Do you think we will ever see a large player race?

[Rfkannen]

So eventually we will get more races, this is a fact. However I was thinking about if we will ever get a large sized race.

Personally I image we will get one, but I can not think of how it would be balanced. Personally I tried to make a large race and even when I gave it light sensitivity i could not make it all balanced.

Do you think we will ever get one? How do you think it would be balanced?

[silveralen]

What exactly does large give you in the current edition? Bigger weapon damage and reach?

[Rfkannen]

What exactly does large give you in the current edition? Bigger weapon damage and reach?

yep. A fair bit of damage though. at level 4 grab a tree and tavern brawler, boom ton of damage. Highlevels, kill a bone devil, win game.

[Krymoar]

I don't know about over the course of eternity, I'm sure there will some somewhere eventually.

But, all the rules seems to be from a "Medium Creatures vs. The World" POV

[silveralen]

yep. A fair bit of damage though. at level 4 grab a tree and tavern brawler, boom ton of damage. Highlevels, kill a bone devil, win game.

How much is a fair bit? I'm going off enlarge which is only an extra 1d4, no monster manual yet so idk what specific rules might come in.

Still, given lack of combat reflexes and polearms no longer having the weird five foot dead zone, I don't reach is as much of an issue. If the damage isn't too absurd, a penalty to attack or AC could balance that aspect, and reach itself could just be the major extra feature of the race (doesn't seem dramatically overboard compared to a feat this edition).

[Finieous]

Seems like Large grapplers could be enough of a hassle to not be worth it for many DMs, even if not outright broken.

[silveralen]

Actually, given all the "no more than one size larger than you" requirements from grappling and shove, a large creature might have more going for it than I thought.

[Draken]

By itself, large size gives one extra instance of damage dice on manufactured weapons (1d8 becomes 2d8, 2d6 becomes 4d6, etc) and allows you to grapple huge or smaller creatures.

All large creatures I took note of in the MM are limited to 5ft. of reach in non-reach weapon attacks. Reach only really defaulted to 10 at Huge.

[MaxWilson]

By itself, large size gives one extra instance of damage dice on manufactured weapons (1d8 becomes 2d8, 2d6 becomes 4d6, etc) and allows you to grapple huge or smaller creatures.

All large creatures I took note of in the MM are limited to 5ft. of reach in non-reach weapon attacks. Reach only really defaulted to 10 at Huge.

According to the Enlarge spell, it is 1d4 instead of a full extra die.

[Rfkannen]

According to the Enlarge spell, it is 1d4 instead of a full extra die.

Actualy, from what I understand both of those would be misleading, the effect of the enlarge spell is suppose to be diffrent, what we would want to look at is large weapons from the monster manual, probably the minotaur, Sadly I do not have that on hand at the moment.

[Eslin]

Actualy, from what I understand both of those would be misleading, the effect of the enlarge spell is suppose to be diffrent, what we would want to look at is large weapons from the monster manual, probably the minotaur, Sadly I do not have that on hand at the moment.

As someone whose players abuse them frequently, a minotaur's greataxe does 2d12 damage. There are a lot of similar weapons, like the dao's maul which does 4d6, though there are quite a few weaker large weapons. They didn't try to follow any consistency like 3.5 did, they just eyeballed what kind of damage they wanted that particular creature to do and gave them weapon damage based on that.

[MaxWilson]

Actualy, from what I understand both of those would be misleading, the effect of the enlarge spell is suppose to be diffrent, what we would want to look at is large weapons from the monster manual, probably the minotaur, Sadly I do not have that on hand at the moment.

If Enlarge was singled out for special nerfing, then it is no wonder Enlarge is so lame in 5E. It used to be 10 minutes/level, +10% damage per level (only on rolls, not static modifiers). Reduce was also awesome for hiding and spying, you could shrink down to six inches tall. My first 5E session I memorized Enlarge (of course) and then I looked closer and was like, "Hey. That's not worth Concentration."


As someone whose players abuse them frequently, a minotaur's greataxe does 2d12 damage. There are a lot of similar weapons, like the dao's maul which does 4d6, though there are quite a few weaker large weapons. They didn't try to follow any consistency like 3.5 did, they just eyeballed what kind of damage they wanted that particular creature to do and gave them weapon damage based on that.

Then how do you know that's the weapon damage and not a bonus due to creature ability, the same way half-orcs get an extra weapon die on crits?

