D&D 5E Little Giant and Powerful Build

[James Gasik]

Like anything, it's a mixture of both. I have a friend who thinks really strong characters should be able to wield large-sized weapons to do more damage (as some races could do in previous editions). I pointed out to him, however, that while mass has a factor in weapon damage, real-world weapons are generally as light as possible so they are easier and faster to swing- it wouldn't actually do most people much good to use a greatsword the size of Rhode Island.

So despite being able to lift heavier objects, you might not be able to throw them far enough to make a credible ranged attack- that's one line of thought.

The second line of thought is that this might give a race an advantage they weren't meant to have, which is a balance concern. In 3e, there was a very shoddy table for "improvised weapon damage by weight" in a sourcebook. Later, a specialized class was printed in the Miniatures Handbook, the Warhulk, who gained incredible strength as it leveled.

Put these two rules together, and you have people doing calculations about whether or not they can throw planets and other silly things. : )

 

[Slit518]

The second line of thought is that this might give a race an advantage they weren't meant to have, which is a balance concern. In 3e, there was a very shoddy table for "improvised weapon damage by weight" in a sourcebook. Later, a specialized class was printed in the Miniatures Handbook, the Warhulk, who gained incredible strength as it leveled.

My friend made a Minotaur who got all 10 levels in Warhulk. He was a Barbarian Warhulk who ended the campaign with 50 Strength. He was choking dragons one-handed toward the end of the game

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Like anything, it's a mixture of both. I have a friend who thinks really strong characters should be able to wield large-sized weapons to do more damage (as some races could do in previous editions). I pointed out to him, however, that while mass has a factor in weapon damage, real-world weapons are generally as light as possible so they are easier and faster to swing- it wouldn't actually do most people much good to use a greatsword the size of Rhode Island.

So despite being able to lift heavier objects, you might not be able to throw them far enough to make a credible ranged attack- that's one line of thought.

The second line of thought is that this might give a race an advantage they weren't meant to have, which is a balance concern. In 3e, there was a very shoddy table for "improvised weapon damage by weight" in a sourcebook. Later, a specialized class was printed in the Miniatures Handbook, the Warhulk, who gained incredible strength as it leveled.

Put these two rules together, and you have people doing calculations about whether or not they can throw planets and other silly things. : )

I don’t think anything like that is likely in this case.

I think being able to wrestle large and huge creatures as if of a size with them, and throw things farther, maaaybe proficiency in improvised thrown weapons, would all be fine.

 

[James Gasik]

It very well could be, I think it's fun. But at the same time, that's not what Powerful Build was intended to do (if it was, it would be spelled out). So ruling this way is a personal choice, but it may affect the balance of your games. Or may not.

Perhaps you have a Firbolg player who is struggling and could use a little boost, and this is fine.

I had a Bugbear in 4e (strong -and- able to use large weapons) who once chucked his allies across a raging river in a game, and later attempted to toss a Small ally in combat (Fastball Special style) to give them more movement.

The DM who was ok with the first stunt started giving me the hairy eyeball with the second.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It very well could be, I think it's fun. But at the same time, that's not what Powerful Build was intended to do (if it was, it would be spelled out). So ruling this way is a personal choice, but it may affect the balance of your games. Or may not.

I mean, yeah. I explicitly stated this is about adding to the feature.

Perhaps you have a Firbolg player who is struggling and could use a little boost, and this is fine.

I had a Bugbear in 4e (strong -and- able to use large weapons) who once chucked his allies across a raging river in a game, and later attempted to toss a Small ally in combat (Fastball Special style) to give them more movement.

The DM who was ok with the first stunt started giving me the hairy eyeball with the second.

Why? The Bugbear usd some amount of action economy to do this, I assume? Using actions to gain movement is fine.

 

[James Gasik]

Well I thought it was fine, but one incident was a tactic to get past a skill challenge outside of combat, the other was an improvised action not covered by the rules. And most DM's I play with get squirrely about improvised actions. Perhaps they think they will set a precedent. Perhaps they think it will unbalance the game. Either way, they want more time to think about it, and they will tend to make the action as unfavorable as possible. Not out of malice, but because most DM's hate surprises.

 

[Ancalagon]

I mean, Giants do more damage with thrown rocks because they are big and strong, right?

yes, but giants also do more damage with melee attacks as well (again because of the size/strenght). What is being suggested would only apply to ranged attacks.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well I thought it was fine, but one incident was a tactic to get past a skill challenge outside of combat, the other was an improvised action not covered by the rules. And most DM's I play with get squirrely about improvised actions. Perhaps they think they will set a precedent. Perhaps they think it will unbalance the game. Either way, they want more time to think about it, and they will tend to make the action as unfavorable as possible. Not out of malice, but because most DM's hate surprises.

Oh I don’t know about that last. IME, most DMs love surprises and improvised actions.

But my group didn’t even play 4e as a prescriptive game, and it was explicitly designed that way, so my perspective may be unusual.

 

[James Gasik]

It hasn't been my experience, most DM's seem to dislike surprises at the table. So I've learned to bring questions to them outside game as often as possible.