In Pathfinder 2e, do tiny animals get a circumstance bonus to AC? Would a Tiny familiar get that same bonus?

  • \$\begingroup\$ Do you have particular reason you suspect they might/might not? Knowing what it is that is confusing/uncertain to you is massive help to answerers giving you answers that clarifies any underlying problems, confusions, etc. \$\endgroup\$ – Someone_Evil Apr 6 '20 at 22:21
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Oh, and Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already and see the help center or ask us here in the comments (use @ to ping someone) if you need more guidance. Good Luck and Happy Gaming! \$\endgroup\$ – Someone_Evil Apr 6 '20 at 22:21


Per the CRB index, all rules about Tiny creatures appear on p473-475. Those pages include information about sharing space and moving through other creatures' space, but do not include anything about ability or AC alterations.

This refers specifically to Chapter 9 (Playing the Game) Encounter Mode and more specifically, Size, Space, and Reach and Moving Through a Creature's Space.

Furthermore, a Search of the PDF reveals a lot of references to parts of items and objects being tiny, references that Familiars and Leshy Familiars are Tiny, and (perhaps the most relevant) Tiny carrying capacity and the Bulk of a Tiny creature on p295.

However, probably the greatest indicator that there is no inherent (numerical) benefit for being a different size are the spells Shrink and Enlarge. Shrink applies no penalty beyond restricting your Reach, and Enlarge applies a damage increase and Clumsy 1 to make it a "buff" spell. There are no references to size bonuses, or the benefits of a creature that size (that aren't explained in the spell).

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I guess the real question is: "Have they removed the concept of Size based AC modifiers". However for that, we do not have to look all the way to tiny. Good old small Halflings and Gnomes on one side and Giants on the other side will answer it. D&D 4E & 5E they also seem to have gotten rid of it. So this might be a case of "independant development into the same direction". \$\endgroup\$ – Christopher Apr 7 '20 at 2:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ While this answer is correct, in fairness I made the exact opposite mistake in PF1, even after checking those spells' equivalents (so using them as an authority is dubious). I remember it taking me ages to work out why HeroLab was applying a penalty to hit when I made a character bigger. \$\endgroup\$ – Isaac Apr 7 '20 at 12:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yeah I wouldn't just go by the spells, but with the other evidence also laid out, I'm fairly confident. I forgot to search the GMG, but I don't recall any rule changes in it. \$\endgroup\$ – Ifusaso Apr 7 '20 at 13:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ Pretty sure this hasn't been changed by the GMG - and wont be changed generally. Not sure how relevant you consider it, as it is weapon size rather than creature size, but all the questions and answers about large weapons and barbarian giant rage, might be worth linking to as additional evidence? - not certain. \$\endgroup\$ – Isaac Apr 8 '20 at 9:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.