'M' character would*, and size S characters wielding weapons designed for size S characters ought to have a reach disadvantage, compared to size M characters wielding weapons designed for size M characters. All things being equal, person height and weapon reach are combat advantages (right up until the swordsman is inside your pike's reach or you get into a grapple, etc.). On the other hand, the best way for for a size S character to offset their relative reach disadvantage is to use as long a weapon as they can. So if we go down the realism route, the best scenario for a halfling fighter is for them to use a halfling-sized polearm that doesn't exist in the 5e ruleset, which would give them a M-sized character's normal-weapon reach (again, a rule setup not supported by 5e).
*distinction added to head-off using 'M'-sized one-handed weapon two-handed, etc.

D&D has never gone that far, but 3.0 and 3.5 did approach it*. 3.0 had size-S creatures using one handed swords and spears as two handed weapons, and 3.5 had specific size-S versions of weapons. Neither had size-S characters explicitly have a shorter reach than everyone else using the same weapon type. It also was the edition that culled most every restriction from spellcasting in the name of 'no one liked them,' while simultaneously imposing every constraint imaginable upon martial characters fighting with weapons in the name of 'but realistically....,' highlighting exactly why heading too far down this line of thinking is perhaps not the best plan.
*oD&D and AD&D also had restrictions on demihuman weapons used, as well as weapon reach rules (that I never once say implemented in the wild, up until post-2000 'let's try to run this completely by-the-book' experiments).


but the point is 5e specifically move away from this, that why people dislike it when 5e enfocusess the flavor of a race. 5e was built around your fundamental choices opening up avenues of play not shutting them down. I also just flys in the face of the rule of cools in early editions there was ways around the size restrictions that let you be effective.

Also, what are you talking about ridiculous, I can play a ****ing devil who specializes in telling jokes and killing people with laughter in this game. the possibility of options from a real-world standpoint is just dumb in this system.

In general, I agree. Although there seem to be as many exceptions as there are examples of this being the case (plus the druid choosing not to wear metal armor, which is another complete derail of otherwise apparent design decisions). 5e is the great inconsistency edition, which honestly it had to be to be the 'please everyone... enough' edition.

I think, given that they also chose to have halflings and gnomes and such max out at the same natural maximum strength as a half-orc, based mostly on the notion that doing otherwise just means that no one picks a halfling barbarian or str-based fighter, the whole heavy-weapon disadvantage is rather out of place.


I don't think you understand how weapons work. most of the leverage of a weapon comes from the center of mass in regards to the hilt. you can make a great sword from a 3ft tall kid and if the blacksmith knows what he's doing you can balance the sword for the kid. mostly by increasing the weight of the hilt but Ficatioal dnd metals could help. is it practical no it would cost a ridiculous amount but dnd also makes other high-quality weapons rather cheap.

Oh for god's sakes no. Let's not go down the 'you're clearly ignorant' route. Seriously.

[Amdy_vill]

Oh for god's sakes no. Let's not go down the 'you're clearly ignorant' route. Seriously.

I sorry if weapons are more complex than heavy sticks. is it practical to make large weapons from small people no is it possible yes kinda it's definitely possible if you have fictional metals.

[Gignere]

They just need reach weapons that’s not heavy. Maybe call it a long spear. 1D8 damage with reach. Now small folks would have a reach weapon, in fact it makes more logical sense that small folks would specialize in reach weapons more so than other creatures. Because without a reach weapon they are at a distinct disadvantage.

[Xervous]

I sorry if weapons are more complex than heavy sticks. is it practical to make large weapons from small people no is it possible yes kinda it's definitely possible if you have fictional metals.

But if you can make a heavy weapon work for a small creature in this way, why can’t you also just use the method for a medium creature to use a weapon that would otherwise be unwieldy? Repeat for each size category.

The proper manufacturing explanation just opens another rabbithole. I agree it’s not something that should be entertained.

[Amdy_vill]

But if you can make a heavy weapon work for a small creature in this way, why can’t you also just use the method for a medium creature to use a weapon that would otherwise be unwieldy? Repeat for each size category.

The proper manufacturing explanation just opens another rabbithole. I agree it’s not something that should be entertained.

What I said before resting on the pretext the small races are as strong on average as medium races, this is an upper limit on the size of a weapon. realistically you can't make a sword longer than about 100 inches before physics starts to make your sword both impossible to balance properly and have internal integrity. although with fictional metals you could extend it. it's unlikely that you could make a working sword longer than 20ft.

I personally don't think the "proper manufacturing explanation" is good either but the explanation of why a small race can't use a heavy weapon was so bad I need to point it out. Personally, I think 5e design philosophy of removing enforced flavor is the better answer.

[Luccan]

I reject the notion that Small size "should" have a weapon-based penalty in 5e. There's no mechanical advantage to being a Small creature, except perhaps in significantly more niche situations than normal combat, and if it's a question of realism, I'd like point out halflings are perfectly capable of wielding a longsword, warhammer, or battle-axe one-handed, which seems equally "ridiculous" to them wielding most Heavy weapons.

[Amdy_vill]

I reject the notion that Small size "should" have a weapon-based penalty in 5e. There's no mechanical advantage to being a Small creature, except perhaps in significantly more niche situations than normal combat, and if it's a question of realism, I'd like point out halflings are perfectly capable of wielding a longsword, warhammer, or battle-axe one-handed, which seems equally "ridiculous" to them wielding most Heavy weapons.

I completely forgot about something so Longswords in 5e are closer to Hand and a half swords than longswords(Longswords and Bastard swords seem to have been compressed in this edition) Hand and a half swords while lighter then greatswords did range from slightly small to slightly larger the greatswords. 33-55 inches with great swords being from 45-50.

[KorvinStarmast]

They just need reach weapons that’s not heavy. Maybe call it a long spear. 1D8 damage with reach. Now small folks would have a reach weapon, in fact it makes more logical sense that small folks would specialize in reach weapons more so than other creatures. Bravo, good thinking. I had a post a while back about a "martial spear" niche that is missing from the weapons table. I think you have the right idea. Drop the thrown property, add the reach property.

Martial Spear Spear 7 gp 1d8 piercing 4 lb. Two Handed; Reach

Problem solved. :smallbiggrin: (Have it in simple weapons or martial weapons, your call)

[JackPhoenix]

I reject the notion that Small size "should" have a weapon-based penalty in 5e. There's no mechanical advantage to being a Small creature, except perhaps in significantly more niche situations than normal combat, and if it's a question of realism, I'd like point out halflings are perfectly capable of wielding a longsword, warhammer, or battle-axe one-handed, which seems equally "ridiculous" to them wielding most Heavy weapons.

Except being able to use mounts that actually fit inside dungeons (and speaking of mounts, BM rangers with medium flying beasts, or battlesmith artificer). And being able to use cover that wouldn't help bigger creatures as much. And being able to move through large creature's spaces. Neither is "significantly more niche than normal combat". And being able to squeeze in tiny-sized spaces.

[Silly Name]

In a recently-started 5e campaign, one of the players (a newbie to 5e, but not to D&D in general) wanted to make a halfling paladin wielding a greatsword, just for the heck of it. And I thought "you know, it is dumb that he'd have to handicap himself because of the Heavy tag"

So I did away with it. I'd rather use 3.x approach of giving Small characters weapons with a smaller damage die than impose disadvantage on Small characters for wanting to use certain weapons, and even then in that edition being Small-sized provided concrete mechanical advantages.

The game certainly doesn't get broken by the greatsword-wielding halfling, though, so I'm just going to houserule the Heavy tag away for my games, I think. It doesn't really contribute to make the game more fun or interesting, in my experience.

