Oh hey, here's something I've wanted for a while but forgot was a thing: Large-size player characters. I was reminded by this video, but I disagree with their reasons for it being impossible, so all that's left are reasons it would be cool.
Right now it's hard to make it official because there are some rule quirks that would make it an issue. Like, if you're Large, you take up a 10x10 area, which means you threaten 12 squares in melee, and spells with an AoE that center on you take up a larger area. On top of that, areas that other creatures need to squeeze into might be impassable for a Large character.
But for melee threat, it's counterbalanced by the fact that you can also be attacked from 12 squares in melee, and in terms of bodyblocking it's no worse (less effective, in fact) than a pet-control class like the Beastmaster Ranger or Battle Smith Artificer. The impassability/accessibility issue is an obstacle, but it's the kind that could potentially be interesting for a party to work around.
The only thing that's an actual issue is the AoE-surround spell issue, and that could be fixed in 5.5e with a line saying, "if you cast a spell with a radius that reaches more than 5 feet around you, and you take up more than one 5x5 square, pick a 5x5 square you occupy as the starting point for the spell." Bam, you don't get arbitrary AoE buffs due to being bigger but you get a little versatility in placement, just like you would if you were 10 feet tall and could rotate your waist/move your arms.
Oh hey, here's something I've wanted for a while but forgot was a thing: Large-size player characters. I was reminded by this video, but I disagree with their reasons for it being impossible, so all that's left are reasons it would be cool.
Right now it's hard to make it official because there are some rule quirks that would make it an issue. Like, if you're Large, you take up a 10x10 area, which means you threaten 12 squares in melee, and spells with an AoE that center on you take up a larger area. On top of that, areas that other creatures need to squeeze into might be impassable for a Large character.
But for melee threat, it's counterbalanced by the fact that you can also be attacked from 12 squares in melee, and in terms of bodyblocking it's no worse (less effective, in fact) than a pet-control class like the Beastmaster Ranger or Battle Smith Artificer. The impassability/accessibility issue is an obstacle, but it's the kind that could potentially be interesting for a party to work around.
The only thing that's an actual issue is the AoE-surround spell issue, and that could be fixed in 5.5e with a line saying, "if you cast a spell with a radius that reaches more than 5 feet around you, and you take up more than one 5x5 square, pick a 5x5 square you occupy as the starting point for the spell." Bam, you don't get arbitrary AoE buffs due to being bigger but you get a little versatility in placement, just like you would if you were 10 feet tall and could rotate your waist/move your arms.
I agree that the Large size thing needs to be addressed. As you said, wording can be added to spells to keep them from being OP. I think the big issue might be that nobody wants to run the game where the party has to crawl through a 5' tunnel and the Large character can't make it. No fun for the player and the team loses a valuable asset. However, just like with races that are daylight-sensitive, as long as the player and the party are willing to take on the added burden then the DM should at least consider it IMHO.
Half-giants in Dark Sun had the large size, from what I've heard from players and DM's it was pain. That is unless the character is good with never doing any interaction with npc's in buildings. And caves and tunnels.
Half-giants in Dark Sun had the large size, from what I've heard from players and DM's it was pain. That is unless the character is good with never doing any interaction with npc's in buildings. And caves and tunnels.
The biggest thing would be dungeon crawls. A Large-sized PC would have to be no more than 10' tall to fit through most hallways. Most hallways ARE 10' tall so no issues there. Doorways would have to be crawled through (I'd call that Rough Terrain so half speed).
Or the party could simply not do dungeon crawls. As I said, as long as the players and the DM all know that changes would have to be made I see no issue. I can see an RP-thing where the party is negotiating a mission and part of the contract is 'All deals null and void if the party encounters an opening smaller than 5'.
