House rule: Ignore the small penalty sidebars. - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

House rule: Ignore the small penalty sidebars.

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
lorderebus
Apr 29, 2009 18:42:36 Would ignoring the penalties for small characters unbalance the game? It doesn't seem like it. Neither the gnome OR halfling get anything extra for their small size, at least not statwise, and they pay for what everyone else gets with two penalties that basically tell them "lol no you can't play certain things!"

And I think that goes against the atmosphere 4E is trying to generate, and I have decided to remove it to allow small characters to play barbarians.

Has anyone tried doing this already in a campaign and if so, how did it turn out?
#2
erk_
Apr 29, 2009 19:07:42 Been doing it for ages, never looked back. As you say, small characters don't exactly outshine the other races, and the penalty is totally against the entire 4e philosophy. I've no idea who thought it was a good idea to keep it in; it belongs in an 'optional rules' supplement.
#3
Rustmonster
Apr 29, 2009 22:56:49
Been doing it for ages, never looked back. As you say, small characters don't exactly outshine the other races, and the penalty is totally against the entire 4e philosophy. I've no idea who thought it was a good idea to keep it in; it belongs in an 'optional rules' supplement.

It seems that the devs sort of expected you to make all of these "throw the Smalls a bone" situations to compensate for the penalty, like traps that can't hit or don't trigger from Small creatures, or small spaces to fit into. These are of course:

1) Bunk anyway, as they are just pandering to certain players to make up for the penalty, and are usually situations that are not specificlly a benifit to the Small character alone (like if the party needs the Small character to do something to advance. It's pretty much a cutscene).

2) Are not explicitly stated in the rules as needing to be there to compensate, so some, and I will hazard most, DMs will not include them.

Really, if that is what they wanted to be done, they should have made it more explicit that it is on the DM's shoulders to make up for the restriction. Which is also, of course, silly.
#4
gregt_314
Apr 29, 2009 23:35:04 I don't know anyone who's dared to play a small character yet, despite some twenty or so characters going past my table, so it's all in the realm of a hypothetical.
#5
wyld_mutation
Apr 29, 2009 23:50:53 I have several outlines for small characters waiting for use. Just need to use them.

Have you looked at the racial traits and feats for small characters? I've always thought they made up for a few measly restrictions (which have the EXACT SAME effect as the old small rules in most cases).

I mean what are the real downsides to being small? You get locked out fo some mechanics which, truth be told, don;t make sense in a small creature. Fullblade? Sure let the halfling run around with a sword twice as tall as it, let's not even bother to consider the fact the 6' tall human has trouble with it at times despite their training.

But hey, ignoring the sidebars won't kill the game.
#6
lordmorbis
Apr 29, 2009 23:52:43 The way I would personally rule it is to allow a Small character to take a Special Training feat for a weapon group that allows them to use that group like a medium sized character.

From the looks of it the small character races (Halfling/Gnome and Kobold/Gobbo if you like monster races) do get some nice stuff for being small, like the racial feats. Means that if the player wants to have a Small character who has been trained to use a Greatsword then they can, but they have to pay a price to do so.

(Also means that if the same Small Character wants to get a Fullblade he has to pick up yet another feat. Its probably not completely balanced, but whenever I change ingame rules to grand a benefit I like to take something away as well)
#7
Rustmonster
Apr 30, 2009 0:41:57
Have you looked at the racial traits and feats for small characters? I've always thought they made up for a few measly restrictions (which have the EXACT SAME effect as the old small rules in most cases).

In the old rules, Small races got a +1 to AC and attack bonus. There was something they got in return.

Feat taxes are not an acceptable way to solve engineered problems. It's just penalizing you for being penalized.

Their racials are strictly on par with those of other races. Small races do not get extra benifits.

I mean what are the real downsides to being small? You get locked out fo some mechanics which, truth be told, don;t make sense in a small creature. Fullblade? Sure let the halfling run around with a sword twice as tall as it, let's not even bother to consider the fact the 6' tall human has trouble with it at times despite their training.

Ah, the "doesn't make sense" arguement. Just like it doesn't make sense that every Small race in existance is apparently so blitheringly stupid that they can't make weapons sized for themselves and instead have to use those of Medium races, races who are about 20% taller than them? Smell the realism.

The way I would personally rule it is to allow a Small character to take a Special Training feat for a weapon group that allows them to use that group like a medium sized character.

Why should I be forced to take a feat to do something that other characters can do for free? Again, feat taxes are not an acceptable solution.

From the looks of it the small character races (Halfling/Gnome and Kobold/Gobbo if you like monster races) do get some nice stuff for being small, like the racial feats. Means that if the player wants to have a Small character who has been trained to use a Greatsword then they can, but they have to pay a price to do so.