[KorvinStarmast]

In a recently-started 5e campaign, one of the players (a newbie to 5e, but not to D&D in general) wanted to make a halfling paladin wielding a greatsword, just for the heck of it. And I thought "you know, it is dumb that he'd have to handicap himself because of the Heavy tag" Longsword two handed (versatile) is a 1d10 damage die. Same damage as a halberd. See also Battle Axe and Warmanner. On the other hand, if you want to mod the game as DM to fit a particular thing, no harm done when all is said and done.

[solidork]

I played a game where we added a magic item that you could add to a weapon that would remove the heavy property and add the finesse property and it was fine. I did the most theoretically busted thing you could do with it and combined PAM and Sneak Attack and it wasn't broken or anything.

[da newt]

"you can make a great sword from a 3ft tall kid"

NO - you cannot make a sword from a kid. The materials are all wrong for creating a blade.

The rational issue for reach weapons and heavy weapons is that no matter how strong you are, you are only so BIG so it doesn't work. A 3' tall 100 lb gnome can't swing a Maul effectively because no matter how much force they can generate with their massive strength, they only have 100 lbs of @$$ to keep them planted. The little dudes are gonna knock themselves off their feet all the time if they are slinging a heavy weapon around.

But in a fantasy world ...

[Amdy_vill]

"you can make a great sword from a 3ft tall kid"

NO - you cannot make a sword from a kid. The materials are all wrong for creating a blade.

The rational issue for reach weapons and heavy weapons is that no matter how strong you are, you are only so BIG so it doesn't work. A 3' tall 100 lb gnome can't swing a Maul effectively because no matter how much force they can generate with their massive strength, they only have 100 lbs of @$$ to keep them planted. The little dudes are gonna knock themselves off their feet all the time if they are slinging a heavy weapon around.

But in a fantasy world ...

I am just going to points out the plenty of small kids(5-9) were trained with full-size weapons historically(Blunded training blades and obviously we are talking about the rich how had money to train their kids). the only real oddity that separates historical examples is the height. most small races are as heavy as historical individuals but are still smaller. there is also the 3' gnome being as strong as a full-grown man.

I think you are massively overestimating how much pull weapons have if you are trained to use them. while an individual who does not know how to use a sword is likely to fall down if you know anything about stance and proper swings you should be while grounded even when swinging around a 9-pound great sword. because yes it's only 9 pounds and most of that is in the hilt. a properly made one should only have 1.5 - 0.5 pounds above the center of mass depending on the size of the person.

Edit: I have been picking on greatsword because its the only one that is relatively hard to justify, as Glaives are primarily thrusting and cutting weapons, while you can swing them you are better off using them like the polearm they are. Great exes don't excited so I am going to ignore them. Halberds are the same as Glaives. Mauls are rather small in real life and also not called mauls. what the game calls a maul is real a light Warhammer. Pikes are another polearm and those trusting and cutting and no real easy way to lose balance or be hindered. heavy crossbow literally made to make archers obsolete, requires relatively little strength for a weapon, and only weighs a few pounds. rather short too, there are some dubious records of small children using them. like 4-7-year-olds. and the longbows might be hard to use for a small folk but people can shoot them with their teeth and pinky toes so I wouldn't put it past a halfling.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

A 3' tall 100 lb gnome can't swing a Maul effectively because no matter how much force they can generate with their massive strength, they only have 100 lbs of @$$ to keep them planted. The little dudes are gonna knock themselves off their feet all the time if they are slinging a heavy weapon around.


Currently, I could make a Kenku barbarian that's 5'0 and only weighs 90 pounds and has 3 strength, well within the rules of 5e provided rolling for stats (8 strength if not, still serves the point) and have them wield a maul effectively without disadvantage. But an 4'0, 80 pound goblin with 20 strength, also within the rules, would have disadvantage on this feat no matter what. Do those 10 pounds really make that much of a difference? What if I put on platemail to weigh me down? Is the height the problem? If so, a Dwarf can also be 4'0 tall, but can wield a maul just fine, so it can't be that.

