D&D 5E Large Size PCs?

[Blue]

In thinking about it, I think 5e would need to take a few steps back before taking a step forward and incorporating large PCs.

Consider ogre & giant damage. That's way too high for PC-level at-will attacks, per class buff. But D&D has the options of increasing number of attacks or damage done as a way of increasing weapon threat, and growing larger doesn't scream out "give me 4 attacks that are each only as powerful as a medium creature". So foes have greatly increase weapon damage because foes have CR appropriate damage. But having a large sized PC that defeated an Oni and saying "their glaive does 2d10 before strength" breaks.

If the damage was something like 13th Age, where there are no default extra attacks but weapon damage die is set by class and weapon damage is [level]dX could handle it. Because 3d10+STR by a 3rd level fighter or 3d10+STR by a large sized creature that an equal challenge to a 3rd level fighter are, well, the same.

But that doesn't work well with casters and other non-weapon wielders. If you want to play the minotaur warlock, you should without shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Elon Tusk]

If I were inclined to create a penalty suited to allow the play of large characters, I would make the penalty disadvantage on initiative checks (because most really big creatures are relatively slow). Acting later typically affects all classes, unless the character is in a support role. The increased potential to suffer a full round of enemy attacks before taking your turn can be very serious, especially at early levels.

Another potential option is weapon-breaking. Large creatures are very strong, and there's no reason to expect typical D&D metalcraft to be exceptional. A large creature might break its weapon when it scores a crit. Or maybe on a roll equal to or less than one-fourth their Str score (at a minimum of one, obviously).

I think the iniative idea is more workable than the weapon-breaking.
Since Dexterity is the most important factor in iniative, perhaps Dexterity should have a -1?
That works in my suggested negative to AC as well without it having to be arbitrary.
And ogre and giant kin, for the most part, have relatively low Dex.

 

[MechaPilot]

I'll work on some language for the 1d4 instead of extra die for large weapons.

You could simply use the same damage dice but allow large creatures to add 1.5 times their Str modifier to damage instead of just their Str mod. Assuming the large creature's strength caps out at 20, like other PCs, that's an additional 2.5 points of damage (which is equal to the average result of a d4 die roll).

 

[Elon Tusk]

You could simply use the same damage dice but allow large creatures to add 1.5 times their Str modifier to damage instead of just their Str mod. Assuming the large creature's strength caps out at 20, like other PCs, that's an additional 2.5 points of damage (which is equal to the average result of a d4 die roll).

Interesting idea, but if I play it out:
The average may be the same but the range seems to break it.
1.5 times 1 is 1, times 2 is 3, times 4 is 6, times 5 is 7.
And, in the rare event of negative Strength modifiers, x1.5 takes away damage.

I think sticking with the already in use Enlarge spell +1d4 is both easier and more consistant.

 

[MechaPilot]

Interesting idea, but if I play it out:
The average may be the same but the range seems to break it.
1.5 times 1 is 1, times 2 is 3, times 4 is 6, times 5 is 7.

The range doesn't really "break" it though. Yes, 1.5 times 1, thanks to the rounding rule, is 1, resulting in no increase to damage (though it would be very easy to say your minimum bonus is two and clean up that loophole). Also, yes, 1.5 times 5 is seven; but, that's still only a two point increase in damage.

And, in the rare event of negative Strength modifiers, x1.5 takes away damage.

That can also be handled with proper wording, but I will concede that it does start to make things more verbose.

I think sticking with the already in use Enlarge spell +1d4 is both easier and more consistant.

I can't say the +1d4 is easier. More consistent, sure. Also, since you get to roll an extra die for damage some people would get more enjoyment out of that than they would just adding a larger modifier. There are definitely reasons to use that method.

 

[Elon Tusk]

Also, yes, 1.5 times 5 is seven; but, that's still only a two point increase in damage.

Some people are thinking 1d4 is too much already.
Seeing as most half-ogre builds would focus on Strength, a half-ogre with 20 Strength would get a constant +7 instead of a range of 1 to 4 bonus (2.5 average), making it actually 3 to 6 (4.5 average) points better.

 

[MechaPilot]

Some people are thinking 1d4 is too much already.
Seeing as most half-ogre builds would focus on Strength, a half-ogre with 20 Strength would get a constant +7 instead of a range of 1 to 4 bonus (2.5 average), making it actually 3 to 6 (4.5 average) points better.

If you're looking at the strength of the game mechanic, you have to throw out the part of the damage bonus the character would have with or without the ability.

Let's look at a 20 strength.

If you have 20 strength, you have a +5 to damage just because of your Strength score, regardless of whether you're large or not. A large creature who gets to add +7 instead of +5 (i.e. add 1.5 times modifier instead of just the modifier) is only getting an additional two points of damage over what they would have without that benefit of being large. So the benefit of being large sized to that character is two points of damage per hit (and it doesn't even get doubled on a crit because it's a static bonus instead of a die roll).

 

[Elon Tusk]

If you're looking at the strength of the game mechanic, you have to throw out the part of the damage bonus the character would have with or without the ability.

Let's look at a 20 strength.

If you have 20 strength, you have a +5 to damage just because of your Strength score, regardless of whether you're large or not. A large creature who gets to add +7 instead of +5 (i.e. add 1.5 times modifier instead of just the modifier) is only getting an additional two points of damage over what they would have without that benefit of being large. So the benefit of being large sized to that character is two points of damage per hit (and it doesn't even get doubled on a crit because it's a static bonus instead of a die roll).

Yes, sorry. You are totally correct.
I was forgetting how your bonus worked.

 

[MechaPilot]

Would you guys want a large PC? I think I would.

I do want a large PC. I'm actually working on my own homebrew centaur race right now. Centaur is nice because the human-sized upper body gets around the whole large-sized weapon issue.

My biggest concern about playing a large-sized character (and, as a DM, allowing large-sized characters) is, unlikely though it may seem, survivability.

Let's look at a large creature honestly. If there is a party and only one of the PCs is large, most foes will see the big brute as the big threat (unless obvious mage is obvious) and try to take it down before it lays the hurt on them. Most rational humanoid enemies would, very reasonably, focus-fire the large PC to death. At early levels this would be painfully easy to do since the large PC would likely squeeze only one extra hp per level out of her racial Constitution bump.

A large PC is a big bull's-eye who has even less potential to hide than normal PCs. I would be very worried about that.

 

[MechaPilot]

Yes, sorry. You are totally correct.
I was forgetting how your bonus worked.

No problem. Glad I could clarify.