Hurtin' The Little Guy [Archive] - Wizards Community

Hurtin' The Little Guy [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Meneptolemus
07-03-07, 02:20 PM Hello everyone.
I've been lurking around here for a while and haven't really found anything to answer my question, so bear with me if this has been detailed elsewhere.
I'm in the process of working out a campaign, and I'm continually finding that my players are discouraged from playing small races simply because they inevitably will do less damage- Though this isn't universally true (we always have a gnome or a halfling, but they have always been casters of some sort), I'm wondering if anyone else seems to think that the little guys are getting too far penalized with smaller weapon damage in addition to having the automatic -2Str for being small. I understand the reasoning behind small= not as buff, but it seems to me that a halfling with a pointy object should be able to hurt someone just about as well as a taller person with a similar pointy object- he just may have to use both hands to hold it.
Any thoughts?
Majick
07-03-07, 02:34 PM But you have to think a little about the realism: even a little kid, a little muscley kid, a little well trained ninja muscley kid, isn't gonna do as much damage with his little sword as a regular warrior with his regular sword. It simply makes sense.

All i can say is go something that doesn't rely directly on strength for damage, such as a Rogues Sneak attack, a Warlocks Eldritch blast, a Scouts Skirmish damage, or better yet, take 1 level in Sword Sage and pick up the Shadow Blade feat, then use your dex to DAMAGE with a select few weapons (some of those weapons on the list being short swords and spiked chains!)

Also, really wanna be a melee character? Max strength. Go a barbarian. Get power attack and leap attack. Gauntlets of strength. implants, grafts, templates, or anything else that adds to strength.

... oh god... Half-Dragon Halfling... +6 to strength and small :P then go a barbarian, hehe, you'd only have a strength of 28 while raging if you rolled an 18 for your original strength score
bobothechimp
07-03-07, 02:35 PM He is smaller and cannot get as much leverage on a weapon.
The Eye of Kyi
07-03-07, 03:39 PM I too have considered this, but I also thinks it kind of makes sense from a realism standpoint. Less weight behind the blow = less damage and they have a shorter reach.

Also dont forget they do get a +1 AC Bonus for being small, which I think offsets the penalty on the to hit, but perhaps not so much on the small weapon damage.

Nonetheless while it does hurt the little guys a little, if someone wants to play a gnome or halfling fighter from an role playing standpoint, then they should not worry about the power / meta gaming aspect of less damage. if they are in it for the power gaming, then they need to be playing a half-orc barbarian anyway.

On that note one of the guys in my group came up with a halfling fighter outrider that dished out a bunch of damage and could move around the battlefield like the wind... quite effect even if a bit silly.
Fireclave
07-04-07, 12:08 AM -2 str for small races makes since to me. Not only do they have less leverage than larger races, but since they are smaller, they probably have proportionately less muscle mass. However, I've never seen anything in the rules that says a small race must have a -2 str, so you could create your own small races that are strong for their size (read: no str penalty).

But I think your players are looking at small size as the glass half empty. While it's not optimal for most melee fighters, being small is not that bad. The reduced damage for using smaller weapons sucks at low levels, but the actual difference is not that much. It's only 1 point less damage on average, and that is quickly mitigated as you advance in level and more of your damage steadily comes from magic enhancements.

Small size also nets you a +1 size bonus to attack rolls and AC and a +4 size bonus to hide. More AC is good for any character, and more attack bonus will either break even with the attack penalty for str-based characters, or make finesse fighters, archers, and ray-casters even better. Not too shabby. And who doesn't like a +4 bonus to hide, eh?

Even encumbrance is not a big deal. Small characters may be only able to carry 3/4 the stuff of medium characters, but all of their size appropriate equipment weighs 1/2. Small creatures can carry more size appropriate equipment than medium characters. And by the time wear encumbrance of your non-size-dependent swag becomes a major issue, the whole party should have invested in some HHH's or Bags of Holding.