It looks horrible…. I may switch to pathfinder…. I am so disappointed that they are staking away ability boosts based on race and dismantling the alignment system…. Devils can now be good and have evil angels…. I mean it’s ridiculous
I agree that the Large size thing needs to be addressed. As you said, wording can be added to spells to keep them from being OP. I think the big issue might be that nobody wants to run the game where the party has to crawl through a 5' tunnel and the Large character can't make it. No fun for the player and the team loses a valuable asset. However, just like with races that are daylight-sensitive, as long as the player and the party are willing to take on the added burden then the DM should at least consider it IMHO.
Eh, the rule already says that characters can fit into spaces one size-level smaller than they are by squeezing. 10x10 is just the amount of space a character threatens, not necessarily the space they fully occupy. It would be kinda crazy in 10-foot-wide hallways, though.
It looks horrible…. I may switch to pathfinder…. I am so disappointed that they are staking away ability boosts based on race and dismantling the alignment system…. Devils can now be good and have evil angels…. I mean it’s ridiculous
Source on the alignment thing? It's been functionally "gone" for ages - you can pick one but it's almost never relevant to any mechanics aside from 2 or 3 magic items - but I haven't found anyone talking about actual steps they're confirmed to be taking in 5.5e.
And as for the race thing, the direction they seem to be going in is "instead of picking a race for the stat boosts, you pick a race for the perks." That's already led to stuff like Harengon bonus action leaps, the upcoming Dragonborn variants in Fizban's, and the insane Spelljammer races that just hit UA. I'm infinitely more excited for "you can knock everything prone in a 15-foot cone once per short rest" than I would be for "you get +2 Strength and +1 Charisma."
Just looked that up, and... it's not true? NPC monsters still have alignment in their stat blocks. Emphasis mine.
For a while, there’d been some confusion in the community about alignment’s role in D&D. In the rules of the Player’s Handbook, you choose your character’s alignment, and in the rules of the Monster Manual, the DM determines a monster’s alignment. No matter what alignment is chosen, a creature’s alignment describes that creature’s moral outlook; alignment doesn’t determine the creature’s behavior. Alignment is essentially a roleplaying aid.
Both books are clear about the player and the DM having the final say on alignment, but both books also plant a seed of doubt. The Player’s Handbook suggests alignments for various folk in the D&D multiverse, and the stat blocks in the Monster Manual include alignments without reminding the DM that those alignments are merely suggestions.
To eliminate that seed of doubt while preserving alignment’s function as a roleplaying tool, we’ve made the following changes:
Only named individuals, such as Mister Witch and Mister Light, have a definite alignment.
Generic Humanoids bear the words “Any Alignment,” reminding the DM that such people have vast moral range.
Magical creatures that have a strong moral inclination (angels, demons, devils, undead, and the like) have an alignment preceded by the word “Typically.” For example, a demon’s stat block says “Typically Chaotic Evil,” since it is typical for a D&D demon to be chaotic evil. That one word—“typically”—reminds the DM that the alignment is a narrative suggestion; it isn’t an existential absolute. The holy can fall, and the fiendish can rise. Members of certain organizations—charitable knighthoods or diabolical cults, for example—also sometimes get the “Typically” treatment.
Creatures, such as most Beasts and Oozes, that are incapable of moral discernment continue to lack an alignment and therefore bear the term “Unaligned.”
It's literally just so the DM can have a shield against rules lawyers. Most of the time, you'll go with whatever the alignment is "typically" listed as. It just means that if you say, "okay, this angel is on the verge of falling, so we'll treat her as evil," nobody gets to say "NUH UH, ANGELS ARE ALWAYS LAWFUL GOOD." It's one extra word, written for the sake of clarifying a rule that has always been there - the rule that if the narrative guideline does not suit your particular narrative, you get to discard the guideline.
Like, if you wanna stop playing DnD, go ahead, but if you're really that scandalized by this particular word choice I have to assume you're just looking for things to be offended by.
I'm just posting the link to the article, I haven't decided if I like this new direction or not. It will depend on the how it's going to be implemented.
I love the Alignment change. It kills two birds with one stone. Now people can't complain about "WhY aRe AlL oRcS eViL?!?!" anymore and the other side that is constantly screaming "OrCs ArE eViL bEcAuSe ReAsOnS sNoWfLaKe!!" can also STFU and the rest of us can go about playing D&D just like we always have.
I am actually quite happy with the new stuff as a DM it allows me to go places the players don't expect. I ran a game that takes place in Waterdeep, these children from an orphanage liked to sneak out and explore. While exploring a badly damaged old house they meet some goblins hiding in it as they came up from Undermountain via an entrance exit from the houses cellar but the children are taken buy a Hag, now the PC's looking for the kids and meet the goblins and instead of a fight find out what really happened and with help from the goblins rescue the kids.
I love the Alignment change. It kills two birds with one stone. Now people can't complain about "WhY aRe AlL oRcS eViL?!?!" anymore and the other side that is constantly screaming "OrCs ArE eViL bEcAuSe ReAsOnS sNoWfLaKe!!" can also STFU and the rest of us can go about playing D&D just like we always have.
This is indeed a positive side effect, and in the case of most humanoids correct. I'm just a bit afraid of how they're going to do this for creatures from the lower and higher planes. And the way they have done it with the Drow does not fill me with confidence. I'm not talking about the two new Dark Elven enclaves, but how Menzobarazan(sp?) has become the only Drow city in the underdark. I remember that there were a whole slew off them in previous editions. That's something I don't like.
It looks horrible…. I may switch to pathfinder…. I am so disappointed that they are staking away ability boosts based on race and dismantling the alignment system…. Devils can now be good and have evil angels…. I mean it’s ridiculous
Watch Lucifer on Netflix if you want an example of devils being good and angels being bad.
I am actually quite happy with the new stuff as a DM it allows me to go places the players don't expect. I ran a game that takes place in Waterdeep, these children from an orphanage liked to sneak out and explore. While exploring a badly damaged old house they meet some goblins hiding in it as they came up from Undermountain via an entrance exit from the houses cellar but the children are taken buy a Hag, now the PC's looking for the kids and meet the goblins and instead of a fight find out what really happened and with help from the goblins rescue the kids.
I LOVE narrative freedom. In my campaign, I had truly terrible Humans, pitiful 'monsters' that just wanted to live, and good guys hidden in the least likely places. These things keep the story fresh.
I love the Alignment change. It kills two birds with one stone. Now people can't complain about "WhY aRe AlL oRcS eViL?!?!" anymore and the other side that is constantly screaming "OrCs ArE eViL bEcAuSe ReAsOnS sNoWfLaKe!!" can also STFU and the rest of us can go about playing D&D just like we always have.
This is indeed a positive side effect, and in the case of most humanoids correct. I'm just a bit afraid of how they're going to do this for creatures from the lower and higher planes. And the way they have done it with the Drow does not fill me with confidence. I'm not talking about the two new Dark Elven enclaves, but how Menzobarazan(sp?) has become the only Drow city in the underdark. I remember that there were a whole slew off them in previous editions. That's something I don't like.
I run and play in a homebrew world, so the Lore changes don't really impact me or those I play with, but I can see how that could be bothersome.
I love the Alignment change. It kills two birds with one stone. Now people can't complain about "WhY aRe AlL oRcS eViL?!?!" anymore and the other side that is constantly screaming "OrCs ArE eViL bEcAuSe ReAsOnS sNoWfLaKe!!" can also STFU and the rest of us can go about playing D&D just like we always have.
This is indeed a positive side effect, and in the case of most humanoids correct. I'm just a bit afraid of how they're going to do this for creatures from the lower and higher planes. And the way they have done it with the Drow does not fill me with confidence. I'm not talking about the two new Dark Elven enclaves, but how Menzobarazan(sp?) has become the only Drow city in the underdark. I remember that there were a whole slew off them in previous editions. That's something I don't like.
I run and play in a homebrew world, so the Lore changes don't really impact me or those I play with, but I can see how that could be bothersome.
Yeah but that freedom we already had. It's not giving us anything new so to speak. I played a Grey Hawk campaign ages ago were we killed Lolth in Queen of the Demonweb Pits. That broke her hold on the Drow and liberated them from being evil.
I love the Alignment change. It kills two birds with one stone. Now people can't complain about "WhY aRe AlL oRcS eViL?!?!" anymore and the other side that is constantly screaming "OrCs ArE eViL bEcAuSe ReAsOnS sNoWfLaKe!!" can also STFU and the rest of us can go about playing D&D just like we always have.
This is indeed a positive side effect, and in the case of most humanoids correct. I'm just a bit afraid of how they're going to do this for creatures from the lower and higher planes. And the way they have done it with the Drow does not fill me with confidence. I'm not talking about the two new Dark Elven enclaves, but how Menzobarazan(sp?) has become the only Drow city in the underdark. I remember that there were a whole slew off them in previous editions. That's something I don't like.
I run and play in a homebrew world, so the Lore changes don't really impact me or those I play with, but I can see how that could be bothersome.
Yeah but that freedom we already had. It's not giving us anything new so to speak. I played a Grey Hawk campaign ages ago were we killed Lolth in Queen of the Demonweb Pits. That broke her hold on the Drow and liberated them from being evil.
That is kind of the thing though. We had that freedom from the start. Stating it explicitly for everyone hurts nothing.
So we can now have an azmodeus with good alignment…. Riggggghhhhhttttt……..
We always could make Azmodeus what ever alignment we wanted. The rules just say it more clearly than before. Nothing has changed about the way you (or your DM) run the games at your table. The sky has not fallen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Oh hey, here's something I've wanted for a while but forgot was a thing: Large-size player characters. I was reminded by this video, but I disagree with their reasons for it being impossible, so all that's left are reasons it would be cool.
Right now it's hard to make it official because there are some rule quirks that would make it an issue. Like, if you're Large, you take up a 10x10 area, which means you threaten 12 squares in melee, and spells with an AoE that center on you take up a larger area. On top of that, areas that other creatures need to squeeze into might be impassable for a Large character.
But for melee threat, it's counterbalanced by the fact that you can also be attacked from 12 squares in melee, and in terms of bodyblocking it's no worse (less effective, in fact) than a pet-control class like the Beastmaster Ranger or Battle Smith Artificer. The impassability/accessibility issue is an obstacle, but it's the kind that could potentially be interesting for a party to work around.
The only thing that's an actual issue is the AoE-surround spell issue, and that could be fixed in 5.5e with a line saying, "if you cast a spell with a radius that reaches more than 5 feet around you, and you take up more than one 5x5 square, pick a 5x5 square you occupy as the starting point for the spell." Bam, you don't get arbitrary AoE buffs due to being bigger but you get a little versatility in placement, just like you would if you were 10 feet tall and could rotate your waist/move your arms.
I agree that the Large size thing needs to be addressed. As you said, wording can be added to spells to keep them from being OP. I think the big issue might be that nobody wants to run the game where the party has to crawl through a 5' tunnel and the Large character can't make it. No fun for the player and the team loses a valuable asset. However, just like with races that are daylight-sensitive, as long as the player and the party are willing to take on the added burden then the DM should at least consider it IMHO.
Half-giants in Dark Sun had the large size, from what I've heard from players and DM's it was pain. That is unless the character is good with never doing any interaction with npc's in buildings. And caves and tunnels.
The biggest thing would be dungeon crawls. A Large-sized PC would have to be no more than 10' tall to fit through most hallways. Most hallways ARE 10' tall so no issues there. Doorways would have to be crawled through (I'd call that Rough Terrain so half speed).
Or the party could simply not do dungeon crawls. As I said, as long as the players and the DM all know that changes would have to be made I see no issue. I can see an RP-thing where the party is negotiating a mission and part of the contract is 'All deals null and void if the party encounters an opening smaller than 5'.