[Rfkannen]

As someone whose players abuse them frequently, a minotaur's greataxe does 2d12 damage. There are a lot of similar weapons, like the dao's maul which does 4d6, though there are quite a few weaker large weapons. They didn't try to follow any consistency like 3.5 did, they just eyeballed what kind of damage they wanted that particular creature to do and gave them weapon damage based on that.

But it is safe to assume that if a large character killed one of these enemies they could then grab the weapon. And as such that would be the kind of weapon they would have.

[Occasional Sage]

So eventually we will get more races, this is a fact. However I was thinking about if we will ever get a large sized race.

Personally I image we will get one, but I can not think of how it would be balanced. Personally I tried to make a large race and even when I gave it light sensitivity i could not make it all balanced.

Do you think we will ever get one? How do you think it would be balanced?

I don't think so. There's a flavor of game the devs are obviously fostering, and Large creatures don't fit that. Combine that with the freewheeling "whatever your DM allows" attitude and I expect that you'll need to pass this by each individual DM.

[Eslin]

Then how do you know that's the weapon damage and not a bonus due to creature ability, the same way half-orcs get an extra weapon die on crits?

Because when creatures are getting bonus weapon damage from being that creature, their profile will say it. The planetar is all like 'does 6d8 extra radiant damage with weapon attacks' in its profile, and minotaurs do not have any such clause. Therefore, reading it like every other weapon in the game, their 2d12 greataxes are 2d12 weapons.


But it is safe to assume that if a large character killed one of these enemies they could then grab the weapon. And as such that would be the kind of weapon they would have.

Yes, yes it is. Although the player in question skipped the whole 'looting' aspect and took the warlock pact blade, which can be shaped into any melee weapon.

[EugeneVoid]

Large player race seems entirely balanced, so I don't see why not. The only real benefit it gives you is a bit more damage, a cooler mental image, and, of course, the ability to pick up monster weapons (though seems like DMs choose whether or not to auto-break monster loot this edition). The monster weapon though RAW is pretty strong, so something like: +1 str, +1 con, or just +1 str, large size seems pretty fair. Mountain Dwarf is still probably better.

[Eslin]

Large player race seems entirely balanced, so I don't see why not. The only real benefit it gives you is a bit more damage, a cooler mental image, and, of course, the ability to pick up monster weapons (though seems like DMs choose whether or not to auto-break monster loot this edition). The monster weapon though RAW is pretty strong, so something like: +1 str, +1 con, large size seems pretty fair. Mountain Dwarf is still probably better.

It also gives you the ability to grapple one size larger and carry twice the weight, though your equipment will be eight times as heavy so that's not so great. Keep in mind the weapon difference is pretty big, and if they go blade pact warlock they can take any nonmagical large weapon they like.

[EvilAnagram]

I don't know of any player race that has ever been Large, and I don't see why they would start making one now.

[Eslin]

I don't know of any player race that has ever been Large, and I don't see why they would start making one now.

Goliaths (sort of), half-ogres, minotaurs, centaurs, lycanthropes (works in fifth too!), marrusault, warforged charger, dracotaur, Equiceph.

[Gurka]

I don't know of any player race that has ever been Large, and I don't see why they would start making one now.

Off hand, I can think of the half giant in the 3.x psionics handbook, half ogre from savage species, Goliath from races of stone though not technically large, did have the powerful build feature which offered most of the upside of large.

It's not too hard to scale up the damage on items from medium to large either by using the 3.x charts. The large majority of weapons use the same damage dice now that they did then, so it should be fine.

While it would allow you to grapple larger targets, I don't really see a big problem there, since it comes along with the drawbacks of being large: much less equipment that's available for your use (via drops), impossible to hide (blend in) in most crowds, a lot more areas qualify as tight spaces in a fight (low ceilings, narrow passage), difficult to find an adequate mount, much more difficult to find adequate cover, and the list goes on.

I'd also put some limitations on who and what can move through a space occupied by a large creature, as they fill it up a lot more fully than a medium creature. That goes for the large character trying to move through occupied spaces himself, even if it's a willing ally.

[Person_Man]

Yes, I think we are going to see most of the things we saw in every previous edition, plus some new things. They'll probably start publishing 1ish supplement per month some time next year. So its inevitable. I know that Mearls has said that its bad for the game (and he's right) and that he wants D&D supplements to be events like MtG releases, he does not set corporate policy at Hasbro, and Hasbro is going to demand that D&D publish supplements once the sale of core books drops off next year.