The biggest penalties to bing small, IMO, is the -4 penalty to grapple checks and the -2 str makes it hard to qualify for Power Attack, and therefore makes creating a small THF character a bit of challenge. And since THF is typically considered the superior weapon style (over S&B and TWF), it's a bit harder to make small sized melee combatants that are as effective as medium sized melee combatants. But of course, abilities like Sneak Attack, ToB maneuvers, spell buffs, Wild Shape, and similar abilities makes even that disadvantage largely moot.

Food for thought. The difference between a gnome barbarian and a human barbarian in melee: The gnome will deal about 3 points less damage per attack on average (-1 on average for smaller weapon, -1 from Str penalty, -1 from having less of a Power Attack buffer), will hit just as often, but will have more AC (+1 size), more HP and and higher fort save (+2 con for being a gnome). Looks pretty even to me.

On that note one of the guys in my group came up with a halfling fighter outrider that dished out a bunch of damage and could move around the battlefield like the wind... quite effect even if a bit silly.
And to further that note, small sized characters make excellent mounted combatants. Since their mounts can be medium sized, they have a much easier time bringing their mounts into tight spaces like...say...dungeons with tight corners, low ceilings and 5ft wide halls. Dino mounts ftw :D
Ashen_Child
07-04-07, 09:34 AM Small size: -1 damage on weapons, +1 to attack and armor
Power attack: +2 damage at the cost of -1 to attack rolls

As far as i see that comes out in favor of the shorty ('course small races get a penalty to str too, which is likely the bigger problem)
SilentOne
07-04-07, 09:37 AM Particularly since that penalty to strength makes it harder for them to qualify for power attack.
baby_kamikaize_kobold
07-05-07, 05:05 PM As stated before the str penalty doesn't have to be there. As for less damage it isn't so much the weight behind the blow but what is in front of the blow. It is simple that small weapons deal less damge because their weapons which are considered normal to them have to be resized and as such are equivulant to a small medium weapon

Ex: small shortsword deals the same a medium dagger. The dagger's size is the same as the short sword.

sorry if this dosen't help
Metafictional
07-05-07, 08:14 PM Well actually, if you look at the majority of Small races in the MM you'll notice a surprising trend. Most of them are -4 Str.

If you look at the "Advancing Monster Size" table, you'll find a small creature advancing to Medium is supposed to get +4 Str.

So you see, Halflings and Gnomes get an amazing deal for creatures of their size. They're as strong as Small Half-Orcs!

Yes, the lower average damage hurts, so they tend to do about 2 less damage per attack, but for ranged and Weapon Finesse attacks, these guys rule with their superior attack bonuses.

And the improved AC is nice too. A Halfling Fighter with a Rapier and Weapon Finesse, plus a Shield, is a scary thing to face at low levels...
Bihlbo
07-05-07, 09:03 PM One thing I always remind people that point out the damage penalty is that it's a pretty minor component of overall damage compared to the Str issue. A high Str fighter power attacking with a two-handed longsword might get to add 14 damage to the weapon's damage die. Average out your dice, and the Medium guy does 18.5 damage while the Small guy does 17.5 damage. Who cares about -1 damage when you have +1 AC and attack?

There are situations where it really does make a big difference though. Monks are especially hindered, since they generally rely on hitting often rather than hard. Add up that average of -1 damage over 7 attacks per round and it makes a difference. Does it make as much of a difference as +1 on attack rolls for 7 attacks in a round? That's kinda tough to say.

One of the things I like about Small characters is that they can carry 3/4 of the load, but their armor and gear weighs 1/2 as much (vs. Medium).

