[UPDATED AGAIN!] SOUTHLANDS HEROES - New Character Options for D&D From The Folks Who Made TYRANNY O

Strange...there is no 5E Southland Campaign Setting (only Pathfinder), but a pdf for 5E?

 

[fuindordm]

Well, one could look at the benefit as having the Enlarge spell "always on", or with a number of uses per day equal to the typical number of combat encounters. It's powerful, but a race with Enlarge 3/day is certainly in the scope of what a basic race can provide.

Is a hypothetical race that is ONLY LARGE balanced with a human?

Large: You do an extra 1d4 damage with any natural weapon or unarmed strike. You can use a two-handed weapon in one hand. If you use an appropriately sized 2H weapon, you can increase its damage dice so that the average damage increases by about 2. (e.g. a large greatsword does 2d8 instead of 2d6).

You have advantage on Strength (Athletics) checks against medium-sized or small opponents (Maybe: I'd like to check to see if this is handled consistently in the rules and stat blocks of grappling monsters)

Disadvantages: 2x food and water requirements, 2x armor, shield, and other wearable equipment cost, more difficult to get full cover or concealment (a consequence, not an extra rule)

 

[AverageCitizen]

I think this is exactly the kind of situation Mike was talking about in regards to eventual Third Party releases-- making sure everyone had time to truly understand the rules of 5E before making "out there" changes to things. At some point I'm sure someone will be able to put together a Large character race at some point, once they figure out exactly the sort of trade-offs they need to instruct people to use. The combat pillar strength bonuses have to be off-set by actual mechanical combat-pillar penalties above and beyond the mere "noodle" penalities (story-based or interaction/exploration pillar ones).

With dungeon hallways often being at least 10 feet, having to squeeze just through doorways is not that much of a penalty during combat. Likewise, gold pricing isn't a true offset either because that's entire in a DM's hand and some tables might give out enough treasure that a Large create buying Large armor isn't ever a true penalty. And magic armor? Many DMs still go with older rules that says the armor shrinks or expands to fit the wearer. Thus none of these things can truly be thought of as balancing factors against the higher STR.

So these are just a handful of the things a designer would need to be up on and looking at before being able to introduce a truly balanced Large character race. So while an individual table might be willing to up the Minotaur to Large and let the chips fall where they may on that... it's not something to release as an official product until it's been fully vetted.

My little brother is playing a werebear. His damage is normal, his HP is normal, he just turns large when he rages (he's a barbarian). I even made him pay for the high STR of a werebear at creation with points+increase, and charged him an ability increase just for the transformation (so it's a half-feat, sorta). Even then, just turning into a large creature without any other benefit, he has a huge advantage and a very large presence in battles. It is hard for other melee combatants to feel like they are contributing. It might just be player perception, but when he first transformed I watched the fighter and the cleric deflate like week-old birthday balloons. I'll probably have to cure him eventually, or split him into my other party that has only ranged attackers.

 

[Jester David]

One thing I don't really understand is why there is an apparent refusal to contemplate a Large player race. Goliaths and Minotaurs can be as big as ogres, Minotaurs are certainly Large NPCs, but when they're made player races the attitude seems to be that they must be shrunk down to Medium.

Now, I understand that there is a damage bonus for a large creature, but that's (I think) fairly offset by the need to squeeze through most doorways and many halls, the difficulty in finding cover or concealment, and the need to pay the price for horse barding if you wear armor.

Why can't a Minotaur be Large and in charge?

There's some problems. First, you'd have to deal with reach. Tall creatures tend to be able to hit farther. But there's also spells. Any spell that creates a burst around you is larger, since the origin "square" is 2x2 rather than 1x1. But that's less of a problem in Theater of the Mind.
There's also gear. How do you work around the creature needing large-sized armour, and shouldn't that cost more?
But a lot of it comes down to reluctance to repeat 3e, where large sized creatures had increased damage from their weapons. So they were more powerful, which made them awkward to balance.

I think it's certainly possible to do a large-sized race in 5e. But being large should come with some penalties and/or be counted as a large bonus for the character.

 

[AverageCitizen]

There's some problems. First, you'd have to deal with reach. Tall creatures tend to be able to hit farther. But there's also spells. Any spell that creates a burst around you is larger, since the origin "square" is 2x2 rather than 1x1. But that's less of a problem in Theater of the Mind.
There's also gear. How do you work around the creature needing large-sized armour, and shouldn't that cost more?
But a lot of it comes down to reluctance to repeat 3e, where large sized creatures had increased damage from their weapons. So they were more powerful, which made them awkward to balance.