Their racials and racial feats are strictly on par with those of other races. They should not be penalized for having the same options as everyone else. And again again, feat taxes.

(Also means that if the same Small Character wants to get a Fullblade he has to pick up yet another feat. Its probably not completely balanced, but whenever I change ingame rules to grand a benefit I like to take something away as well)

But again, what is the justification in the first place for removing the option to use certain weapons without wasting feats? You aren't "granting a benifit". You are simply imposing a different penalty. Instead of lowering their weapon dice by way of worse weapons, you are taxing them a feat. Do you understand how this is not a benifit?

This is like if they made a race that was strictly on par with all other races in every way, except it couldn't use Second Wind. Giving that race a Racial Feat that let's them use Second Wind is not a "benifit", it is not a "solution". It is still a penalty.

Ugh, I wish I hadn't gotten involved in another Small weapon restrictions debate. I'm not in the mood for a shouting match between the two camps telling eachother why they are wrong. Everyone has their own opinion, and my opinion is that the Small weapon restriction is arbitrary at best an moronic at worst. There is no benifit to compensate, and other than an ill-concived notion that the abstract mechanics used somehow foster "realism", there is no justification.

There are a billion ways they could have handled this without outright penalizing Small races using weapons. My favourite is that Small races have their own weapons, all of the exactly the same mechanically as those of Medium creatures. However, if a Small uses Medium weapons or vis versa, they would take a penalty to damage rolls/attack rolls to show how they have dificulty using an improperly sized weapon. That way, not only do we remove the illogical "Halfling weilding a weapon almost the same size as himself" dillema that many have, but it also removes my pet peeves, the arbitrary penalization aspect, as well as the "Too dumb to make their own weapons" aspect.
#8
gregt_314
Apr 30, 2009 0:49:31
Ah, the "doesn't make sense" arguement. Just like it doesn't make sense that every Small race in existance is apparently so blitheringly stupid that they can't make weapons sized for themselves and instead have to use those of Medium races, races who are about 20% taller than them? Smell the realism.

Look, I'm with you on the penalty being un-fun, but not necessarily unrealistic. It's not like tools, where you can just make a crowbar or stepladder for a different body size. The reason a longbow can shoot further and stronger is because it's bigger and takes more strength to draw. The reason a two-handed sword does more damage isn't just because you can put more strength behind it, but because it's a larger and heavier piece of metal that carries more momentum. Traditional 2H swords and claymores and suchlike didn't cut the enemy so much as bludgeon them.

There's no getting around the fact that there's only so much metal a halfling can lift, and only so much leverage it can apply. And while I'd like to see a version of the halfling that doesn't come with negatives, I don't think realism is a solid basis for making that argument.
#9
Crimson_Concerto
Apr 30, 2009 3:23:31 Ignoring the small size penalty is one of the first house rules on my list. It's completely ridiculous and completely contrary to the 4E racial design philosophy.

Friend: But you're not making any sense. Halflings should have to use smaller weapons for being so small. It makes no sense for them to be able to use the same size weapons as humans or do the same damage!
Me: All right then. Remember back in 3.5 how small size got a bonus to hit? Well I'm changing that into a bonus to damage under the exact same logic. They do use smaller weapons that do less damage, but their increased precision with those weapons compared to a medium size creature leaves us with a damage penalty followed by a damage bonus meaning there's no net change, so there's no need for any mechanical difference.
Friend: Oh... okay.

Problem solved.
#10
Einlanzer
Apr 30, 2009 13:23:25 It kinda makes sense to me. A small race using a one handed weapon isn't at a disadvantage, because the penalties they would face are already abstracted into the combat rules (- damage, + hit cancel each other out). However, a small race fighting with a 2 handed weapon that specifically emphasizes power and physique over mobility and finesse faces an additional disadvantage because of their comparative stature. They should be using a weapon that would offer them advantageous tactics to offset their small stature instead of spotlighting it attempting to compete with the raw power of someone with three times their mass.
#11
Rustmonster
Apr 30, 2009 18:27:02
Ignoring the small size penalty is one of the first house rules on my list. It's completely ridiculous and completely contrary to the 4E racial design philosophy.

Friend: But you're not making any sense. Halflings should have to use smaller weapons for being so small. It makes no sense for them to be able to use the same size weapons as humans or do the same damage!
Me: All right then. Remember back in 3.5 how small size got a bonus to hit? Well I'm changing that into a bonus to damage under the exact same logic. They do use smaller weapons that do less damage, but their increased precision with those weapons compared to a medium size creature leaves us with a damage penalty followed by a damage bonus meaning there's no net change, so there's no need for any mechanical difference.
Friend: Oh... okay.

Problem solved.