Once the train of splat books starts, then the carefully constructed balance of 5E will start to fall apart in dribs and drabs. So what the Large rules will look like will depend on when its published. Being published early (ie, closer to the core books) means that it'll be weaker. Being published late (ie, closer to the end of the 5E run before we move into 5.5) means that it'll be stronger.

[Eslin]

Yes, I think we are going to see most of the things we saw in every previous edition, plus some new things. They'll probably start publishing 1ish supplement per month some time next year. So its inevitable. I know that Mearls has said that its bad for the game (and he's right) and that he wants D&D supplements to be events like MtG releases, he does not set corporate policy at Hasbro, and Hasbro is going to demand that D&D publish supplements once the sale of core books drops off next year.

Once the train of splat books starts, then the carefully constructed balance of 5E will start to fall apart in dribs and drabs. So what the Large rules will look like will depend on when its published. Being published early (ie, closer to the core books) means that it'll be weaker. Being published late (ie, closer to the end of the 5E run before we move into 5.5) means that it'll be stronger.

To be fair we only saw that trend in 3.5 because they took a while to realise how much they'd been overvaluing certain aspects.

[Demonic Spoon]

I'd think using 3.5 as a basis for that call is flawed; splat books didn't break 3.5 balance any more than it was already broken.

[Eslin]

I'd think using 3.5 as a basis for that call is flawed; splat books didn't break 3.5 balance any more than it was already broken.

In fact they improved it, since they raised the floor for both martials and casters and increased the ceiling for martials proportionately more than they raised the ceiling for casters (10 is greater to 100 than 5 is to 80, after all). I never got the point of all those 3.5 core games, core was where most of the broken stuff was.

[Slipperychicken]

But it is safe to assume that if a large character killed one of these enemies they could then grab the weapon.

Not really. The MM explicitly says that the DM decides what items can be recovered.

[Eslin]

Not really. The MM explicitly says that the DM decides what items can be recovered.

The DM's gonna have to provide a bloody fantastic reason for killing 5 greataxe wielding minotaurs and not getting any greataxes.

If he does, go genie hunting - they explicitly disappear but leave their gear behind, and a dao maul does 4d6 damage plus 8+proficiency+strength knockdown on huge or small creatures, best martial weapon in the game (and yes the knockdown's a property of the weapon, not the dao. If it was the dao, it'd say so on its profile plus it would get it with its other melee attacks, which it doesn't.

[archaeo]

Yes, I think we are going to see most of the things we saw in every previous edition, plus some new things. They'll probably start publishing 1ish supplement per month some time next year. So its inevitable. I know that Mearls has said that its bad for the game (and he's right) and that he wants D&D supplements to be events like MtG releases, he does not set corporate policy at Hasbro, and Hasbro is going to demand that D&D publish supplements once the sale of core books drops off next year.

Once the train of splat books starts, then the carefully constructed balance of 5E will start to fall apart in dribs and drabs. So what the Large rules will look like will depend on when its published. Being published early (ie, closer to the core books) means that it'll be weaker. Being published late (ie, closer to the end of the 5E run before we move into 5.5) means that it'll be stronger.

I think you're making a ton of assumptions here that aren't really supported by the evidence. Hasbro and WotC gave the D&D division something like 15 people; there just aren't enough writers on staff to pump out monthly supplements. Furthermore, Mearls' pronouncements on the subject are filled with exactly the kind of language you'd expect from someone who has seen the market research on the splat treadmill. He doesn't sound like somebody who's fighting Hasbro to limit publications; he sounds like somebody who's been informed by Hasbro and WotC researching the subject and finding little market advantage to publishing a book a month.

In other words, you seem to be beating the drum of "Mearls' empty promises" a lot on this topic, but all I see is Mearls parroting corporate strategy.

On the subject of large creatures, though, I tend to think that if we do see them, they'll need a hefty disadvantage to keep from being overpowered, but I won't be surprised to see an attempt made in the future.

[Person_Man]

I think you're making a ton of assumptions here that aren't really supported by the evidence. Hasbro and WotC gave the D&D division something like 15 people; there just aren't enough writers on staff to pump out monthly supplements.

Most D&D supplements are typically written and edited by 1-3 WotC writers supported by numerous freelancers. There are literally hundreds of such freelancers who are willing to sell their work for very, very little money. You could assemble a book using the existing bench of D&D freelancers very, very quickly, for a relatively affordable price. WotC is also lining up book licensing agreements (you do all the work, WotC publishes it and takes X%) with some of their former staff writers.



