Large and Tiny size should be Advanced or Monstrous

[hogarth]

Like the subject says, I think that Large or Tiny size races should be restricted to the Advanced or Monstrous level. The benefits of large size (for melee characters) and tiny size (for spellcasters) should be restricted in a normal campaign, I think.

[Talynonyx]

Then restrict it. Done.

[hogarth]

Talynonyx wrote:

Then restrict it. Done.

Couldn't you say that about everything? Why are there Advanced and Monstrous categories in the first place, if not to use them?

[Talynonyx]

Why do they need to be Monstrous or Advanced? What's wrong with making a standard player race that's large or tiny? A large standard race would spend 7 out of it's total of 10, reducing other options drastically. A tiny uses 4 and only applies to fey (which is stupid IMO, but a totally other discussion) so 5 at minimum, half of a standard.

[Mok]

In my own race design system that we've been playtesting it was made abundantly clear that Tiny and Large size strain the system. They can be doable, but it requires very careful design, and the GM needs to be aware of the issues that emerge with these sizes if they want the campaign to run smoothly.

Tiny is very challenging because it is a huge boon to spellcasters in terms of defenses, range touch attacks, and stealth. Meanwhile, if you wanted to play a martial character, tiny size presents huge obstacles, the biggest one being no natural reach and AoO that provoke when entering squares. You're options end up being reduced to using reach weapons.

I played a tiny Paladin and when I optimized to be a mounted archer, all I was doing was making myself a mediocre-to-average martial character.

On the flip side. With large size reach ends up becoming an issue if a player decided to optimize for it, which isn't that hard. Just get combat reflexes, a reach weapon and armored spikes and then start going down the trip-lock route of feat progression. If you have this condition at 1st level on, a lot of encounters just end up being shut down because you've got this 20' bubble where if any enemy moves they get smacked on by this brute. 1st through at least 3rd level encounters just get laid waste.

You can replicate all of this with a fighter that has enlarge person cast on them all the time, so it's not as if it's outside the bounds of what is possible with the system. The problem is one of framing. If you have a race that has this state in the "always on" position, it just encourages fun-sucking tactics.

Eventually I came to accept that large size shouldn't be available until at least 5th level. At that point the opponents aren't so squishy that they can handle the reach advantage, or have their own and it leads to a more balanced and scaled experience.

[hogarth]

Mok wrote:

On the flip side. With large size reach ends up becoming an issue if a player decided to optimize for it, which isn't that hard. Just get combat reflexes, a reach weapon and armored spikes and then start going down the trip-lock route of feat progression.

Note that the playtest version of Large size doesn't come with reach (that's a separate ability).

But still, based on my experiences playing a half-giant (from Dreamscarred Press's book), it's still quite powerful to be able to pump up your Strength score and use larger weapons, as well as being able to block corridors more easily, for instance.

[Artanthos]

Talynonyx wrote:

Why do they need to be Monstrous or Advanced? What's wrong with making a standard player race that's large or tiny? A large standard race would spend 7 out of it's total of 10, reducing other options drastically. A tiny uses 4 and only applies to fey (which is stupid IMO, but a totally other discussion) so 5 at minimum, half of a standard.

I posted an example of each in the sample races thread. The usage of large size on a min/maxed melee race is particularly unbalanced when combined with Paragon.

[Matthew Trent]

hogarth wrote:

Like the subject says, I think that Large or Tiny size races should be restricted to the Advanced or Monstrous level. The benefits of large size (for melee characters) and tiny size (for spellcasters) should be restricted in a normal campaign, I think.

I agree. I see the advanced flag as a warning to the DM that things are about to get wonky pay extra attention.

[Mok]

hogarth wrote:

Mok wrote:

On the flip side. With large size reach ends up becoming an issue if a player decided to optimize for it, which isn't that hard. Just get combat reflexes, a reach weapon and armored spikes and then start going down the trip-lock route of feat progression.

Note that the playtest version of Large size doesn't come with reach (that's a separate ability).

But still, based on my experiences playing a half-giant (from Dreamscarred Press's book), it's still quite powerful to be able to pump up your Strength score and use larger weapons, as well as being able to block corridors more easily, for instance.

Ah yeah... I hadn't gone through the whole document yet when I posted earlier. It's similar to Powerful Build from 3.5.

One thing that is important to point out is that in evaluating large size with large size weapons the average damage die doesn't go up just 1 point, but it can go up to 3 points when using a great sword. It's that factor that should be getting considered in the overall value of this ability. It's true that not every character would use a great sword, but it's when using a great sword that things really start to unravel.

[Bwang]

Perhaps a different cost for the 'same' feature if purchased at a different level. Keeping the 'same' entries with separate blurbs threw me at first, but it seems to work, now that I've slept on it.