I think it's certainly possible to do a large-sized race in 5e. But being large should come with some penalties and/or be counted as a large bonus for the character.

It will be even harder in 5e because large-size monsters wielding large versions of weapons roll the damage die twice. The enlarge spell, on the other hand, has a flat damage die bonus, I think 1d6, which feels like a cop-out to me as a player and a necessary restriction to me as a DM. That divergence in perception will be a difficult gap to span when creating a large PC race.

 

[Jester David]

It will be even harder in 5e because large-size monsters wielding large versions of weapons roll the damage die twice. The enlarge spell, on the other hand, has a flat damage die bonus, I think 1d6, which feels like a cop-out to me as a player and a necessary restriction to me as a DM. That divergence in perception will be a difficult gap to span when creating a large PC race.

Which is a prefect example of Mearl's point that we should wait until we know the rules. I did zero research before answering, confident in my answer, and didn't actually check large sized monsters. If I were writing a large sized monster, I'd be all kinds of wrong and imbalanced.
Of course... when I actually write I research up the wazoo and check, because I can't have played everything.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

One thing I don't really understand is why there is an apparent refusal to contemplate a Large player race. Goliaths and Minotaurs can be as big as ogres, Minotaurs are certainly Large NPCs, but when they're made player races the attitude seems to be that they must be shrunk down to Medium.

Now, I understand that there is a damage bonus for a large creature, but that's (I think) fairly offset by the need to squeeze through most doorways and many halls, the difficulty in finding cover or concealment, and the need to pay the price for horse barding if you wear armor.

Why can't a Minotaur be Large and in charge?

Others have already noted the two races in question are actually medium, but I'm in agreement with your sentiment. It's what I enjoyed about the aaracoka (or however it's spelled) - they didnt fool around with giving them some kind of half-assed fly. The entire point of playing a bird man race with wings is to fly, no need to have you flutter 10 feet at X level, get to hover 1 round at Y level and finally fly at the end of the campaign. They trusted the DM's to limit the race as appropriate, rather than giving you something watered down and unsatisfying. I'm hoping when they do Dark Sun we get full on Large half giants that are 12+ feet tall.

5E has a more loose sense of balance than 4th, so a large creature shouldnt really be an issue. Particularly Half Giants - disadvantage on Wisdom or charm/dominate effect saves would work to balance their combat bonuses from being large, given psionics presence in Athas.

 

[turkeygiant]

Others have already noted the two races in question are actually medium, but I'm in agreement with your sentiment. It's what I enjoyed about the aaracoka (or however it's spelled) - they didnt fool around with giving them some kind of half-assed fly. The entire point of playing a bird man race with wings is to fly, no need to have you flutter 10 feet at X level, get to hover 1 round at Y level and finally fly at the end of the campaign. They trusted the DM's to limit the race as appropriate, rather than giving you something watered down and unsatisfying. I'm hoping when they do Dark Sun we get full on Large half giants that are 12+ feet tall.

5E has a more loose sense of balance than 4th, so a large creature shouldnt really be an issue. Particularly Half Giants - disadvantage on Wisdom or charm/dominate effect saves would work to balance their combat bonuses from being large, given psionics presence in Athas.

I think the key is to look and decide whether a race would be stylistically compromised if you don't give them a certain potent feature. For example take races like minotaurs and goliaths, yes they are probably on the very upper edge of medium but their defining features are more than just their size, minotaurs have their horns and mazes, and goliaths have their adaptions to harsh environments and hard work. On the other hand the Aarakocra are specifically defined by their flying and Half-Giants by well...being half giant. These are races that would lose to much if you tried to perfectly balance them to other races.

 

[arjomanes]

After reading through the Southlands material, I agree with the review that pointed out that the races look like Pathfinder conversions, rather than straight 5e race creations.

The racial variants introduce an entirely new (and I'd argue overly complex) subsystem to 5e. The racial variant has some of the complexity that defines Pathfinder, rather than the simplicity that defines 5e. Racial variants are an interesting subsystem, and I like them and the class archetype subsystem for Pathfinder. But Pathfinder is a much more complex game; it makes sense to apply some of those extra rules subsystems. On the other hand, one of the important pillars of 5e is simplicity in play and in character development.

I prefer the simple 5e subrace approach, and if necessary, the approach taken in the Elemental Evil Player's Companion by Sasquatch and WotC which uses racial feats. I'd prefer to see standard 5e subraces implemented across the board for each race, and the racial variants eliminated or moved to a sidebar. And then for racial abilities that are stronger than level one, I'd like to see racial feats introduced like the deep gnome in the Elemental Evil Player's Companion. Of course, the racial feats would need to be optional, significantly powerful, and not require feat trees, in keeping with 5e feat design.

Overall though, I like this book, and I think it will see use at my table as a DM tool. I do want to go through it and decide what to allow for players though, and change rules as needed. Unlike the Elemental Evil Player's Companion, I'm not ready to just let my players use this book as-is.

Despite my reservations about the Pathfinder-esque approach taken throughout, for the money, this is a really great purchase. There is a lot of interesting writing here, great art, and some great non-standard races. I'm glad they fixed the IP conflict and re-released it for purchase. Hope to see more 5e support from Kobold Press; they're one of my favorite publishers.

 

[Yaarel]

Well, one could look at the benefit as having the Enlarge spell "always on", or with a number of uses per day equal to the typical number of combat encounters. It's powerful, but a race with Enlarge 3/day is certainly in the scope of what a basic race can provide.

Is a hypothetical race that is ONLY LARGE balanced with a human?

Large: You do an extra 1d4 damage with any natural weapon or unarmed strike. You can use a two-handed weapon in one hand. If you use an appropriately sized 2H weapon, you can increase its damage dice so that the average damage increases by about 2. (e.g. a large greatsword does 2d8 instead of 2d6).

You have advantage on Strength (Athletics) checks against medium-sized or small opponents (Maybe: I'd like to check to see if this is handled consistently in the rules and stat blocks of grappling monsters)

Disadvantages: 2x food and water requirements, 2x armor, shield, and other wearable equipment cost, more difficult to get full cover or concealment (a consequence, not an extra rule)

Your ways of calculating the worth of being Large size, are accurate and useful.

It seems to me, in character optimization, the value of being Large is mostly its extra reach. Factor this in, and there will be a way quantify the value of being Large, in order to balance it alongside races that are Medium size, Small, and Tiny.

A Large race (Giant, Ogre, Troll, Minotaur, Dragon, etcetera) is an important archetype. I would have wanted 5e to figure out the value of being Large, so it could be a standard option among the choices of races.

 

[fuindordm]

Thanks.

I just did a quick check in the MM, and large creatures typically have 5' reach. Monsters good at grappling don't make initial athletics checks to do it--the grapple just triggers on a hit. They also aren't proficient in Athletics.

The half-ogre is large and has 17 Str, 14 Con, Int 7, and darkvision, and does 9 average damage with a 1H weapon (not counting Str bonus) which is more than I proposed but monsters have higher damage outputs than PCs.

So a reasonable PC half-ogre might be +2 Str (Max 22), +1 Con, -2 Int; Large as outlined in my post. If we give it other traits, they should be ribbons.

Compare to half-orc: +2 Str +1 Con, Darkvision, one skill prof, Savage Attacks (minor damage boost), Relentless Endurance (good defense power)

Compare to drow: +2 Dex, +1 Cha, superior darkvision, one skill prof, fey ancestry (minor defensive power), drow magic (2 1st-level spells, 1 cantrip), sunlight sensitivity (major disadvantage)

Putting these side by side, is +2 damage (always on) and advantage on grappling med and small creatures worth giving up darkvision, a skill proficiency, savage attacks, and relentless endurance? From a power-gaming perspective, maybe, but half-orcs definitely have more versatility and the food/water/equipment disadvantages can hurt at any level because magic armor and weapons don't resize.

Alternatively, are the disadvantages of -2 Int and food/water/equipment comparable to the Sunlight Sensitivity disadvantage. I think so, in which case we can compare the utility of Large against a skill proficiency, superior darkvision, a minor defensive power, and 2 1st-level spells 1/day each. Again, the trade seems fair and the drow is definitely more versatile.

Is it bad design to make a race package so focused on offense? Maybe. But sometimes you just want to play a brute, and when you're the biggest and most obvious threat in a battle then enemies tend to focus fire on you. A half-ogre barbarian is an obvious build, but not that much scarier than a human barbarian.