It looks horrible…. I may switch to pathfinder…. I am so disappointed that they are staking away ability boosts based on race and dismantling the alignment system…. Devils can now be good and have evil angels…. I mean it’s ridiculous
Eh, the rule already says that characters can fit into spaces one size-level smaller than they are by squeezing. 10x10 is just the amount of space a character threatens, not necessarily the space they fully occupy. It would be kinda crazy in 10-foot-wide hallways, though.
Source on the alignment thing? It's been functionally "gone" for ages - you can pick one but it's almost never relevant to any mechanics aside from 2 or 3 magic items - but I haven't found anyone talking about actual steps they're confirmed to be taking in 5.5e.
And as for the race thing, the direction they seem to be going in is "instead of picking a race for the stat boosts, you pick a race for the perks." That's already led to stuff like Harengon bonus action leaps, the upcoming Dragonborn variants in Fizban's, and the insane Spelljammer races that just hit UA. I'm infinitely more excited for "you can knock everything prone in a 15-foot cone once per short rest" than I would be for "you get +2 Strength and +1 Charisma."
It was an official announcement. Look it up…. It’s not gone for players but its silly to take it away for NPC MONSTERS
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/creature-evolutions
Just looked that up, and... it's not true? NPC monsters still have alignment in their stat blocks. Emphasis mine.
It's literally just so the DM can have a shield against rules lawyers. Most of the time, you'll go with whatever the alignment is "typically" listed as. It just means that if you say, "okay, this angel is on the verge of falling, so we'll treat her as evil," nobody gets to say "NUH UH, ANGELS ARE ALWAYS LAWFUL GOOD." It's one extra word, written for the sake of clarifying a rule that has always been there - the rule that if the narrative guideline does not suit your particular narrative, you get to discard the guideline.
Like, if you wanna stop playing DnD, go ahead, but if you're really that scandalized by this particular word choice I have to assume you're just looking for things to be offended by.
I'm just posting the link to the article, I haven't decided if I like this new direction or not. It will depend on the how it's going to be implemented.
I love the Alignment change. It kills two birds with one stone. Now people can't complain about "WhY aRe AlL oRcS eViL?!?!" anymore and the other side that is constantly screaming "OrCs ArE eViL bEcAuSe ReAsOnS sNoWfLaKe!!" can also STFU and the rest of us can go about playing D&D just like we always have.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I am actually quite happy with the new stuff as a DM it allows me to go places the players don't expect. I ran a game that takes place in Waterdeep, these children from an orphanage liked to sneak out and explore. While exploring a badly damaged old house they meet some goblins hiding in it as they came up from Undermountain via an entrance exit from the houses cellar but the children are taken buy a Hag, now the PC's looking for the kids and meet the goblins and instead of a fight find out what really happened and with help from the goblins rescue the kids.
This is indeed a positive side effect, and in the case of most humanoids correct. I'm just a bit afraid of how they're going to do this for creatures from the lower and higher planes. And the way they have done it with the Drow does not fill me with confidence. I'm not talking about the two new Dark Elven enclaves, but how Menzobarazan(sp?) has become the only Drow city in the underdark. I remember that there were a whole slew off them in previous editions. That's something I don't like.
Watch Lucifer on Netflix if you want an example of devils being good and angels being bad.
I LOVE narrative freedom. In my campaign, I had truly terrible Humans, pitiful 'monsters' that just wanted to live, and good guys hidden in the least likely places. These things keep the story fresh.
I run and play in a homebrew world, so the Lore changes don't really impact me or those I play with, but I can see how that could be bothersome.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yeah but that freedom we already had. It's not giving us anything new so to speak. I played a Grey Hawk campaign ages ago were we killed Lolth in Queen of the Demonweb Pits. That broke her hold on the Drow and liberated them from being evil.
That is kind of the thing though. We had that freedom from the start. Stating it explicitly for everyone hurts nothing.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
So we can now have an azmodeus with good alignment…. Riggggghhhhhttttt……. [REDACTED]
We always could make Azmodeus what ever alignment we wanted. The rules just say it more clearly than before. Nothing has changed about the way you (or your DM) run the games at your table. The sky has not fallen.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master