What's wrong with Large size?


Homebrew and House Rules


I get the feeling that Large size isn't trusted for PCs, both from the Race Point 7 cost as well as other comments from around the Internet that I can't quote because I can't remember them. In preparation for fiddling around with designing a Large-ish race I could use some advice on what qualities of size are so problematic so I can maybe give the race a drawback that removes some of them.

Here's what I've got so far:
* +2 Str, -2 Dex.
* Space: 10 ft
* Reach +5 ft, but only if you're "(tall)".
* -1 attack and AC.
* +1 CMB and CMD.
* It changes whether some abilities (typically based around grabbing) can affect you.
* -2 Fly.
* -4 Stealth.
* +4 Intimidate vs Medium or smaller.
* Natural weapon attacks go up one die size.
* +50% carrying capacity.
Hopefully I haven't missed anything (I can't find a chart with all this on one page of the SRD).

So which of these would you consider the most offending features of giving PCs Large size, and which do you think wouldn't break the game too much? (In the end Large size shouldn't be free, but it's a question of whether there's anything that can be trimmed so it might be more balanced nearer to the Standard races.)

Liberty's Edge

Reach and weapon damage tend to be the biggest issues for people in my experience. A large greatsword is significantly better than a medium one at low levels. The 3.5 damage fades as time goes on, but additional size increases and/or vital strike builds can keep it relevant.

Reach is always nice. A reach weapon for 20 ft reach at level 1 is very nice, especially if you can swing the Dex for combat reflexes.


For a Strength-based character, Enlarge Person (or Expansion with Psionics) is one of best low-level buff spells, due largely to what Stack mentioned. Now, a large humanoid can get Enlarged (Expansion wourks regardless of type, but self-only) further for a 15' reach and about double normal weapon damage or more (d6 to 2d6, d8 to 3d6)

Add Impact to the weapon. There is something nice about swinging, say a huge pickaxe and landing a crit (12d6 damage) . . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's a lot that's hidden. +2 Str + Damage-dice + Reach (maybe) makes the damage go way up. +2 Str + Size + CMD/CMB makes the opportunities to mess with high-damage players (grapple, trip, etc.) lower.

Both of these encourage players to be "damage-race" types, which I personally don't want as much. If I can get a grindy battle, people are happier IME, so creating interesting disablers and higher HP/DR/Healing types is good.

So, IME, the "large" player pushes me to have to make encounter "too difficult" and it makes it more likely I'll kill players and virtually guaranteed it'll make encounters less interesting either way.

Liberty's Edge

The other issue is that an innately large race makes exploration complicated, as they take up four times as much space. You can leave your horse behind when you enter the manor or climb into the sewer, but do you leave Gorexx the Bloodthirsty?

It can definitely cause a few design problems, even with squeeze rules factored in.


The 10x10 footprint plus reach is a big deal too. The Large character commands rather a lot of the battlefield. Multitarget attacks become rather a lot more effective with the area threatened.

Many large races have a 40 ft move which is nothing to sneeze at.


Reach and extra AoOs are great for melee characters. These two things are typically the domain of big enemies, and from a GM's standpoint giving reach to a PC takes away an important part of what makes those enemies a challenge.


Reach and 10x10 size are the big issues. That they can be enlarged to huge only makes it worse.

That's why I recommend sticking with pseudo-large races for PCs. Give them powerful build so they can have the size modifier, use combat maneuvers on bigger creatures than would be allowed, and let them wield larger weapons. Then flesh out the rest of their race traits with things that do other, non-melee oriented things.


Okay, so the melee traits are big sticking points.

Let me explain a bit more where I'm trying to head with this: I want to create a trio of "generic" races to be used as animal PCs. I'm thinking one of those choices should be Large, but I recognize that's a can of worms. Pathfinder sizes are kind of opaque to me: is something like a grzzly or lion Large or is it really a buff Medium (ignoring what the bestiary entries currently say)? I also feel like I'd like the "Large" race to have to suffer some of the penalties of being Large.


If I went "buff Medium" the race would probably have a trait like this:

"Bulky: You have some of the advantages and disadvantages of being Large:
you take a -1 size penalty to your attack and AC, a -2 penalty to Fly checks, and a -4 penalty to Stealth checks. You gain a +1 size bonus to CMB and CMD and a +50 percent increase to carrying capacity. You count as Large size for the purposes of determining whether an enemy can affect you with combat maneuvers (such as grappling) and you count as Large when determining whether your combat maneuvers can affect them. Your armor costs the same as for a character of Large size (typically x2, or x4 if quadruped)."

They don't gain Str, Reach, or natural or weapon size upgrades. Would this work?

Shadow Lodge

An enlarged PC with a polearm, armor-spikes, and Combat Reflexes is an absolute murder machine that breaks mods, with Enlarge Person's casting-time being the only impediment (and that is likely the reason that the Plant domain got the Nerfhammer).


I tried to enlarge an NPC to gargantuan, and he can do a lot of damage, but he can't hit anything.

Shadow Lodge

Goth Guru wrote:
I tried to enlarge an NPC to gargantuan, and he can do a lot of damage, but he can't hit anything.

Why not? (I suppose it depends upon the means you're using, but most means of enlargement advance STR in equal or greater proportion to declining attack penalty.)


I'll try calculating strength again. I may have used +8 once instead of each category.


My wife loves playing Amiri in PFS and getting to roll 2d8+X for her Large bastard sword's damage. The thought of a Large character using the same schtick (but doing 3d8+X!) at low levels makes me cringe as a GM.


I homebrewed I giant bear for a player in one of my campaigns.
Large size but no reach. I gave it 1d6 claws and a 1d8 bite.

Tobhet around a bunch of weapon dice shenanigans I added a drawback that his hands were not capable of wielding weapons.

It let him play the large sized character he wanted with some of the advantages such as more strength and carrying capacity but he has to deal with his size

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / What's wrong with Large size? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules