Author Topic: Is Medium the worst size category to be?  (Read 11762 times)

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #20 on: December 30, 2011, 07:05:40 PM »
Monstrous Humanoid HD only suck if you want to be a caster.  They're actually pretty awesome for most melee critters.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #21 on: December 30, 2011, 09:39:56 PM »
needs an item to breath on land,

It's a WHALE.
Holy wtf crap. What the hell am I on? I'm going to go get a rock now, I don't know when I'll stop but the blood loss may end things fairly fast.

Please hold, an assistant will be with you shortly.

Offline StreamOfTheSky

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #22 on: December 31, 2011, 04:22:07 AM »
While medium is seldom the optimal size for a given situation, it's also pretty much never that bad or much of a hindrance, either.

Small characters get screwed over in tons of ways, I'm really shocked so many people seem to think they're better than medium, IMO they're a pretty crappy size to be.  Much less carrying capacity, but many items any character would want don't come in "smaller and lighter" varieties.  Smaller gear, yet it costs the same.   Speaking of gear, IME you find way, WAY more medium magical armor and weapons than small.  And contrary to board belief, you don't start the game with a ring of freedom of movement.  The effectively -5 grapple small size imposes hurts a LOT.

Oh, and then there's the speed 20 most small races have.  That sucks pretty hard, too.  Yeah, spellcasters can overcome the hindrances pretty easily and benefit from the defensive bonuses.  But...spellcasting makes any array of racial features pretty inconsequential by comparison, and most casters are still going to be a human for the bonus feat (unless whatever setting Strongheart Halfling is from is allowed) anyway.

As for large...pretty much anything in 3E that's large, aside from the noted LA, is not humanoid, but Giant or Monstrous Humanoid.  Including even the Goliath Barbarian w/ racial sub. level.  A human has the flexibility to just drink an enlarge person potion when he wants more size and str, and enjoy being medium when in cramped quarters.  An actual large creature doesn't get that flexibility.

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #23 on: December 31, 2011, 05:11:15 AM »
Small characters get screwed over in tons of ways, I'm really shocked so many people seem to think they're better than medium, IMO they're a pretty crappy size to be.  Much less carrying capacity, but many items any character would want don't come in "smaller and lighter" varieties.  Smaller gear, yet it costs the same.   Speaking of gear, IME you find way, WAY more medium magical armor and weapons than small.  And contrary to board belief, you don't start the game with a ring of freedom of movement.  The effectively -5 grapple small size imposes hurts a LOT.
IIRC, you don't take this penalty if you use Escape Artist instead.

Offline skydragonknight

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2660
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #24 on: December 31, 2011, 06:24:32 AM »
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.)

Dexterity actually has more inherent goodness than Intelligence. Armor Class, Ranged Attack, Initiative, Reflex Saves, Stealth skills. Intelligence has skill points and Knowledge skills. It wouldn't even be a contest if the Wizard spell list wasn't so good.

Also, the bigger issue is Polymorph spells and Wild Shape or "physical stats don't matter except Con".
Hmm.

Offline InnaBinder

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1244
  • Onna table
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #25 on: December 31, 2011, 08:41:44 AM »
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.)

Dexterity actually has more inherent goodness than Intelligence. Armor Class, Ranged Attack, Initiative, Reflex Saves, Stealth skills. Intelligence has skill points and Knowledge skills. It wouldn't even be a contest if the Wizard spell list wasn't so good.

Also, the bigger issue is Polymorph spells and Wild Shape or "physical stats don't matter except Con".
Well, Knowledge Devotion and a couple other splat feats help INT along as well, and the argument that the Stealth skills can't be afforded without enough INT to afford them is not without merit.
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 StreamOfTheSky

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #26 on: December 31, 2011, 11:53:11 AM »
Small characters get screwed over in tons of ways, I'm really shocked so many people seem to think they're better than medium, IMO they're a pretty crappy size to be.  Much less carrying capacity, but many items any character would want don't come in "smaller and lighter" varieties.  Smaller gear, yet it costs the same.   Speaking of gear, IME you find way, WAY more medium magical armor and weapons than small.  And contrary to board belief, you don't start the game with a ring of freedom of movement.  The effectively -5 grapple small size imposes hurts a LOT.
IIRC, you don't take this penalty if you use Escape Artist instead.

Escape Artist is an awful skill.  Not only are you paying skill points just to keep up with the BAB everyone else is getting automatically, you have to use a standard action to use it!  Regular grapple checks you can substitute attacks for and thus make multiple attempts, at least.  Also, by RAW you can't use Escape Artist to avoid being grappled, you can only use it to escape once you've been grappled.  That's fucking terrible.  I'd never waste skill points on that.

