D&D 5E Large Creatures - How much better is a bigger size for a playable race?

[Dark Sun Gnome]

The Gray Dwarf subrace was included in the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide released last month, and one of the most noteworthy features is its ability to increase its size to large. It got me thinking about how much more powerful a playable race that was large sized be in 5e, and could something like that ever be viable?

In the Forgotten Realms, the guide for 3.5 Shining South had the Loxo (two trunked anthropomorphic elephants) as playable race with a level adjustment of +2. So could a large sized race ever be viable for play?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Large creatures wield large weapons which deal double damage. It's hard to really balance that against anything else, if you primarily care about dealing damage with weapons. Maybe you could have some sort of XP penalty?

 

[Minigiant]

Large size doubles weapon dice normally and naturally. It's a huge buff. That's why low level giants like ogres and ettins are given bad weapons.

A large greatsword deals 4d6 slashing.

A PC who is large all the time might not work without tons of flaws and drawbacks.

 

[bedir than]

Moving through most dungeons would be done by squezing through small places. I'm away from book, but isn't that penalty half movement and disadvantage on attacks/skill checks that require movement?

There's also a dramatic cost increase for equipment (which only matters in tier one play for most campaigns).

You could add other issues in involving role-play (that dude's huge so I'm suspicious) or penalties to INT/WIS/CHA (traditional of the large dumbs in DnD).

 

[Xeviat]

The "Enlarge/Reduce" spell doesn't use the double damage dice formula; it uses +1d4 damage. You don't have to use the double damage dice; monsters don't follow the same rules as PCs.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The "Enlarge/Reduce" spell doesn't use the double damage dice formula; it uses +1d4 damage. You don't have to use the double damage dice; monsters don't follow the same rules as PCs.

Monsters follow a reasonable approximation of the same rules as PCs, but magic doesn't follow the same rules as nature. A large race which rolled +1d4 weapon damage would be incongruous with the way the world works.

 

[Kithas]

In a weird way you would also take more damage, not only deal it. Being large 10 medium creatures can surround you instead of the normal 8. In most cases this may not matter but in some it definitely would.
Some abilities would also be more powerful because of this, Thunderclap, Whirlwind Attack etc.
Honestly I think it would be too much of a headache to do well. 3.5 had the small-medium differences in ac and damage on weapons and it was just overly tedious.

 

[Minigiant]

The "Enlarge/Reduce" spell doesn't use the double damage dice formula; it uses +1d4 damage. You don't have to use the double damage dice; monsters don't follow the same rules as PCs.

That's the stat's for an enlarged "medium" weapon.

A reduced human's war pick: 1d8-1d3 damage
A human's war pick: 1d8 damage
An enlarged human's war pick: 1d8+1d4 damage
An ogre's war pick: 2d8 damage
A frost giant's: war pick: 3d8 damage

 

[Yaarel]

What if Large and larger characters could could only do one thing per turn, and must choose to attack or move, but not both.

This slow lumbering quality, might help mitigate double damage and long reach?

Any way to fend off char op abuse?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In the Forgotten Realms, the guide for 3.5 Shining South had the Loxo (two trunked anthropomorphic elephants) as playable race with a level adjustment of +2. So could a large sized race ever be viable for play?

Two comments:

1.) in a campaign where Large is not a serious disadvantage, the Mounted Combatant feat is extremely attractive.

2.) half-giants in Dark Sun (2nd edition) were larger than normal creatures. It was considered a moderately severe disadvantage, which had some compensating advantages but was overall a negative.