Compare these two:
Medium rogue, weight limit 40 for Light load. Std. leather armor 20 lb, morningstar 6 lb, light mace 4 lb. Total 30 lbs before adding the lewt
Small rogue, weight limit 30 for Light load. Std. leather armor 10 lb, morningstar 3 lb, light mace 2 lb. Total 15 lbs before adding the lewt

The Medium character can carry 10 more lbs, and the Small character 15 more lbs, before they are slowed by a Medium load.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Meneptolemus 07-03-07, 02:20 PM	Hello everyone. I've been lurking around here for a while and haven't really found anything to answer my question, so bear with me if this has been detailed elsewhere. I'm in the process of working out a campaign, and I'm continually finding that my players are discouraged from playing small races simply because they inevitably will do less damage- Though this isn't universally true (we always have a gnome or a halfling, but they have always been casters of some sort), I'm wondering if anyone else seems to think that the little guys are getting too far penalized with smaller weapon damage in addition to having the automatic -2Str for being small. I understand the reasoning behind small= not as buff, but it seems to me that a halfling with a pointy object should be able to hurt someone just about as well as a taller person with a similar pointy object- he just may have to use both hands to hold it. Any thoughts?
Majick 07-03-07, 02:34 PM	But you have to think a little about the realism: even a little kid, a little muscley kid, a little well trained ninja muscley kid, isn't gonna do as much damage with his little sword as a regular warrior with his regular sword. It simply makes sense. All i can say is go something that doesn't rely directly on strength for damage, such as a Rogues Sneak attack, a Warlocks Eldritch blast, a Scouts Skirmish damage, or better yet, take 1 level in Sword Sage and pick up the Shadow Blade feat, then use your dex to DAMAGE with a select few weapons (some of those weapons on the list being short swords and spiked chains!) Also, really wanna be a melee character? Max strength. Go a barbarian. Get power attack and leap attack. Gauntlets of strength. implants, grafts, templates, or anything else that adds to strength. ... oh god... Half-Dragon Halfling... +6 to strength and small :P then go a barbarian, hehe, you'd only have a strength of 28 while raging if you rolled an 18 for your original strength score
bobothechimp 07-03-07, 02:35 PM	He is smaller and cannot get as much leverage on a weapon.
The Eye of Kyi 07-03-07, 03:39 PM	I too have considered this, but I also thinks it kind of makes sense from a realism standpoint. Less weight behind the blow = less damage and they have a shorter reach. Also dont forget they do get a +1 AC Bonus for being small, which I think offsets the penalty on the to hit, but perhaps not so much on the small weapon damage. Nonetheless while it does hurt the little guys a little, if someone wants to play a gnome or halfling fighter from an role playing standpoint, then they should not worry about the power / meta gaming aspect of less damage. if they are in it for the power gaming, then they need to be playing a half-orc barbarian anyway. On that note one of the guys in my group came up with a halfling fighter outrider that dished out a bunch of damage and could move around the battlefield like the wind... quite effect even if a bit silly.
Fireclave 07-04-07, 12:08 AM	-2 str for small races makes since to me. Not only do they have less leverage than larger races, but since they are smaller, they probably have proportionately less muscle mass. However, I've never seen anything in the rules that says a small race must have a -2 str, so you could create your own small races that are strong for their size (read: no str penalty). But I think your players are looking at small size as the glass half empty. While it's not optimal for most melee fighters, being small is not that bad. The reduced damage for using smaller weapons sucks at low levels, but the actual difference is not that much. It's only 1 point less damage on average, and that is quickly mitigated as you advance in level and more of your damage steadily comes from magic enhancements. Small size also nets you a +1 size bonus to attack rolls and AC and a +4 size bonus to hide. More AC is good for any character, and more attack bonus will either break even with the attack penalty for str-based characters, or make finesse fighters, archers, and ray-casters even better. Not too shabby. And who doesn't like a +4 bonus to hide, eh? Even encumbrance is not a big deal. Small characters may be only able to carry 3/4 the stuff of medium characters, but all of their size