The whole thing is arbitrary and again just exists to enforce a certain flavor. The fact of the matter is that allowing small races to use heavy weapons has no mechanical impact on the game and only really serves to limit players creatively so its a bit outdated and perfectly fine to ignore.

I wouldn't do away with the Heavy tag altogether though, but only because I believe a few abilities make use of it (great weapon master, I think certain monk restrictions bar Heavy weapons).

[Witty Username]

It is weird what 5e chooses to enforce.
Races having strengths and weaknesses so we are going to eliminate specific ability score increases.
On the other hand, small PC's can't use any of the good strength weapons.

Also, creativity is good until a rogue tries to sneak attack with a hand axe or a paladin tries to smite with a fist.

I has become this mix of mold breaking and enforced tropes in a bunch of inconsistent ways.

[Silly Name]

Longsword two handed (versatile) is a 1d10 damage die. Same damage as a halberd. See also Battle Axe and Warmanner. On the other hand, if you want to mod the game as DM to fit a particular thing, no harm done when all is said and done.

But the thing is, it wasn't about damage die or reach. It was simply about playing an halfling with a greatsword, and the base rules were going to punish that player for what was a purely stylistic choice.

The rule about Heavy weapons and Small characters isn't fun nor interesting, it doesn't make the game better or adds tactical depth. Removing it doesn't really alter balance in any sensible way, it's not like Halfling and Gnomes become overpowered if they can use greataxes and polearms.

At best, I am thinking about changing it to being "if you're Medium size, you need at least 12 Strength to use a Heavy weapon without disadvantage, and 14 Strength if you're Small size".

[Gale]

The heavy weapon property is easily my least favorite things about 5th edition. It always felt like an awkward way to gatekeep small characters from focusing on strength. They can do it, but it's almost always sub-optimal outside of some niche circumstances such as dual-wielding lances. While I don't think there is anything wrong with sub-optimal character choices I feel it happens to be a bit too on the nose here. There is a world of difference between playing an Orc Wizard and a strength-based Halfling Fighter. The orc can still do everything any other wizard can but is simply a bit worse at it. While the halfing can't even use a greatsword without incurring disadvantage. Sure they could use a longsword instead, but at that point they might as well have focused on dexterity and went with a rapier.

I understand that the small races were given strong racial abilities to counteract their inherent weaknesses, but I still just generally dislike the design choice here. Every other race is viable for nearly any character build, especially if you use the new rules from Tasha's. But the poor small races are still stuck leaning into the "small and nimble" stereotype. I feel like their racial traits, despite being powerful, only serve to further lock them into their preconceived archetypes.

Honestly, I think the heavy weapon property is partially to blame for why we don't have more than four small player races. It inherently makes every small race weaker and subsequently makes balancing them harder than it probably should be. Heavy just limits player creativity which I think is awful for a game that's entirely about creativity.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Currently, I could make a Kenku barbarian that's 5'0 and only weighs 90 pounds and has 3 strength, well within the rules of 5e provided rolling for stats (8 strength if not, still serves the point) and have them wield a maul effectively without disadvantage. But an 4'0, 80 pound goblin with 20 strength, also within the rules, would have disadvantage on this feat no matter what. Do those 10 pounds really make that much of a difference? What if I put on platemail to weigh me down? Is the height the problem? If so, a Dwarf can also be 4'0 tall, but can wield a maul just fine, so it can't be that.


Whenever one draws an arbitrary line, the edge cases are going to make it look questionable. Why is it okay to drive 100 kph on a highway, but not 101 kph?
Nevertheless, this doesn't invalidate the concept of speed limits.

[KorvinStarmast]

But the thing is, it wasn't about damage die or reach. It was simply about playing an halfling with a greatsword, and the base rules were going to punish that player for what was a purely stylistic choice. No, it is not punishment, and I don't see how you can call it "stylistic" when there are mechanical issues. Plus, a halfling wielding a longsword two handed Looks Like a human wielding a 2hander. So my solution fits your stylistic point to a T. :smallcool:

As I'm not DM, this is the PoV of someone else; you guys do whatever fits your table.

