Talk:Large Player Characters (5e Variant Rule)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Quality Article Nominee[edit]

Featured article candidate .png This article is a current quality article nominee as of 10:46, 28 January 2019 (MST). Quality articles exemplify D&D Wiki's very best work, and therefore must meet the quality article criteria. Please discuss the page's merits below.

Support The way I see it, people are going to want to play Large races, no matter what. Goliaths and their Powerful Build is a bit of a cop-out, and there are races larger than a Goliath anyways. This variant rule is balanced and fun and should be the standard for when people want to be a large race. There's precedent for it being a QA: it's used for the Earth Giant race which is a featured article, too. Varkarrus (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2019 (MST)

Comment - the old :needsbalance: emoji face to this. I think that this article is well written. I think it helps players experience D&D in another way that might make things more fun for their table. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything inherently wrong with this to oppose. I know that it goes against the core of the game, but that is what a variant rule can do. This is another article to be nominated for FA/QA without reason. Could someone, maybe Varkarrus who nominated it, provide why they think it should be one? It could really help others in decision making. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2019 (MST)

Oppose I realized while commenting on another article that I don't believe this variant rule benefits the game. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2019 (MST)

Varks points are that this is balanced but it doesn't address size, space, reach issues that are the number 1 thing discussed about large races. GD's comments below are that adding them "could be so clumsy that it won't end up being worth it"!
I don't see this easy to implement since it has 3 variant rules inside of it, requiring multiple pages to view to understand what options you are considering on top of whether or not you want to use the 3-4 optional rules listed. Its like a variant for variants page? I don't know.
I am not sure why this makes PCs genuinely feel different without being too much more powerful. They still take up the same space and have the same reach that is the most common point when discussing the balance of these things, not how much damage they do with medium weapons-which is what this rule covers. Large races are clumsy with light weapons, can wield versatile and two-handers in one hand. It doesn't say you can't use large weapons or weapons for your size. It has a variant rule listed, and now we've entered incomprehensive.
Please consider the discussion here Talk:Hill Giant (4e Race). While its 4e the issues still exist in 5e and it can be noted no race in 1st party rules is large. There isn't support for it and contradicts the games fundamentals. I feel like QA and FA articles to work with the rules, not intentionally go against them. This article might be fun for players to use at their tables, but to be listed as the wikis best to offer? Just doesn't make sense to me. What I am seeing mostly is that people like this but there just isn't support that its balanced or anything other than the spelling and grammar checks out. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2019 (MST)

Support I essentially agree with Varkarrus’ points. This rule is an easy way to implement large-sized races in a relatively balanced way. — NPC Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 14:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)

Support This rule is not only simple, fair and comprehensive in its coverage of special cases, but it makes Large PC's genuinely "feel" different without being too much more powerful than the standard. I would like to see it become a QA. Quincy (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2019 (MST)

Support. With the request to use oversized weapons in campaigns, I can't say that this page is not acceptably balanced for campaigns where a player really really wants to be a large-sized race. An "optional" section dealing with reach and threatened squares when not using the oversized weapons rule would benefit this page, but that could be so clumsy that it won't end up being worth it. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2019 (MST)

Oppose What BSFM said. I'd prefer it if these issues were addressed before we pressed any further. I'll take a look at things myself and see what can be improved. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2019 (MST)

Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!
system ref. documents

admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors