D&D 5E Enlarge beyond Large

[FormerlyHemlock]

If changing it worked for your table, thats great, but I'd say that text shows designer intent to make sure the Enlarge spell didn't add too much damage as a low level buff.

Enlarge comes with built-in drawbacks though, such as not being able to squeeze into tight spaces without taking disadvantage on attacks, and also being more vulnerable to mobs.

This thread has persuaded me to houserule Enlarge. It's now a more AD&D-style "add an extra 100% weapon die per size category" starting next session. (The spell is still far, far weaker than AD&D enlarge, because 1 minute duration/concentration/2nd level spell/doesn't scale with level. But oh well, at least now it's not a complete waste of Concentration.)

 

[spinozajack]

Sorry bud, but that's hyperbole. (On the internet, no less? Shocking.)

Oh brother. People on this forum misuse that term all the time, it's getting stale. What's hyperbolic is your use of the word hyperbole to describe someone else's OPINION regarding good game design. You are being dismissive, arrogant, and rude. Besides, what exactly makes you think your opinion on this or any other game issue is inherently better than mine? I am curious here, really. Do tell.

It's not hyperbolic to claim that it's better game design to have consistency in rules for players and monsters. Plenty of people other than me feel this way on this and other forums, including in this very thread. Especially considering there is a strong tradition in D&D for playing monster PCs which should be balanced. Having one set of rules for PCs (or through a spell that makes you identical to a monster in size and strength) and another for monsters is inconsistent and many people think it was a bad idea when they did that in 4th edition. Consistency is good. It's simpler and makes more sense.

Stop throwing around "hyperbole" all the time when you can just say "I disagree" and leave it at that. It's passive aggressive and makes you sound foolish. If you have a point to make, make it without ad hominem attacks. Thank you.

 

[spinozajack]

Enlarge comes with built-in drawbacks though, such as not being able to squeeze into tight spaces without taking disadvantage on attacks, and also being more vulnerable to mobs.

This thread has persuaded me to houserule Enlarge. It's now a more AD&D-style "add an extra 100% weapon die per size category" starting next session. (The spell is still far, far weaker than AD&D enlarge, because 1 minute duration/concentration/2nd level spell/doesn't scale with level. But oh well, at least now it's not a complete waste of Concentration.)

Being large paints a huge bullseye on you and 1d4 is a pathetic waste of a concentration spell slot, especially considering Bless gives 1d4 bonus TO HIT for everyone in the party. And is a level 1 spell.

Wizards made a boo boo here, no question.

 

[Ahrimon]

My 2cp, separate rules for players and everything else is a godsend for DM'ng. I haven't looked to closely at enlarge, but +1d4 is pretty weak for a 2nd level spell.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Stop throwing around "hyperbole" all the time when you can just say "I disagree" and leave it at that. It's passive aggressive and makes you sound foolish. If you have a point to make, make it without ad hominem attacks. Thank you.

There's nothing that destroys internet discourse like false accusations of hyperbole.

-Max
With malice aforethought

 

[spinozajack]

My 2cp, separate rules for players and everything else is a godsend for DM'ng. I haven't looked to closely at enlarge, but +1d4 is pretty weak for a 2nd level spell.

+1d4 damage would be decent for a first level spell, since it has to compete with Hunter's Mark which is a ranger only spell designed for dual wielding or otherwise multi-attacking, and bless which should be more powerful since it's a cleric's spell who should have decent offensive buffs anyway.

But 1d4, concentration, and 2nd level? Plus all the negatives of being large? Plus having to introduce an arbitrarily different rule for large creature weapon damage for spell-enhanced size versus natural size?

Having different rules for DM-run creatures as player-run might have been a godsend in some editions, but having different sets of rules for different circumstances is far from intuitive and I don't see how it makes a DM's job easier to roll 2d8 for large longsword wielding monsters when it makes them remember that a large PC rolls 1d8 + 1d4 instead. It makes no sense, because anyway adding an extra damage die to the damage would be still well within the realm of balanced compared with +1d4 to hit on every attack roll.

Agree with others who think they overnerfed it. Wizards has a history of doing this type of thing. Has no one told them that bonuses to hit are worth much more than the same number in bonus damage? I thought they were the experts on bounded accuracy and intended damage to scale up with buffs instead of to-hit values. Apparently not.

 

[doctorhook]

Oh brother. People on this forum misuse that term all the time, it's getting stale. What's hyperbolic is your use of the word hyperbole to describe someone else's OPINION regarding good game design. You are being dismissive, arrogant, and rude. Besides, what exactly makes you think your opinion on this or any other game issue is inherently better than mine? I am curious here, really. Do tell.

It's not hyperbolic to claim that it's better game design to have consistency in rules for players and monsters. Plenty of people other than me feel this way on this and other forums, including in this very thread. Especially considering there is a strong tradition in D&D for playing monster PCs which should be balanced. Having one set of rules for PCs (or through a spell that makes you identical to a monster in size and strength) and another for monsters is inconsistent and many people think it was a bad idea when they did that in 4th edition. Consistency is good. It's simpler and makes more sense.

Stop throwing around "hyperbole" all the time when you can just say "I disagree" and leave it at that. It's passive aggressive and makes you sound foolish. If you have a point to make, make it without ad hominem attacks. Thank you.

Take a deep breath and count to 10, my friend.

I did a google search of my post history, and by my estimation this was probably the second time I've posted the word "hyperbole" on this forum since 2008, so I have to assume your rant was directed at people in general rather than me specifically. That said, I discovered several examples of other posters here using the word to refer to anything they find absurd, and I'm willing to accept that I might have allowed my own understanding of the word to drift. I'm also guilty of letting myself get too bitter and cynical, and I'm sorry for that, but I expect you to give your own words a critical look too.

I called your comment hyperbolic because I think it's an absurd exaggeration to say, "That's bad game design," just because one part of one spell (of hundreds) appears underwhelming. I understand that you think enlarge/reduce is broken, and you make a decent case for that, but do you seriously think this "bad game design"? Even if we agree that this spell is broken, it's a single failure, not proof that the whole game is badly designed. If LeBron misses a shot, do you call him a bad basketball player too? This kind of exaggeration is exactly the thing that gets under my skin. Exaggerations, generalizations, absolutes, and cynicism all diminish the quality of discourse here.

It's pretty clear that you've got a well-reasoned perspective on the spell we're discussing, but frankly your post reads like you're letting yourself get too worked up about this. I would like to hear more about what you think enlarge should look like, because I think that's a more productive direction for you and I to continue this discussion. You've convinced me that it doesn't work properly, but you haven't yet convinced me exactly how it ought to have been implemented.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

It sounds to me that there's something about being magically enlarged that isn't the same as being naturally a larger size. Perhaps, a 2nd level slot isn't really powerful enough to fully duplicate the effects of changing to a larger size. Maybe the mass isn't effectively duplicated? Maybe, something about the way the Weave now works in 5E restricts the enlarge spell from fully duplicating being a larger size category? I don't know.

But, I'm happy with the way that it works and I think there are reasonable in game explanations for why a person under the effects of an enlarge spell doesn't hit has hard as a creature that is naturally that size.

 

[PnPgamer]

So you want to enlarge while enlarged so you can do huge damagewhile you do huge damage, while being huge and doing huge things?

 

[doctorhook]

I've been thinking about enlarge again, and I'm still kinda hoping we could find a fix for it.

It sounds to me that there's something about being magically enlarged that isn't the same as being naturally a larger size. Perhaps, a 2nd level slot isn't really powerful enough to fully duplicate the effects of changing to a larger size. Maybe the mass isn't effectively duplicated? Maybe, something about the way the Weave now works in 5E restricts the enlarge spell from fully duplicating being a larger size category? I don't know.

But, I'm happy with the way that it works and I think there are reasonable in game explanations for why a person under the effects of an enlarge spell doesn't hit has hard as a creature that is naturally that size.

I find this approach sorta unsatisfying. We can make in-game excuses for why the spell works like it does, but that still doesn't really help make this spell more useful. The in-game effect of this spell is really interesting, but the mechanics really don't live up to that hype.

How overpowered would this spell be if it granted an additional damage die? What about doubling the damage dice? If we agree that enlarge RAW is weak, then how much bonus damage needs to be added until this spell becomes overpowered?