appropriate equipment weighs 1/2. Small creatures can carry more size appropriate equipment than medium characters. And by the time wear encumbrance of your non-size-dependent swag becomes a major issue, the whole party should have invested in some HHH's or Bags of Holding. The biggest penalties to bing small, IMO, is the -4 penalty to grapple checks and the -2 str makes it hard to qualify for Power Attack, and therefore makes creating a small THF character a bit of challenge. And since THF is typically considered the superior weapon style (over S&B and TWF), it's a bit harder to make small sized melee combatants that are as effective as medium sized melee combatants. But of course, abilities like Sneak Attack, ToB maneuvers, spell buffs, Wild Shape, and similar abilities makes even that disadvantage largely moot. Food for thought. The difference between a gnome barbarian and a human barbarian in melee: The gnome will deal about 3 points less damage per attack on average (-1 on average for smaller weapon, -1 from Str penalty, -1 from having less of a Power Attack buffer), will hit just as often, but will have more AC (+1 size), more HP and and higher fort save (+2 con for being a gnome). Looks pretty even to me. On that note one of the guys in my group came up with a halfling fighter outrider that dished out a bunch of damage and could move around the battlefield like the wind... quite effect even if a bit silly. And to further that note, small sized characters make excellent mounted combatants. Since their mounts can be medium sized, they have a much easier time bringing their mounts into tight spaces like...say...dungeons with tight corners, low ceilings and 5ft wide halls. Dino mounts ftw :D
Ashen_Child 07-04-07, 09:34 AM	Small size: -1 damage on weapons, +1 to attack and armor Power attack: +2 damage at the cost of -1 to attack rolls As far as i see that comes out in favor of the shorty ('course small races get a penalty to str too, which is likely the bigger problem)
SilentOne 07-04-07, 09:37 AM	Particularly since that penalty to strength makes it harder for them to qualify for power attack.
baby_kamikaize_kobold 07-05-07, 05:05 PM	As stated before the str penalty doesn't have to be there. As for less damage it isn't so much the weight behind the blow but what is in front of the blow. It is simple that small weapons deal less damge because their weapons which are considered normal to them have to be resized and as such are equivulant to a small medium weapon Ex: small shortsword deals the same a medium dagger. The dagger's size is the same as the short sword. sorry if this dosen't help
Metafictional 07-05-07, 08:14 PM	Well actually, if you look at the majority of Small races in the MM you'll notice a surprising trend. Most of them are -4 Str. If you look at the "Advancing Monster Size" table, you'll find a small creature advancing to Medium is supposed to get +4 Str. So you see, Halflings and Gnomes get an amazing deal for creatures of their size. They're as strong as Small Half-Orcs! Yes, the lower average damage hurts, so they tend to do about 2 less damage per attack, but for ranged and Weapon Finesse attacks, these guys rule with their superior attack bonuses. And the improved AC is nice too. A Halfling Fighter with a Rapier and Weapon Finesse, plus a Shield, is a scary thing to face at low levels...
Bihlbo 07-05-07, 09:03 PM	One thing I always remind people that point out the damage penalty is that it's a pretty minor component of overall damage compared to the Str issue. A high Str fighter power attacking with a two-handed longsword might get to add 14 damage to the weapon's damage die. Average out your dice, and the Medium guy does 18.5 damage while the Small guy does 17.5 damage. Who cares about -1 damage when you have +1 AC and attack? There are situations where it really does make a big difference though. Monks are especially hindered, since they generally rely on hitting often rather than hard. Add up that average of -1 damage over 7 attacks per round and it makes a difference. Does it make as much of a difference as +1 on attack rolls for 7 attacks in a round? That's kinda tough to say. One of the things I like about Small characters is that they can carry 3/4 of the load, but their armor and gear weighs 1/2 as much (vs. Medium). Compare these two: Medium rogue, weight limit 40 for Light load. Std. leather armor 20 lb, morningstar 6 lb, light mace 4 lb. Total 30 lbs before adding the lewt Small rogue, weight limit 30 for Light load. Std. leather armor 10 lb, morningstar 3 lb, light mace 2 lb. Total 15 lbs before adding the lewt The Medium character can carry 10 more lbs, and the Small character 15 more lbs, before they are slowed by a Medium load.