D&D 5E Pondering a change to Enlarge/Reduce

[Hawk Diesel]

So I've been thinking about the 1d4 additional/reduced damage based on whether you get bigger or smaller. But personally:

1) I hate d4's.
2) It's a weird way to add damage
3) It doesn't really accurately demonstrate the how much stronger/weaker you get.

So I was thinking instead when you use enlarge, you add double strength mod to damage (also pondering 1.5x strength mod, rounded up). When using reduce, you add only half strength mod to damage rounded down.

Obviously this could greatly change how the spell works in terms of min/maxers.

So basically, what would people think of such a change to the spell, and does the change merit an increase in spell level?

 

[Falling Icicle]

So I was thinking instead when you use enlarge, you add double strength mod to damage (also pondering 1.5x strength mod, rounded up). When using reduce, you add only half strength mod to damage rounded down.

What happens if the target has a Str mod of +0 or less?

 

[mellored]

+/-2 damage is close enough to 1d4.

 

[Zardnaar]

Bonus d6 imho. You can use the spell to knock huge creatures prone.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So I've been thinking about the 1d4 additional/reduced damage based on whether you get bigger or smaller. But personally:

1) I hate d4's.
2) It's a weird way to add damage
3) It doesn't really accurately demonstrate the how much stronger/weaker you get.

So I was thinking instead when you use enlarge, you add double strength mod to damage (also pondering 1.5x strength mod, rounded up). When using reduce, you add only half strength mod to damage rounded down.

Obviously this could greatly change how the spell works in terms of min/maxers.

So basically, what would people think of such a change to the spell, and does the change merit an increase in spell level?

It's more consistent with the rest of 5E is just double the weapon damage dice. All other Large creatures deal double damage with weapons, and Huge creatures deal triple damage. Enlarge should behave the same way.

I haven't thought deeply about whether or not it should be increased to third level under these rules, because my spell research system is more finely-grained than that. Personally I'd call it still level 2.25 or 2.5, since it's still very short-duration and doesn't have particularly good action economy. Even with double damage, it takes about three rounds of combat to even break even on damage from the spell if you can't Quicken it somehow. Compare Divine Favor, a first-level spell with a bonus action casting time that adds d4 radiant damage on every hit. Enlarge has a higher level and worse action economy; it gives advantage on Strength checks and lets you grapple larger creatures (but you also need more space to avoid penalties), and by RAW it gives only +d4 damage but under this rule it would give between +d4 and +2d6 damage depending on weapon. Even with this rule change, Enlarge is probably less attractive than Hex for pure damage, and less efficient than Divine Favor.

So I'd keep it at 2nd level as far as spell slots are concerned.

 

[Yardiff]

Thinking about whether to change spell level, enlarge/reduce spells were 1st level in previous editions.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

This has also got me thinking that outside of being ableft to get into smaller spaces, reduce is just a whole bunch of penalties.

 

[jaelis]

This has also got me thinking that outside of being ableft to get into smaller spaces, reduce is just a whole bunch of penalties.

Reducing a halfling or gnome spellcaster doesn't usually penalize them in meaningful way, and it allows some fun tricks with them getting carried (or even tossed) by other players. It can also make it easier for them to hide or find cover.

Arguably such a caster could carry themselves using mage hand, as a poor-man's fly spell. (But a DM could disallow it if they think mage hand simply can't hold a creature, regardless of weight or willingness.)

Edit: Ha, you don't even need mage hand, you can get your familiar to carry you. Even a bat or a raven can carry 15 lbs by RAW. That actually seems a bit unreasonable to me, but a hawk carrying 5 lbs seems plausible.

 

[Horwath]

Well, large creatures have their weapon damage doubled.

Greatsword deals 4d6 damage if enlarged to a size usefull to a large size character.

Maybe you could start with that.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

My concern with doubling weapon damage dice is that while it works easily with the Enlarge version, it's a bit less elegant for the Reduce version. You could just say half weapon damage, but then you're using a different mechanic for a spell that ideally is just reverse mirrors of one another.

I think double strength and half strength modifier is better. I might even make it that you just double/halve your strength and not do advantage/disadvantage for strength checks. Seems like a much simpler way of handling the spell.