I think that this idea is brilliant. It is the best of both worlds. No penalty for those of us who don't want to be hit with a stick and told "Bad! Play the steriotype!", and it has a justification for those who absolutly need one in order to preserve their fragile versmilitude.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 lorderebus Apr 29, 2009 18:42:36	Would ignoring the penalties for small characters unbalance the game? It doesn't seem like it. Neither the gnome OR halfling get anything extra for their small size, at least not statwise, and they pay for what everyone else gets with two penalties that basically tell them "lol no you can't play certain things!" And I think that goes against the atmosphere 4E is trying to generate, and I have decided to remove it to allow small characters to play barbarians. Has anyone tried doing this already in a campaign and if so, how did it turn out?
#2 erk_ Apr 29, 2009 19:07:42	Been doing it for ages, never looked back. As you say, small characters don't exactly outshine the other races, and the penalty is totally against the entire 4e philosophy. I've no idea who thought it was a good idea to keep it in; it belongs in an 'optional rules' supplement.
#3 Rustmonster Apr 29, 2009 22:56:49	Been doing it for ages, never looked back. As you say, small characters don't exactly outshine the other races, and the penalty is totally against the entire 4e philosophy. I've no idea who thought it was a good idea to keep it in; it belongs in an 'optional rules' supplement. It seems that the devs sort of expected you to make all of these "throw the Smalls a bone" situations to compensate for the penalty, like traps that can't hit or don't trigger from Small creatures, or small spaces to fit into. These are of course: 1) Bunk anyway, as they are just pandering to certain players to make up for the penalty, and are usually situations that are not specificlly a benifit to the Small character alone (like if the party needs the Small character to do something to advance. It's pretty much a cutscene). 2) Are not explicitly stated in the rules as needing to be there to compensate, so some, and I will hazard most, DMs will not include them. Really, if that is what they wanted to be done, they should have made it more explicit that it is on the DM's shoulders to make up for the restriction. Which is also, of course, silly.
#4 gregt_314 Apr 29, 2009 23:35:04	I don't know anyone who's dared to play a small character yet, despite some twenty or so characters going past my table, so it's all in the realm of a hypothetical.
#5 wyld_mutation Apr 29, 2009 23:50:53	I have several outlines for small characters waiting for use. Just need to use them. Have you looked at the racial traits and feats for small characters? I've always thought they made up for a few measly restrictions (which have the EXACT SAME effect as the old small rules in most cases). I mean what are the real downsides to being small? You get locked out fo some mechanics which, truth be told, don;t make sense in a small creature. Fullblade? Sure let the halfling run around with a sword twice as tall as it, let's not even bother to consider the fact the 6' tall human has trouble with it at times despite their training. But hey, ignoring the sidebars won't kill the game.
#6 lordmorbis Apr 29, 2009 23:52:43	The way I would personally rule it is to allow a Small character to take a Special Training feat for a weapon group that allows them to use that group like a medium sized character. From the looks of it the small character races (Halfling/Gnome and Kobold/Gobbo if you like monster races) do get some nice stuff for being small, like the racial feats. Means that if the player wants to have a Small character who has been trained to use a Greatsword then they can, but they have to pay a price to do so. (Also means that if the same Small Character wants to get a Fullblade he has to pick up yet another feat. Its probably not completely balanced, but whenever I change ingame rules to grand a benefit I like to take something away as well)
#7 Rustmonster Apr 30, 2009 0:41:57	Have you looked at the racial traits and feats for small characters? I've always thought they made up for a few measly restrictions (which have the EXACT SAME effect as the old small rules in most cases). In the old rules, Small races got a +1 to AC and attack bonus. There was something they got in return. Feat taxes are not an acceptable way to solve engineered problems. It's just penalizing you for being penalized. Their racials are strictly on par with those of other races. Small races do not get extra benifits. I mean what are the real downsides to being small? You get locked out fo some mechanics which, truth be told, don;t make sense in a small creature. Fullblade? Sure let the halfling run around with a sword twice as tall as it, let's not even bother to consider the fact the 6' tall human has trouble with it at times despite their training. Ah, the "doesn't make sense" arguement. Just like it doesn't make sense that every Small race in existance is apparently so blitheringly stupid that they can't make weapons sized for themselves and instead have to use those of Medium races, races who are about 20% taller than them? Smell the realism. The way I would personally rule it is to allow a Small character to take a Special Training feat for a weapon group that allows them to use that group like a medium sized character. Why should I be forced to take a feat to do something that other characters can do for free? Again, feat taxes are not an acceptable solution. From the looks of it the small character races (Halfling/Gnome and Kobold/Gobbo if you like monster races) do get some nice stuff for being small, like the racial feats. Means that if the player wants to have a Small character who has been trained to use a Greatsword then they can, but they have to pay a price to do so. Their racials and racial feats are strictly on par with those of other races. They should not be penalized for having the same options as everyone else. And again again, feat taxes. (Also means that if the same Small Character wants to get a Fullblade he has to pick up yet another feat. Its probably not completely balanced, but whenever I change ingame rules to grand a benefit I like to take something away as well) But again, what is the justification in the first place for removing the option to use certain weapons without wasting feats? You aren't "granting a benifit". You are simply imposing a different penalty. Instead of lowering their weapon dice by way of worse weapons, you are taxing them a feat. Do you understand how this is not a benifit? This is like if they made a race that was strictly on par with all other races in every way, except it couldn't use Second Wind. Giving that race a Racial Feat that let's them use Second Wind is not a "benifit", it is not a "solution". It is still a penalty. Ugh, I wish I hadn't gotten involved in another Small weapon restrictions debate. I'm not in the mood for a shouting match between the two camps telling eachother why they are wrong. Everyone has their own opinion, and my opinion is that the Small weapon restriction is arbitrary at best an moronic at worst. There is no benifit to compensate, and other than an ill-concived notion that the abstract mechanics used somehow foster "realism", there is no justification. There are a billion ways they could have handled this without outright penalizing Small races using weapons. My favourite is that Small races have their own weapons, all of the exactly the same mechanically as those of Medium creatures. However, if a Small uses Medium weapons or vis versa, they would take a penalty to damage rolls/attack rolls to show how they have dificulty using an improperly sized weapon. That way, not only do we remove the illogical "Halfling weilding a weapon almost the same size as himself" dillema that many have, but it also removes my pet peeves, the arbitrary penalization aspect, as well as the "Too dumb to make their own weapons" aspect.
#8 gregt_314 Apr 30, 2009 0:49:31	Ah, the "doesn't make sense" arguement. Just like it doesn't make sense that every Small race in existance is apparently so blitheringly stupid that they can't make weapons sized for themselves and instead have to use those of Medium races, races who are about 20% taller than them? Smell the realism. Look, I'm with you on the penalty being un-fun, but not necessarily unrealistic. It's not like tools, where you can just make a crowbar or stepladder for a different body size. The reason a longbow can shoot further and stronger is because it's bigger and takes more strength to draw. The reason a two-handed sword does more damage isn't just because you can put more strength behind it, but because it's a larger and heavier piece of metal that carries more momentum. Traditional 2H swords and claymores and suchlike didn't cut the enemy so much as bludgeon them. There's no getting around the fact that there's only so much metal a halfling can lift, and only so much leverage it can apply. And while I'd like to see a version of the halfling that doesn't come with negatives, I don't think realism is a solid basis for making that argument.
#9 Crimson_Concerto Apr 30, 2009 3:23:31	Ignoring the small size penalty is one of the first house rules on my list. It's completely ridiculous and completely contrary to the 4E racial design philosophy. Friend: But you're not making any sense. Halflings should have to use smaller weapons for being so small. It makes no sense for them to be able to use the same size weapons as humans or do the same damage! Me: All right then. Remember back in 3.5 how small size got a bonus to hit? Well I'm changing that into a bonus to damage under the exact same logic. They do use smaller weapons that do less damage, but their increased precision with those weapons compared to a medium size creature leaves us with a damage penalty followed by a damage bonus meaning there's no net change, so there's no need for any mechanical difference. Friend: Oh... okay. Problem solved.
#10 Einlanzer Apr 30, 2009 13:23:25	It kinda makes sense to me. A small race using a one handed weapon isn't at a disadvantage, because the penalties they would face are already abstracted into the combat rules (- damage, + hit cancel each other out). However, a small race fighting with a 2 handed weapon that specifically emphasizes power and physique over mobility and finesse faces an additional disadvantage because of their comparative stature. They should be using a weapon that would offer them advantageous tactics to offset their small stature instead of spotlighting it attempting to compete with the raw power of someone with three times their mass.
#11 Rustmonster Apr 30, 2009 18:27:02	Ignoring the small size penalty is one of the first house rules on my list. It's completely ridiculous and completely contrary to the 4E racial design philosophy. Friend: But you're not making any sense. Halflings should have to use smaller weapons for being so small. It makes no sense for them to be able to use the same size weapons as humans or do the same damage! Me: All right then. Remember back in 3.5 how small size got a bonus to hit? Well I'm changing that into a bonus to damage under the exact same logic. They do use smaller weapons that do less damage, but their increased precision with those weapons compared to a medium size creature leaves us with a damage penalty followed by a damage bonus meaning there's no net change, so there's no need for any mechanical difference. Friend: Oh... okay. Problem solved. I think that this idea is brilliant. It is the best of both worlds. No penalty for those of us who don't want to be hit with a stick and told "Bad! Play the steriotype!", and it has a justification for those who absolutly need one in order to preserve their fragile versmilitude.