[KaussH]

I feel its a moving goalpost issue. In the past, small pcs had a st negative, and a st cap, and a limit on a lot of the 2 handed/bigger weapons.
Then the st cap was removed
Then the st negative was removed
Then a st positive was doable

I presume you get the idea. Mechanically 1st ed, a halfling with a great sword is kind of a joke, with all the coded st related restricions in place.

Today, for some people it is the next logical goalpost to move to.

At this point i suspect all the races/ancestors/ kin/ ect should just be removed from game, and turned into flavor only, and then a list of points and race feature and disadvantages. Then once you buy what you want you pick your race and try and see how close to a member of that race you are.

[KorvinStarmast]

At this point i suspect all the races/ancestors/ kin/ ect should just be removed from game, and turned into flavor only, and then a list of points and race feature and disadvantages. Then once you buy what you want you pick your race and try and see how close to a member of that race you are. Let's take it a step further: remove halflings and gnomes, goblins and kobolds, from PC race choices. Make the default PC Medium Sized.
Why?
That's the basic humanoid framework anyway.

Keep: humans, tabaxi, dwarfs, drow, tortles, tritons, half orcs, etc.

That makes the Tasha's custom race (remove small there also) a really nice, generic, tabula rasa.

[kingcheesepants]

I think the points about large weapons being difficult for smaller folks to wield is valid but I also agree that it seems to be an aspect of inconsistent enforced flavor. One could just do away with the heavy tag altogether but than you lose some of the distinctiveness of those weapons (and weapons are already too similar IMO) and leaving it as is seems to be punishing small players unnecessarily. What if we added another bullet to Pole Arm Master and Great Weapon Fighter. By taking those feats you can also ignore the heavy tag when using the appropriate weapon. Therefore there is a cost to being small and wanting to use a greatsword or a halberd but it's a cost that they most likely would have been paying anyways (since any build that utilizes those weapons is most likely going to take those feats).

[loki_ragnarock]

In a recently-started 5e campaign, one of the players (a newbie to 5e, but not to D&D in general) wanted to make a halfling paladin wielding a greatsword, just for the heck of it. And I thought "you know, it is dumb that he'd have to handicap himself because of the Heavy tag"

So I did away with it. I'd rather use 3.x approach of giving Small characters weapons with a smaller damage die than impose disadvantage on Small characters for wanting to use certain weapons, and even then in that edition being Small-sized provided concrete mechanical advantages.

The game certainly doesn't get broken by the greatsword-wielding halfling, though, so I'm just going to houserule the Heavy tag away for my games, I think. It doesn't really contribute to make the game more fun or interesting, in my experience.

https://www.geishasblade.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/odachi-24.jpg

Awesome.

[sambojin]

Just for a simple way, if the player really wants a heavy weapon for their character but they're small, simply drop the damage down a die-size (so d10->d8 for instance) and take the heavy property off it. Or, the disadvantage causing bit of it, at least. Chuck 50gp onto the cost, to represent the better/ lighter/ stronger materials that were used to construct it.

Problem solved. Your size still has consequences, but they're pretty minor.

[Witty Username]

In a game without feats, two-handing a longsword should be fine. In a game with feats you are likely to get buried under GWM. you could use PAM on a spear though. Personally, I have house ruled before that spears have reach instead of thrown, partially to get historical use partially to separate them from javelins.

If the goal is reach, spear house rule works fairly well, if you are concerned with edge cases you could say spears have reach when used by characters with martial weapon proficiency.

If the goal is greatsword, in no feats two-handing a longsword is different by 1.5 avg damage. not much to sweat over. In a game with feats, allowing GWM to work with longswords for small creatures would probably be the smallest change.

Also, samurai has on-demand advantage if you are set on needing a greatsword.