D&D 5E Large Reach

[toucanbuzz]

Would the same problems of Reach still be true now in D&D 5e?

LARGE ISSUES

1. Grid Effects. Crawford tweeted years ago there are no plans for large creatures as they present grid-based logistical issues. For example, an aura spell/effect on a large creature is bigger than for a medium one. Further, they threaten more spaces. And, minis.

2. Oversized Weapons. Large PCs could get a damage upgrade if allowed to use Oversized monster weapons, such as a 2d8 ogre greatclub. Normally, medium PCs would have disadvantage trying to use an Oversized weapon like this. When asked about the Enlarge spell and Oversized weapons, senior designer Chris Perkins, using the Enlarge spell to accomplish this wasn't the intent of the spell, but it's your game and if you want that, go for it. Mike Mearls also felt a house rule of never allowing Advantage when using an Oversized weapon would be a good one.

REACH

Many large humanoids such as Ogres don't have Reach, so this isn't the advantage it used to be, especially in 3rd when entering a threat zone prompted an attack of opportunity.

LARGE PLAYER CHARACTERS: CAN IT BE DONE

I have no belief WOTC will do so. Everything previously large (centaurs, firbolgs, minotaurs, etc.) have mysteriously shrunk, making one wonder what's in the water. But, I worked up a homebrew Half-Giant for Dark Sun and so far no major issues, albeit some is directly tied to the setting, and this doesn't account for the RP implications.

• Nothing is crafted for a half-giant in this setting as they are a magically created race with no culture or cities of their own. The vast majority tend to be soldiers or slaves and thus are provided for in some way without being consumers
• Consequently, in this setting, their training comes from using weapons designed for smaller races and they've adapted to this. By homebrew design, they can wield two-handed or versatile weapons with 1 hand. There is no default rule that allows this, but we're accounting for a setting in which there's not a market for oversized items. It's not a major damage boost (e.g. d8 to d10) and doesn't permit them to bypass rules on dual-wielding.
  • I hadn't considered Oversized weapon use, but I like the unofficial sage advice proposal of never being able to gain Advantage, or even treating the weapon as non-proficient. After all, this weapon is foreign in weight and dimension from anything the PC would have been trained in.
• Everything else costs a lot more for them, and they require more food/water. So, we're draining resources regularly. In a typical setting, food/water might not be a concern, but in dying desert world without "auto-ease" spells like goodberry, it is.
• They are the only race with an offsetting INT and WIS penalty. And before anyone goes ape-naughty word over political correctness of giving any race an INT penalty, it's by design. In this setting, they were magically created to be malleable super-soldiers and intentionally modified to be that way. As a design feature, we need something to offset mechanical advantages of being Large.

Anyhow, I've gone a bit beyond your question and into the debate of Large PCs.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Any dpr enthusiasts want to do calculations?

What if larger weapons simply gain a flat d6 improvement for each size category larger than medium? As the only damage upgrade.

Is the total damage balanced or at least manageable enough?



With regard to flavor, bigger creatures tend to be stronger, so the Strength score itself is the flavor. And not everything big is necessarily strong, so there seems less need for extra Strength score improvements because of size. Meanwhile, Str 20 is plenty to represent crazy strong Large, and seems adequate for Huge. Str 21+ can probably wait for epic levels.

This is (pretty much) how the Rune Knight handles it. Enlarge is only a d4, Giant's Might (the RK feature) starts at d6 and goes up to d8 at 10th level.

In play, it's fine. It's good, but nowhere near Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter good.

 

[Haldrik]

This is (pretty much) how the Rune Knight handles it. Enlarge is only a d4, Giant's Might (the RK feature) starts at d6 and goes up to d8 at 10th level.

In play, it's fine. It's good, but nowhere near Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter good.

I am concerned about a Large character with Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter, but +d6 per size category larger seems within bounds?

 

[Haldrik]

LARGE ISSUES

1. Grid Effects. Crawford tweeted years ago there are no plans for large creatures as they present grid-based logistical issues. For example, an aura spell/effect on a large creature is bigger than for a medium one. Further, they threaten more spaces. And, minis.

2. Oversized Weapons. Large PCs could get a damage upgrade if allowed to use Oversized monster weapons, such as a 2d8 ogre greatclub. Normally, medium PCs would have disadvantage trying to use an Oversized weapon like this. When asked about the Enlarge spell and Oversized weapons, senior designer Chris Perkins, using the Enlarge spell to accomplish this wasn't the intent of the spell, but it's your game and if you want that, go for it. Mike Mearls also felt a house rule of never allowing Advantage when using an Oversized weapon would be a good one.

REACH

Many large humanoids such as Ogres don't have Reach, so this isn't the advantage it used to be, especially in 3rd when entering a threat zone prompted an attack of opportunity.

LARGE PLAYER CHARACTERS: CAN IT BE DONE

I have no belief WOTC will do so. Everything previously large (centaurs, firbolgs, minotaurs, etc.) have mysteriously shrunk, making one wonder what's in the water. But, I worked up a homebrew Half-Giant for Dark Sun and so far no major issues, albeit some is directly tied to the setting, and this doesn't account for the RP implications.

• Nothing is crafted for a half-giant in this setting as they are a magically created race with no culture or cities of their own. The vast majority tend to be soldiers or slaves and thus are provided for in some way without being consumers
• Consequently, in this setting, their training comes from using weapons designed for smaller races and they've adapted to this. By homebrew design, they can wield two-handed or versatile weapons with 1 hand. There is no default rule that allows this, but we're accounting for a setting in which there's not a market for oversized items. It's not a major damage boost (e.g. d8 to d10) and doesn't permit them to bypass rules on dual-wielding.
  • I hadn't considered Oversized weapon use, but I like the unofficial sage advice proposal of never being able to gain Advantage, or even treating the weapon as non-proficient. After all, this weapon is foreign in weight and dimension from anything the PC would have been trained in.
• Everything else costs a lot more for them, and they require more food/water. So, we're draining resources regularly. In a typical setting, food/water might not be a concern, but in dying desert world without "auto-ease" spells like goodberry, it is.
• They are the only race with an offsetting INT and WIS penalty. And before anyone goes ape-naughty word over political correctness of giving any race an INT penalty, it's by design. In this setting, they were magically created to be malleable super-soldiers and intentionally modified to be that way. As a design feature, we need something to offset mechanical advantages of being Large.

Anyhow, I've gone a bit beyond your question and into the debate of Large PCs.

Reach seems no problem.

Counting squares of area radius and aura is no problem. Only count from a point. Thus count from one of the four corners of a square. This should be the case anyway to avoid confusion. I mainly use mind theater, so only it only matters if using a grid.

Reach threatening squares is working as intended. And is fine, because there is only one reaction regardless of how many squares are threatened, and even then, only if the target is fleeing and exiting the threat.






Setting implications are different for each setting.

Amount of food/water might matter?




I feel the most significant concern is weapon damage. Ultimately, if a problem, then remove any damage increase. Let the Strength bonus alone represent the bigger size and harder hit. Besides, hit points means the ability to avoid a killing hit. If being bigger means being easier to avoid, then it means less damage. So, it seems ok for Strength to be the mechanic for hitting harder.

Alternatively, a Large weapon could have a size and Strength prereq to wield proficiently, thus allow slightly more damage. So a Large longsword goes from 1d10 two-handed to 1d12. Not a big deal.

 

[toucanbuzz]

I mainly use mind theater, so only it only matters if using a grid.

Yep. Crawford's arguments were grid-based. In AD&D days, large creatures like the half-giant took up a 5' x 10' slot, not a 10' x 10' slot, representing the ability to navigate the universal 5' map corridor. In theatre, they can duck their heads and turn a bit sideways and navigate those same dimensions.

Reach threatening squares is working as intended. And is fine, because there is only one reaction regardless of how many squares are threatened, and even then, only if the target is fleeing and exiting the threat.

Yep. If you restrict reach to 5' for the large PC, not a big deal.

I feel the most significant concern is weapon damage...

Boiled down, I believe so. Then we have to decide if oversized weapons can be freely used (they shouldn't because going from 1d8 to 2d8 weapons is huge). If you can get that resolved, we're in good shape.

 

[77IM]

Then we have to decide if oversized weapons can be freely used (they shouldn't because going from 1d8 to 2d8 weapons is huge). If you can get that resolved, we're in good shape.

After DMing a Large character for a year, who weilded Large weapons in exchange for giving up Extra Attack, I've come up with the following rule. I'm not totally happy with it though.

Weapon Size. Despite your Large size, you wield weapons sized for Medium creatures. You can wield a weapon sized for a Large creature, but you make all attacks using that weapon with a -5 penalty. These weapons cost and weigh twice as much as normal weapons, but have twice the damage dice. For example, a Large-sized longsword would deal 2d8 damage when used in one hand, or 2d10 damage when used in two hands.

If you gain the Extra Attack feature from your class, you grow in stature enough to wield Large weapons more effectively. When you use your action on your turn take the Attack action to make only a single attack, you don't suffer the -5 penalty to that attack for wielding a Large-sized weapon. Any other attacks you make (such as opportunity attacks or any attacks made using a bonus action) still suffer the -5 penalty.
​

 

[Haldrik]

W = weapon damage dice



Currently, it seems.
• Tiny weapons deal 1 damage.
• Small is like Medium but disadvantage with Heavy weapons.
• Medium is standard.
• L is 2W
• H 3W
• G 4W.



What if.

• Medium = W (standard)
• Large = roll 2 W, only keep the highest W.
• Huge = roll 3 W, only keep the highest W.
• Gargantuan = roll 4 W, only keep the highest W.

For example, a Gargantuan player character (from a spell or whatever) with a greatsword (W = 2d6), would roll 8d6 and keep the two highest d6s, often rolling 12 damage. (NPC monsters dont need to adhere to PC design, so DMs can use monsters as-is.)

For a normal Large player character, the greatsword rolls 2W (4d6 keep the highest 2). Hefty, but should be ok?

So the larger weapon is mehanically better, but still permissible to a player character?

 

[jmartkdr2]

I am concerned about a Large character with Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter, but +d6 per size category larger seems within bounds?

It'd be good, but no better than one with CBE, SS, and hunter's mark.

 

[Haldrik]

At the moment, I am leaning toward a flat d6 damage per size category added on a successful hit.

On average this is an extra 3 damage for being a Large character, and seems balanced for a major species trait.

If you had to choose between +d6 damage or Misty Step per short rest, which would you choose?



If necessary, it is even possible to restrict this extra damage to once per turn rather than per hit. The narrative explanation would be momentum. So larger creatures move relatively slower in proportion to their size, and require more setup to deliver a heavy hit.

Nevertheless, if the extra d6 damage after any calculations are made, on top of normal damage, then a +3 damage average seems fine. It would oddly reward two weapon attacks if adding to each hit, but at least for now, this extra attack spends the bonus action, which is its own cost.

An extra d6 per size category per hit (or per turn) after any damage calculations, seems fair, and even seems close enough to current system that multiplies weapon damage. In this case, the equivalent weapon damage is always d6, and it is because it is the size of creature that matters, not that of the weapon itself.