Furthermore, Mearls' pronouncements on the subject are filled with exactly the kind of language you'd expect from someone who has seen the market research on the splat treadmill. He doesn't sound like somebody who's fighting Hasbro to limit publications; he sounds like somebody who's been informed by Hasbro and WotC researching the subject and finding little market advantage to publishing a book a month.

Every edition of D&D has been supported by literally hundreds of supplemental splat books, campaign settings, novels, boxed games, modules, miniatures, magazines, etc. Although the scope of how many products get published obviously varies (1st edition was obviously slow going, since it created the genre and was just Gary and Dave and their friends for a few years), this pattern is usually true of every successful roleplaying game. If the game sells well, you make more spinoff products so that you can make more money.

This isn't a criticism of WotC or Mearls. Its just the realization of a clear pattern. I've been playing D&D since 1st edition. Every time a new edition is published, there a brief lull as they try to maximize the sale of the core products, and then the conga line of supplements starts. The conga line of supplements might be less crazy this time around, but I can hear the same music playing and see the line forming on the dance floor.

[archaeo]

Most D&D supplements are typically written and edited by 1-3 WotC writers supported by numerous freelancers. There are literally hundreds of such freelancers who are willing to sell their work for very, very little money. You could assemble a book using the existing bench of D&D freelancers very, very quickly, for a relatively affordable price. WotC is also lining up book licensing agreements (you do all the work, WotC publishes it and takes X%) with some of their former staff writers.

As a freelancer, I can confirm your opinion about the price of our labor. :smallfrown:

Otherwise, while you are quite correct that WotC can easily start up the treadmill despite the small size of the core design team, we've been expressly told that isn't the strategy going forward. To wit:


Every edition of D&D has been supported by literally hundreds of supplemental splat books, campaign settings, novels, boxed games, modules, miniatures, magazines, etc. Although the scope of how many products get published obviously varies (1st edition was obviously slow going, since it created the genre and was just Gary and Dave and their friends for a few years), this pattern is usually true of every successful roleplaying game. If the game sells well, you make more spinoff products so that you can make more money.

This isn't a criticism of WotC or Mearls. Its just the realization of a clear pattern. I've been playing D&D since 1st edition. Every time a new edition is published, there a brief lull as they try to maximize the sale of the core products, and then the conga line of supplements starts. The conga line of supplements might be less crazy this time around, but I can hear the same music playing and see the line forming on the dance floor.

You are not incorrect about how things worked previously, but I still see no real reason to doubt that Mearls is simply telling us exactly what he's been told from higher up, assuming that he isn't simply in charge of the D&D game strategy outright. We know that Hasbro has every reason to want to leverage their brands in the same way that the comic book industry has done with great success, we know that WotC's internal research suggests that supplements are a bad way to try and make money, and we know that Mearls has hinted at some kind of alternative rule marketplace w/r/t the finished 5e license. So, instead, they're going to focus their efforts on tie-in products, winning their movie licensing rights lawsuit, and curating homebrew/TPP in some centralized way.

I don't see a conga line starting up. I see a department head describing corporate strategy at every opportunity and absolutely no confirmed upcoming publications after the DMG, excepting only the Elemental Evil adventure path next year.

[Demonic Spoon]

They've outright said they would be doing certain things, like psionics.

The issue is whether or not it will break the existing balance. I'd say the biggest problem with 3.5 splatbooks is that they attempted to fix design flaws with existing classes; a class with character options from core AND splatbooks was outright superior to one with character options from just core. A cleric who took feats from Complete Divine was going to be way, way better than a cleric who used just core feats instead.

Given that:

-All feats have been balanced against +2 to ability scores that everyone gets, and they've done a pretty successful job of balancing these
-Multiclass dipping has been nerfed heavily; dipping into 8 different classes and prestige classes from 8 different supplements is no longer going to necessarily make you notably stronger
-The general design of 5e leans towards using subclasses and a splash of feats for customization rather than mix-and-match ACFs, feats, and prestige classes

I don't expect this to happen. The ideal scenario is that WotC publishes some new stuff with some new stuff, but being competitive doesn't require pulling from those books.

That said, as archaeo said, I wouldn't expect splatbook-a-month to be the order of the day. I'd expect certain targeted books (psionics, for example, or setting/theme books like 3.5's Heroes of Battle), but not a "And here's a bunch of new stuff for casters" book.