A player wants a Large character...
- Thread starter Tallifer
- Start date
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Certainly there is no way a PC should be ever be allowed to use large size creature weapons.
As for the rest, is it going to cause a problem with the story, because the PC is to large to fit into plot-important locations?
Tactically, a large creature has as many advantages as disadvantages, perhaps favouring disadvantage if you use flanking, or they are a non-melee build.
Personally I would direct them towards larger-than-human but still medium races like goliath, bugbears or firbolg, or size changers like druids, giant soul sorcerers, or grey dwarves.
I also think it may be important to make the point with this player that the DM's word is law.
As for the rest, is it going to cause a problem with the story, because the PC is to large to fit into plot-important locations?
Tactically, a large creature has as many advantages as disadvantages, perhaps favouring disadvantage if you use flanking, or they are a non-melee build.
Personally I would direct them towards larger-than-human but still medium races like goliath, bugbears or firbolg, or size changers like druids, giant soul sorcerers, or grey dwarves.
I also think it may be important to make the point with this player that the DM's word is law.
Hawk Diesel
Adventurer
I think it would probably help a bit to understand what mechanical benefits the specific race grants. Because being large also comes with mechanical advantages (some having already been mentioned) a well-balanced race will specify what specifically they get as large creatures.
For example, for all intents and purposes Goliaths are large creatures. They are bigger than medium creatures and can carry more. But they also don't take up more than one 5' square on a grid, and don't deal double damage as most large creatures. Additionally, they count as medium for the purpose of grapple and shove (a point which I disagree with, but we are talking RAW).
So a player has options for large creatures that are mechanically similar enough to medium creatures so as to not break combat.
Given this, I would have three questions:
1) Why does the player want to play a large creature? Your response as a DM will differ if they are largely looking at role playing opportunities versus players that want to be more powerful in combat.
2) How well does the 3p race mechanically define large (both advantages and disadvantages)?
3) How balanced is the mechanics of the large size, both within the context of the race, and in comparison to what the other players will get from their race choices?
For example, for all intents and purposes Goliaths are large creatures. They are bigger than medium creatures and can carry more. But they also don't take up more than one 5' square on a grid, and don't deal double damage as most large creatures. Additionally, they count as medium for the purpose of grapple and shove (a point which I disagree with, but we are talking RAW).
So a player has options for large creatures that are mechanically similar enough to medium creatures so as to not break combat.
Given this, I would have three questions:
1) Why does the player want to play a large creature? Your response as a DM will differ if they are largely looking at role playing opportunities versus players that want to be more powerful in combat.
2) How well does the 3p race mechanically define large (both advantages and disadvantages)?
3) How balanced is the mechanics of the large size, both within the context of the race, and in comparison to what the other players will get from their race choices?
Satyrn
First Post
Huge, even.
I kept telling my DM how big my halfling moon druid was when wildshaped into a giant constrictor . . . but he never really grasped what that meant until several more sessions went by and I used the shape in combat, filling up 9 squares!
Ask the player if they are willing to be Large, as if under the benefits of a Medium character under an Enlarge spell. If so, work with them to make it happen -- liabilities as above, but it gives them the role-plying experience that they want without the benefits the designers are obviously trying to avoid (as seen in their treatment of Firbolgs and Goliaths).
I have a player with a Large giant character who wields Large weapons -- his maul deals 4d6+Str damage!
But, he only became Large at 5th level, and he gave up Extra Attack to get it. So instead of two attacks at 2d6+Str, he has one at 4d6+Str, which is generally weaker. However, when he uses Frenzy (bonus action attack) and is subject to haste (additional Attack action with a single attack) he becomes a powerhouse.
Overall, it seems pretty balanced.
But, he only became Large at 5th level, and he gave up Extra Attack to get it. So instead of two attacks at 2d6+Str, he has one at 4d6+Str, which is generally weaker. However, when he uses Frenzy (bonus action attack) and is subject to haste (additional Attack action with a single attack) he becomes a powerhouse.
Overall, it seems pretty balanced.
epithet
Explorer
It hasn't come up yet, but if one of my players wanted to have a large character it would be pretty easy for me to do. Everyone gets a feat at level 1 to help define their character, so a large character would take the "Large Character" feat, which has a prereq of being a race that should be large (eg, firbolg, goliath) and a minimum strength of 17.
