The game developers are always trying to find the right compromise between realism and balanced game mechanics, which sometimes is not easy. But here's something that makes sense from a realism standpoint, that I don't think dramatically changed the game balance.
For effects such as the Enlarge/Reduce spell or the Rune Knight's Giant's Might ability, since you are now large-sized and your arms and weapons grew with you, how about adding a +5 feet reach bonus as one of the effects? That is certainly a buff, but in my opinion only a modest to moderate one. The damage bonus both abilities are only +2.5 per attack for Enlarge/Reduce and +3.5 per turn for Giant's Might.
If you take a look at the Rune Knight's Runic Juggernaut feature (level 18), you can see the designers believe that a character needs to be Huge in order to qualify for a 5-feet extension of reach.
I don't have as nuanced an insight into D&D game balance as the designers and therefore tend to believe they know how to balance the game better than I do, but I don't see your suggestion as vastly game breaking. I don't believe it is more realistic though. A creature's size category doesn't dictate reach, as creatures come in all shapes and sizes within the defined size categories.
(I think SeanJP just wants feedback. A place of mostly D&D players is a pretty good place to start.)
After seeing just a few episodes of D&D Logic, I'm thinking that 5e is more focused on accessibility and gameplay rather than realism.
It would be fine for homebrew if the table likes it. 5e is accessible enough to allow changes that feel more realistic to the players. I probably would not want it at our tables, but our tables aren't your tables.
As errata? Likely not going to happen given what the focus seems to be with 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
If you look at various “armed,” Large monsters, like the Ogre as an example, you can see that they do not get any added benefit of reach.
However, as opposed to the additional 1d4 damage granted to all weapon attacks by enlarge, or the additional 1d6 damage granted to a single weapon attack per round by the Rune Knights’ Giant’s Might feature, weapons wielded by Large creatures double the weapons’ damage dice. Hence why an Ogre’s greatclub does 2d8 damage, and their javelins deal 2d6 damage. The reason PCs only get limited benefits from increased size is most definitively for game balance purposes. PCs are already “glass cannons,” far outpacing monsters in DPR, but possessing a comparatively nominal increase in HP. (One of the main reasons that PC to Monster conversions aren’t straightforward.) Adding even more damage to the PCs’ attacks would only make balancing combat worse.
I just don't view Enlarge/Reduce as a direct combat buff type spell. It provides fun cinematic moments like enlarging the cave-bear druid to have a mini-kaiju fight with a giant, and it has many uses outside of combat, but if your goal is to bring offensive capability to a fight there are better spells for that.
Similarly with Rune Knight, I see the primary benefits as upping the fighter's grapple capabilities and giving them a larger battlefield presence in terms of space they can control. As is, a polearm fighter already moves from 25 squares controlled to 36 when they grow, adding reach on top of that would up it to 49. PAM/Sentinel is a known outlier in terms of power and it doesn't need more mechanics that synergize with it, as fun as that would be. Rune Knight is not in need of a buff either, for that matter.
I will definitely admit that the spell often fails to deliver as it seems it should - reducing a giant for example should lower it's damage by a hell of a lot more than a d4 - but in terms of doing what a second-level spell slot should do I think it's pretty well balanced. Just embrace that it's not a direct combat effect and there's a reason why there are so few mechanics available to expand reach.
It can work pretty well to cast Enlarge on the party Paladin in battle, which not only gives them control over more of the field, but also expands the range of their Aura somewhat, to help buff more nearby party members.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
(I think SeanJP just wants feedback. A place of mostly D&D players is a pretty good place to start.)
After seeing just a few episodes of D&D Logic, I'm thinking that 5e is more focused on accessibility and gameplay rather than realism.
It would be fine for homebrew if the table likes it. 5e is accessible enough to allow changes that feel more realistic to the players. I probably would not want it at our tables, but our tables aren't your tables.
As errata? Likely not going to happen given what the focus seems to be with 5e.
☝️This precisely. Pretty good perspectives, everyone so thank you. I still think +5 reach would be a good add-on, but I haven’t play tested it, so maybe the balance would be off.
TBH I find the fact that Hobgoblins get a 5' reach to be ridiculous. Growing to Large size would certainly grant benefits but not 5' worth IMHO.
One of the issues with scale in 5e (and many tabletop games TBH) is the gridded map. If you have less than 2.5 feet of extra reach it counts for nothing but 3' or more and many DMs will round up to 5'.
Given how powerful Reach can be, I can understand why they don't want to be handing it to anyone with access to 2nd level spell slots.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The game developers are always trying to find the right compromise between realism and balanced game mechanics, which sometimes is not easy. But here's something that makes sense from a realism standpoint, that I don't think dramatically changed the game balance.
For effects such as the Enlarge/Reduce spell or the Rune Knight's Giant's Might ability, since you are now large-sized and your arms and weapons grew with you, how about adding a +5 feet reach bonus as one of the effects? That is certainly a buff, but in my opinion only a modest to moderate one. The damage bonus both abilities are only +2.5 per attack for Enlarge/Reduce and +3.5 per turn for Giant's Might.
What do you think?
If you take a look at the Rune Knight's Runic Juggernaut feature (level 18), you can see the designers believe that a character needs to be Huge in order to qualify for a 5-feet extension of reach.
I don't have as nuanced an insight into D&D game balance as the designers and therefore tend to believe they know how to balance the game better than I do, but I don't see your suggestion as vastly game breaking. I don't believe it is more realistic though. A creature's size category doesn't dictate reach, as creatures come in all shapes and sizes within the defined size categories.
D&D Beyond isn't the company that makes D&D, that would be Wizards of the Coast. As such, they're not going to see your proposed errata.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
(I think SeanJP just wants feedback. A place of mostly D&D players is a pretty good place to start.)
After seeing just a few episodes of D&D Logic, I'm thinking that 5e is more focused on accessibility and gameplay rather than realism.
It would be fine for homebrew if the table likes it. 5e is accessible enough to allow changes that feel more realistic to the players. I probably would not want it at our tables, but our tables aren't your tables.
As errata? Likely not going to happen given what the focus seems to be with 5e.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
If you look at various “armed,” Large monsters, like the Ogre as an example, you can see that they do not get any added benefit of reach.
However, as opposed to the additional 1d4 damage granted to all weapon attacks by enlarge, or the additional 1d6 damage granted to a single weapon attack per round by the Rune Knights’ Giant’s Might feature, weapons wielded by Large creatures double the weapons’ damage dice. Hence why an Ogre’s greatclub does 2d8 damage, and their javelins deal 2d6 damage. The reason PCs only get limited benefits from increased size is most definitively for game balance purposes. PCs are already “glass cannons,” far outpacing monsters in DPR, but possessing a comparatively nominal increase in HP. (One of the main reasons that PC to Monster conversions aren’t straightforward.) Adding even more damage to the PCs’ attacks would only make balancing combat worse.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
I just don't view Enlarge/Reduce as a direct combat buff type spell. It provides fun cinematic moments like enlarging the cave-bear druid to have a mini-kaiju fight with a giant, and it has many uses outside of combat, but if your goal is to bring offensive capability to a fight there are better spells for that.
Similarly with Rune Knight, I see the primary benefits as upping the fighter's grapple capabilities and giving them a larger battlefield presence in terms of space they can control. As is, a polearm fighter already moves from 25 squares controlled to 36 when they grow, adding reach on top of that would up it to 49. PAM/Sentinel is a known outlier in terms of power and it doesn't need more mechanics that synergize with it, as fun as that would be. Rune Knight is not in need of a buff either, for that matter.
I will definitely admit that the spell often fails to deliver as it seems it should - reducing a giant for example should lower it's damage by a hell of a lot more than a d4 - but in terms of doing what a second-level spell slot should do I think it's pretty well balanced. Just embrace that it's not a direct combat effect and there's a reason why there are so few mechanics available to expand reach.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
It can work pretty well to cast Enlarge on the party Paladin in battle, which not only gives them control over more of the field, but also expands the range of their Aura somewhat, to help buff more nearby party members.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
☝️This precisely. Pretty good perspectives, everyone so thank you. I still think +5 reach would be a good add-on, but I haven’t play tested it, so maybe the balance would be off.
TBH I find the fact that Hobgoblins get a 5' reach to be ridiculous. Growing to Large size would certainly grant benefits but not 5' worth IMHO.
One of the issues with scale in 5e (and many tabletop games TBH) is the gridded map. If you have less than 2.5 feet of extra reach it counts for nothing but 3' or more and many DMs will round up to 5'.
Given how powerful Reach can be, I can understand why they don't want to be handing it to anyone with access to 2nd level spell slots.