# Playable Large Characters



## Glade Riven (May 5, 2012)

For some reason, going between Small and Medium size creatures in 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4e works out fine. But from Medium to Large (at least in 3.5 & Pathfinder)? It doesn't work well. There are balance issues, which means I have to creatively solve/work around on the fly, etc.

I'd like to have a large size creature be playable on par with Medium and Small characters without things breaking - at least not too badly.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 6, 2012)

Well, just drop the reach stuff, the increasing damage for weapons and the plethora of size related bonuses and it will be fine. 

But in 3.5 (and I imagine pathfinder), it only really matters if you are a large melee guy. A large caster never caused trouble in 3.5, mainly because I never ever saw one.


----------



## GX.Sigma (May 6, 2012)

The 4e game I play in has a large playable race, and there are no problems. What was wrong with large PCs in 3e?


----------



## Stormonu (May 6, 2012)

One of the things I was surprised to find was that back in 2E (as laid out in Combat and Tactics)  Large humanoid creatures only took up a 5' space.  It was actually 3.5 that changed this.

I'd really like to see Large creatures as PCs "feasible" in 5E.


----------



## Mattachine (May 6, 2012)

In 3e (3 and 3.5), Large PCs got a significant boost in power because of reach (and AoOs). Since they were typically used as strong melee types, it just made them too powerful for most campaigns that started at low level.


----------



## Arytiss (May 6, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> In 3e (3 and 3.5), Large PCs got a significant boost in power because of reach (and AoOs). Since they were typically used as strong melee types, it just made them too powerful for most campaigns that started at low level.




This is pretty much it. I recall playing a Dragonkin (custom savage progression) that had me as being large at 1st level. Wielding a polearm with combat reflexes and the shorten grip feat from Dragon I could AoO any square within 20ft from 1st level multiple times.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 6, 2012)

Yep. Exactly why I don't like PCs with "large" mechanics. You want to play a tall character?  Fine, he's very tall -- no mechanical advantage.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 6, 2012)

Dice4Hire said:


> Well, just drop the reach stuff, the increasing damage for weapons and the plethora of size related bonuses and it will be fine.




Also considering that a LOT of "large" playable creatures fall into the tauric(large bodies, normal limbs) category, reach isn't even an issue there.  Sure, there's giants and stuff, but then you've got all those half-humanoids like Slitheen, Driders, Lamia, ect...

-----

IMO, large or small shouldn't have any mechanical advantages until you're reaching fairy or colossal size.  Halflings, Dwarves, and Gnomes can all fall into the "small" category, and any bonuses they get should be purely racial, not size-based.  Goliath's, Minotaurs, Ogres,(maybe even dragonborn) can all be "large" and their only benefits are racial, not size-based.

Until you're down to 1ft in height or over 20, being shorter or taller shouldn't provide you with a serious stat-based mechanical advantage.

This is why I created "vanity templates" for my 3.5 games.  Want to look like a half-dragon, drider, or other large creature but not deal with any of the mechanics of it, fine you look exactly how you want to, no mechanics needed.


----------



## trancejeremy (May 6, 2012)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Yep. Exactly why I don't like PCs with "large" mechanics. You want to play a tall character?  Fine, he's very tall -- no mechanical advantage.




I agree whole-heartedly, but we all know that the main reason people do play creatures like that is for the mechanical benefits. And they are going to cry if they don't get an advantage, or simply pick one that does.


----------



## BobTheNob (May 7, 2012)

When we were playing 2e Dark Sun we had a half-giant (which really was a half-giant, not a re-badged race  ) and didnt have too many problems. But the reason we didnt have problems was because we were playing 2e and were "rules light". Apart from the fact that he was stronger and had an enormous HP pool, there werent that many complications.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 7, 2012)

Transbot9 said:
			
		

> I'd like to have a large size creature be playable on par with Medium and Small characters without things breaking - at least not too badly




90% of the problems with "large" creatures in 3e and 4e completely evaporate when you drop OA's.

Another 5% evaporate when you drop minis-grid combat.

A further 3% evaporate when you don't rely on combat as the only metric of character balance.

I have every confidence that Large characters will be playable in 5e. And flying characters. And Tiny characters. And centauroid characters. And a host of other characters that 4e convinced itself D&D couldn't handle.


----------



## GX.Sigma (May 7, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 90% of the problems with "large" creatures in 3e and 4e completely evaporate when you drop OA's.



What's the problem with large creatures in 4e? They still only threaten a one square radius. They don't get size bonuses or penalties, they're a bigger target, and they're awkward to maneuver in dungeons. The only benefit they get for being large is +1 melee attack range.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 7, 2012)

trancejeremy said:


> I agree whole-heartedly, but we all know that the main reason people do play creatures like that is for the mechanical benefits. And they are going to cry if they don't get an advantage, or simply pick one that does.




Which is sad, I just want to play interesting creatures, be they large or small.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 7, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> What's the problem with large creatures in 4e? They still only threaten a one square radius. They don't get size bonuses or penalties, they're a bigger target, and they're awkward to maneuver in dungeons. The only benefit they get for being large is +1 melee attack range.





THIS.  None of the problems with large creatures in 3.x were related to OAs, or grids at all.

The only problems with large creatures is that they were attached to huge stat blocks and thus huge level adjustments making them impossible to play with a low-level party.  

I mean, being half-dragon in 3.x was a +3LA with something like a +6 str, +4 con, +2 dex, ect ect..  Being a Drider nets you plusses to almost every score, in addition to bite attacks, poison, spider-climb, ect..

Yeah, 10x10 made them take up a lot of space in a cramped dungeon, but this is only a problem assuming you do a lot of dungeon crawling(yes, I know it's a staple of the genre, but it's not a foregone conclusion that it will make up the majority of play.)


----------



## Glade Riven (May 7, 2012)

One of the issues of 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder is how upscaling is handled as part of monster design. It's not so much an issue from a DM using it _for_ monster design, but rather when a PC is increased in size they are affected by the same charts. It encourages players to want large creatures just for the bonus of melee stats.

3.5's half giant and 4e's Goliath worked around it a bit by having these races almost-but-not-quite into the next size category and specific racial features. All well and good, but what if someone wants to play a minotaur in 3.5? Either a bit of house-ruling or playing with level adjustments.

3.5/Pathfinder put in certain expectations due to their baseline rules on larger creatures. _Enlarge Person_ doesn't help, although if bonuses were flat as part of the spell instead of using the Monster Modifier chart, it would work better. 5e's flattening of the math may either help or exasperate the issue - I'm hoping it helps.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 7, 2012)

I would definitely like to see a return of playable large races/monsters (and tiny etc), would love a Savage Species type option (Treant Monks rock).


----------

