Author Topic: Is Medium the worst size category to be?  (Read 11766 times)

Offline Endarire

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1662
  • Smile! Jesus loves you!
    • View Profile
    • Greg Campbell's Portfolio
Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« on: December 29, 2011, 07:03:53 PM »
Medium creatures seem to get the shaft.  They don't get the AC, accuracy, and Hide bonuses of littler creatures, nor the extra STR and reach of bigger creatures.

Offline SolEiji

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3045
  • I am 120% Eiji.
    • View Profile
    • D&D Wiki.org, not .com
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2011, 07:13:35 PM »
Define 'better'?  They seem to be the middle road option.  The Mario compared to powerful Bowser and nimble Pikachu in your Smash Brothers game, if you will.  Their advantage is their lack of disadvantage, where others are pidgeonholed into brute type or rogue type roles.
Mudada.

Offline JaronK

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2011, 07:29:11 PM »
Medium is almost strictly worse than small, since it doesn't gain reach but does take penalties to hide, AC, and so on (comparitively).  Usually this is balanced by higher strength and/or con in medium creatures.

JaronK

Offline InnaBinder

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1244
  • Onna table
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2011, 07:50:53 PM »
On the one hand - especially with smaller than Medium PCs - it's a "muggles vs. magicians" mentality disconnect in the design, really.  Excepting outliers like Wild Dwarves, the designers apparently felt the STR penalty was sufficient to model the relative issues of being smaller than the presumptive norm in getting around in the world.  It would work reasonably well for that, except there's magic.  Can't reach something?  A 3rd-level caster can overcome that issue trivially.  Ditto the cliff face the party would need to climb, or ravine they'd need to jump over. . . and that's before figuring the aid of equipment and pets/familiars in these supposed challenges.

On the other hand, a DM that scrupulously and rigorously enforces size penalties in dungeon-delving and the minutia of daily life of a Large or Small adventurer - be it Squeezing penalties or making sure to note difficulties in seating/sleeping arrangements at the Inn or issues with getting too much or too little food for a character that size - is usually perceived as 'punishing' the player for having a non-standard sized character.  That perception often works at odds to the concept of everyone at the table having fun, so some of the things that were theoretically put into the game to compensate for the goodies a Large(r) or Small(er) character gets are dispensed with via application of DM Handwavium.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2011, 10:14:12 AM by InnaBinder »
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.  Even if you win, you're still retarded.

shugenja handbook; talk about it here

Offline phaedrusxy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10717
  • The iconic spambot
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2011, 09:22:02 PM »
Yes, it is.
I don't pee messages into the snow often , but when I do , it's in Cyrillic with Fake Viagra.  Stay frosty my friends.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2011, 10:22:40 PM »
I like how Small imposes Str and damage penalties but improves defense and chances of hitting. And love how in the reverse being big should give Str bonuses and damage bonuses, but being Large means you must have LA and therefor suck in every department but a high Str score.

Designers must have thought Str is an important ability score, shortly before writing chapters ten and elven...

Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2011, 02:31:08 AM »
Designers definitely thought Strength was a big one if half-orcs are any example.  +2 Str, -2 Int, -2 Cha... Yeah, that blows.  And it's not because it's a physical ability, since dwarves get +2 Con but only a single -2 penalty with Cha.  I'm not sure if I've seen a +Dex -Mental race, but I'd bet it's an even trade.

As far as size goes, Medium is meant to literally be the standard to set by.  Everything else is compared to it after all.  I personally wouldn't say it's the worst, but it's unlikely to be the best for the majority of situations.

Offline littha

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2952
  • +1 Holy Muffin
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #7 on: December 30, 2011, 06:35:00 AM »
Designers definitely thought Strength was a big one if half-orcs are any example.  +2 Str, -2 Int, -2 Cha... Yeah, that blows.  And it's not because it's a physical ability, since dwarves get +2 Con but only a single -2 penalty with Cha.  I'm not sure if I've seen a +Dex -Mental race, but I'd bet it's an even trade.

As far as size goes, Medium is meant to literally be the standard to set by.  Everything else is compared to it after all.  I personally wouldn't say it's the worst, but it's unlikely to be the best for the majority of situations.

I'm sure there was a elf subrace with +Dex -Int.

Offline Shadowhunter

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 765
  • E6/E8 fanboy.
    • View Profile
    • The additional vestige collection for all you Binder players out there.
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2011, 06:49:40 AM »
Designers definitely thought Strength was a big one if half-orcs are any example.  +2 Str, -2 Int, -2 Cha... Yeah, that blows.  And it's not because it's a physical ability, since dwarves get +2 Con but only a single -2 penalty with Cha.  I'm not sure if I've seen a +Dex -Mental race, but I'd bet it's an even trade.

As far as size goes, Medium is meant to literally be the standard to set by.  Everything else is compared to it after all.  I personally wouldn't say it's the worst, but it's unlikely to be the best for the majority of situations.

I'm sure there was a elf subrace with +Dex -Int.

Wild Elf, page 104 of the good old Monster Manual.
+2 Dex,-2 Int, no hit to Con.