Offline liquid150

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #27 on: December 31, 2011, 01:09:48 PM »
You may not start the game with a Ring of FOM, but it isn't unreasonable to assume that you can start the game with Anklets of Translocation or other cheap wonderous item that allows for teleporting (assuming you aren't level 1 at the start, of course, which PC's never are in my group's games).

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #28 on: December 31, 2011, 02:16:45 PM »
Small characters get screwed over in tons of ways, I'm really shocked so many people seem to think they're better than medium, IMO they're a pretty crappy size to be.  Much less carrying capacity, but many items any character would want don't come in "smaller and lighter" varieties.  Smaller gear, yet it costs the same.   Speaking of gear, IME you find way, WAY more medium magical armor and weapons than small.  And contrary to board belief, you don't start the game with a ring of freedom of movement.  The effectively -5 grapple small size imposes hurts a LOT.
IIRC, you don't take this penalty if you use Escape Artist instead.

Escape Artist is an awful skill.  Not only are you paying skill points just to keep up with the BAB everyone else is getting automatically, you have to use a standard action to use it!  Regular grapple checks you can substitute attacks for and thus make multiple attempts, at least.  Also, by RAW you can't use Escape Artist to avoid being grappled, you can only use it to escape once you've been grappled.  That's fucking terrible.  I'd never waste skill points on that.
In other words, it solves the problem you're complaining about, but it still sucks.  Right.

Offline StreamOfTheSky

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #29 on: December 31, 2011, 05:21:13 PM »
If you think spending a standard action, ie, your turn, every round just to break out of grapple, only to have the monster use one of its natural weapon attacks or iteratives to re-grapple and damage you every round, along with whatever else it wants to do with the rest of its action is a "solution," then yeah, I guess it solves the problem.  It'd only solve the problem if you could use it to avoid grapples in the first place, in place of the grapple check.

And grappling was only one of the issues I mentioned with being small.

Offline liquid150

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #30 on: December 31, 2011, 07:54:25 PM »
If you think spending a standard action, ie, your turn, every round just to break out of grapple, only to have the monster use one of its natural weapon attacks or iteratives to re-grapple and damage you every round, along with whatever else it wants to do with the rest of its action is a "solution," then yeah, I guess it solves the problem.  It'd only solve the problem if you could use it to avoid grapples in the first place, in place of the grapple check.

And grappling was only one of the issues I mentioned with being small.
Well, personally I consider carrying capacity to be a non-issue.

The ability to get to large with an Enlarge Person is nice, though.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #31 on: December 31, 2011, 09:51:26 PM »
Small isn't for melees, it's for the stealthy and casters. You know, the people that benefit from +4 to hide checks, skip wearing 100lbs of metal, like bonuses with ranged, and really don't care if they deal a whole point less on average with weapons.

Whisper Gnome for instance is +8 to Hiding, go outside and climb a tree, guess who can't grapple you as you shoot them in the face. Halfing? They stole your sword an hour ago and now you're being stoned like a witch in Salem. Kender? Oh shit, run like hell he has a wand in his hand...

Medium is for melees not wanting LA, or racial HD (see whales!). Later on they just buy reach using grafts, spiked chains, enlarge me pls etc. All the benefits of being large with none of the Class Feature sacrifices. Great for people that do more than bash heads, like maybe you're a Warblade and like your maneuver progression or a Bard and Inspire people to be better. You still melee, but you do it with a certain flair.

Large is for the oh-hell-with-its big dumb meleers. You don't need a lot of skills, who cares about mental penalties, just give me strength and lots of it. Like +1 LA for Half-Orge isn't something to totally cry about, It's +2 to attack and +5 with THF damage right? And a Large creature with Reach has some pretty impressive range. Barbarian up a can of whoop ass, points for using an axe. Throg likes puppies.


Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: Is Medium the worst size category to be?
« Reply #32 on: January 01, 2012, 07:50:27 AM »
And grappling was only one of the issues I mentioned with being small.
It was certainly the only issue worth correcting, as the others are barely even arguments.  As an example, the 20' move speed?  Goblins, Kobolds, and Whisper Gnomes all have 30' move speeds.

Back to escape artist: At low levels, when grappling is an issue, you only get one escape attempt, anyway.  Your full attack is just one attack, so the opportunity cost of using Escape Artist instead is not an issue.  As for the initial grapple attempt: your AC and Touch AC are both higher because of your small size, so you're going to be hit less overall, which improves your evasion of attacks that carry improved grab riders and generic grappling attempts.

By level 4, you can get an Anklet of Translocation, which is much better than either mundane method of attempting escape, and easily bridges the gap between having to use Escape Artist at low levels and managing always-on FoM at higher levels.