Everyone gets all worked up over balance, but that's just nonsense. So what if there's an extra die on your melee hits? As DM, it is a simple matter to make certain that there are no Large magical weapons with damage bonuses, which most weapon-focused classes would be looking for. Most Large characters will probably wind up using a Medium 2-hander as a 1 handed weapon, meaning that you're dealing with either a +2 to AC for a shield or an offhand attack as a bonus action, neither of which should throw your game balance off by very much at all. Price your armor as barding, or multiply the cost by 4. Food consumption x 4 as well.
A large character can go most places, but not comfortably (see "squeezing" rules.) Note that the dwarves and Gandalf all had a good time in Bag End, but Gandalf was at constant risk of banging his head. While it is true that you can threaten more squares as a Large creature, it is also true that a whole lot of creatures can flank you.
Playing as a Large creature isn't any more of a "big deal" than playing as a small creature, really. There are some advantages, and some drawbacks... like any other significant aspect of a character. If your player wants to try that out, freakin' let him. Be prepared to offer an alternative if he decides he doesn't enjoy being a big oaf, but be willing to make accomodations so that he at least has the chance to try it out. There are plenty of people who have played characters with much more severe limitations and had a lot of fun doing it, so don't be afraid to let your player try a big character. I'd suggest starting without any serious penalties and seeing if the Large character needed to be reigned in, and not starting with a bunch of negatives that you might consider lifting later. For example, making someone give up an extra attack feature just seems extreme, to me. If your Biggun is overpowering everything and dramatically outshining other melee spec characters, you can always add a nerf later on, but do so as a group rather than dictating from on high.
But hey, that's just my opinion, man. Ultimately you need to do what will work for your players.
Everyone gets all worked up over balance, but that's just nonsense. So what if there's an extra die on your melee hits? As DM, it is a simple matter to make certain that there are no Large magical weapons with damage bonuses, which most weapon-focused classes would be looking for. Most Large characters will probably wind up using a Medium 2-hander as a 1 handed weapon, meaning that you're dealing with either a +2 to AC for a shield or an offhand attack as a bonus action, neither of which should throw your game balance off by very much at all. Price your armor as barding, or multiply the cost by 4. Food consumption x 4 as well.
A large character can go most places, but not comfortably (see "squeezing" rules.) Note that the dwarves and Gandalf all had a good time in Bag End, but Gandalf was at constant risk of banging his head. While it is true that you can threaten more squares as a Large creature, it is also true that a whole lot of creatures can flank you.
Playing as a Large creature isn't any more of a "big deal" than playing as a small creature, really. There are some advantages, and some drawbacks... like any other significant aspect of a character. If your player wants to try that out, freakin' let him. Be prepared to offer an alternative if he decides he doesn't enjoy being a big oaf, but be willing to make accomodations so that he at least has the chance to try it out. There are plenty of people who have played characters with much more severe limitations and had a lot of fun doing it, so don't be afraid to let your player try a big character. I'd suggest starting without any serious penalties and seeing if the Large character needed to be reigned in, and not starting with a bunch of negatives that you might consider lifting later. For example, making someone give up an extra attack feature just seems extreme, to me. If your Biggun is overpowering everything and dramatically outshining other melee spec characters, you can always add a nerf later on, but do so as a group rather than dictating from on high.
But hey, that's just my opinion, man. Ultimately you need to do what will work for your players.
I like that. Nice, clean solution. Maybe formalize it like this (since it's a little odd to suddenly become Large at 5th level):
Large Weapons: You can wield Large-sized weapons, but you do not automatically gain proficiency with them. Whenever you would make multiple attacks as part of an Attack action, you make one fewer attack if wielding a Large weapon. At level 5, you gain proficiency with the Large-sized version of any Medium weapon you are proficient with.
I think it's still a net advantage, but not an overwhelming one, especially since it does not lend itself to GWM/Sharpshooter shenanigans.
Cyber-Dave
Explorer
There is no way to balance it. There are two features that break large characters: 1) double weapon damage dice; 2) an increase in the AoE size of all effects centered on the caster. There is a 3rd issue that will make your life difficult: the way the creature interacts with dungeon environments. Its interactions will always be either too powerful or too weak. If its a wide hallway, large size gives a creature unprecedented control in a dungeon space. They can, for example, block 10 by 10-foot hallways by themselves. On the other hands, in tight spaces, they will constantly be taking disadvantage on everything. These are the reasons the devs have given for an "infraction" on large sized creature design. Instead, in various ways, they suggest that PCs on the larger end of the spectrum should be built at medium creatures with qualities normally belonging to large creatures (such as reach, mechanics that effectively give them bonus hit points, the ability to carry more weight than normal, or the like).
Similar Threads