Offline The_Mad_Linguist

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 142
  • Not peeved, unique, nor linguist. Username = lies.
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #9 on: December 30, 2011, 10:01:02 AM »
They explicitly stated that they thought +strength was a better ability score.

You see, the classes are balanced.  And strength is just like BAB that also adds damage, and BAB is a fighter's main class feature.  So strength has to be stronger than other ability scores.

The 'equivalence' table they advise is:

Bonus to strength is equivalent to a penalty to: Dexterity OR Constitution OR Intelligence and Charisma OR Intelligence and Wisdom OR Wisdom and Charisma
Bonus to dexterity is equivalent to a penalty to:Strength OR Constitution OR Intelligence and Charisma OR Intelligence and Wisdom OR Wisdom and Charisma
Bonus to constitution is equivalent to a penalty to:Dexterity OR Intelligence OR Wisdom OR Charisma
Bonus to intelligence is equivalent to a penalty to:Wisdom OR Charisma
Bonus to wisdom is equivalent to a penalty to:Intelligence OR Charisma
Bonus to charisma is equivalent to a penalty to: Intelligence OR Wisdom


It's... pretty thoroughly terrible.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2011, 10:07:22 AM by The_Mad_Linguist »

Offline kitcik

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2011, 10:44:26 AM »
What if we gave monks full BAB amd +1 Wis per level?

Offline Rebel7284

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 706
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2011, 10:51:45 AM »
What if we gave monks full BAB amd +1 Wis per level?

Savage Bard 1/Monk 4/Ur Priest 10/Monk 5

Offline lans

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #12 on: December 30, 2011, 11:04:07 AM »
I like how Small imposes Str and damage penalties but improves defense and chances of hitting. And love how in the reverse being big should give Str bonuses and damage bonuses, but being Large means you must have LA and therefor suck in every department but a high Str score..
Senor Anthromorphic Baleen Whale begs to differ

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #13 on: December 30, 2011, 12:58:53 PM »
I like how Small imposes Str and damage penalties but improves defense and chances of hitting. And love how in the reverse being big should give Str bonuses and damage bonuses, but being Large means you must have LA and therefor suck in every department but a high Str score..
Senor Anthromorphic Baleen Whale begs to differ
Didn't we Harpoon those into extinction?
Something about no land speed, needs an item to breath on land, needs thumb gloves from savage species to use items, most campaigns being on land, and 3 Racial Hit Die of Animal suck-it-tude (3/4 bab, no class features, d8s for hp, even Warrior is better).

Even if the whale still sucks, good find there though.

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #14 on: December 30, 2011, 01:39:35 PM »
Quote
Something about no land speed
30 ft. land speed, is what the table in SS says.

Quote
needs thumb gloves from savage species to use items
Why? Don't anthropomorphic animals have hands like humanoids?
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #15 on: December 30, 2011, 03:24:33 PM »
Quote
Something about no land speed
30 ft. land speed, is what the table in SS says.

Quote
needs thumb gloves from savage species to use items
Why? Don't anthropomorphic animals have hands like humanoids?
Also, Monstrous Humanoid HD.  Full BAB, d10 HD, good Ref and Will saves.  They're actually really good for brute types in small doses.

In any case, how about weighting point buy bonuses dependent on the power of ability scores based on the model of Int = Wis > Cha = Dex > Str = Con?  (Con having the lowest cost because it's pretty much of ubiquitous necessity in moderation.)

Idea would be the cumulative costs are:
ScoreLowMidHigh
10222
11333
12444
13555
14667
15789
1691012
17111315
18131619
« Last Edit: December 30, 2011, 03:32:16 PM by X-Codes »

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #16 on: December 30, 2011, 04:02:19 PM »
 :lol


I lol'd ... when a question summarizes a nagging 10 year question.


Enda just put the "min" in the minmaxboard, for the day.
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #17 on: December 30, 2011, 06:05:45 PM »
Quote
Something about no land speed
30 ft. land speed, is what the table in SS says.

Quote
needs thumb gloves from savage species to use items
Why? Don't anthropomorphic animals have hands like humanoids?
Do they?

I thought they didn't, and that they kept their traits. Like the whale has it's swim speed and chokes to death on land. *shurgs* guess how often I play as Flipper.

The 3HD still sucks though :p
Unless you have a way to ditch that too?

Offline The_Mad_Linguist

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 142
  • Not peeved, unique, nor linguist. Username = lies.
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #18 on: December 30, 2011, 06:20:45 PM »
needs an item to breath on land,

It's a WHALE.

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #19 on: December 30, 2011, 06:23:35 PM »
Quote
Do they?
Yes. That's why they're called anthropomorphic. It is specifically stated that the animal has arms and humanoid hands.

Quote
I thought they didn't, and that they kept their traits. Like the whale has it's swim speed and chokes to death on land.
I would guess that they can live on land if they get land speed. There's even mention about aquatic animals still being able to live underwater even as anthro.

needs an item to breath on land,

It's a WHALE.
Oh yeah. And there's that. :p
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay