Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Will Doyle" data-source="post: 5709201" data-attributes="member: 6682161">Really, I'm not really seeing huge issues. Understandably large characters may not be to everybody's taste (much like tiny characters), but I don't think they'd be intrinsically broken. A quick "for" and "against":Larger footprintFor: Easier to block enemy movement, more likely to trigger OA against enemies, burst attacks made a lot largerAgainst: Easier to get slowed down by difficult terrain, more available spaces for enemies to attack from, less room for allies to manoeuvre.      Seems fairly balanced, apart from the bursts. Use  mounted rules, and it works, in my opinion.  Larger weaponsFor: Deal +1 die-step for most weapons e.g. 1d8>1d10Against: Difficulty obtaining large weapons.Now that's a flat bonus. But really, all it equates to (very roughly) is  a +2 melee damage bonus, right? Doesn't sound so huge to me.  ReachFor: Hit enemies from 1 square further away. However, no threatening reach.Against: Nothing really.I think reach is a pretty big deal, even without threatening reach. However, not all large creatures have reach - and I don't think it would be breaking things too much to say that large races that traditionally have it don't when made into player races (such as an ogre).</blockquote>