PDA

View Full Version : Size Matters



cigamnogard
12-12-2009, 01:01 PM
So, what is your size preference?

Is it Large:
The dreaded ogre with his two handed axe?
-1AC
Is it Medium:
The elven ranger with two weapon figgting
Is it Small?
The gnome bard with the nasty crossbow
+1AC

DMMike
12-12-2009, 03:23 PM
:lalala:

cigamnogard
12-13-2009, 04:20 PM
....okay...
Anyone else?

wizarddog
12-13-2009, 04:34 PM
It depends on the type of character I am playing.

For a warrior, large size gives you increase in strength and constitution, larger weapon, natural armor, and reach. Large is always advantageous. Main reason why its usually worth a +1 ECL.

For stealthy character small gives me additions to AC, Dex, and hide. Perfect for spell casters who do not decrease their damage die by their size. But it's not until you go tiny that the size really pays off (bigger Dex mod). Again, +1 ECL.

Medium is what your usually stuck with so you learn to play with what you have.

cigamnogard
12-13-2009, 04:38 PM
For stealthy character small gives me additions to AC, Dex, and hide. Perfect for spell casters who do not decrease their damage die by their size. But it's not until you go tiny that the size really pays off (bigger Dex mod). Again, +1 ECL.

I have never "gone" tiny. Is it worth it?

tesral
12-14-2009, 06:00 AM
It really does depend.

Swordnboard
12-14-2009, 09:20 AM
I've always preferred Medium, but I also tend to prefer non-monster characters. I guess I have played a shorty on occasion... but it's rare.

Ishcumbeebeeda
12-15-2009, 11:27 PM
Mostly on the character concept that I had in my head beforehand. If I want someone who can really dish out the (melee) damage then I usually go large, like a half-ogre or half-minotaur. (Or I just go with a goliath which counts as large basically for everything advantageous. Or use the stone bones mutation template to get Powerful Build that way.) Or sometimes if I want to go the simpleton route. It can make for some really fun role playing to play a character that's less intelligent than you are. Otherwise I pretty much stay medium. I've never played a small character, but that's less because I don't want to be small and more because I don't particularly like the abilities/appearance/general motif of the small races that I've found so far. Then again I tend to be what I've heard people call a "min-maxer" or "power gamer" before. I just like to match my class with my race with my stats to make everything work in the most logical manner I can. Seems a shame to me to see a chink in my armor and not try to patch it up. :hippie: But hey, to each his own right?

tesral
12-16-2009, 12:46 AM
Size can matter indeed. I remember Tom was discussing how he would handle a Dragon, a really big Red in fact, and I thunked the miniature on the table, next to a Human sized mini.

Wonderful expression, I wish I had a camera in my hand. Size does matter, when you are a colossal red dragon.

wizarddog
12-16-2009, 01:36 AM
One advantage for small is you that since you can move through the space of another creature two sizes, you can run between the legs of an Ogre. Not many players take that advantage.

cigamnogard
12-16-2009, 09:09 AM
One advantage for small is you that since you can move through the space of another creature two sizes, you can run between the legs of an Ogre. Not many players take that advantage.
How is that an advantage? AoO?

wizarddog
12-16-2009, 03:23 PM
At times, a creature will block your passage. If have tumbling, you only need to make a tumbling roll of DC 15 rather than 25. And in the any case , you are not stopped if you fail the roll, just provoke. In tight corridors, it can make a difference, especially if you want to flank.

And sometimes you just might want to provoke a AoO for tactical reasons.

LordChicken
12-17-2009, 11:54 AM
Small(and smaller) is good for stealthy characters 80%(some people use the dodge bonus to tank) of the time, Wile larger characters seam to be tanks 80% of the time, Except for that one hill giant assassin...

nijineko
12-22-2009, 02:46 PM
we have one bard who is a complete dex based fighter with the big elven weapons that allow weapon finesse... she shrinks herself for an attack bonus to her dex. works for her, even when she power attacks. ^^

Frobozz
12-22-2009, 02:57 PM
Weirdly, I've played just about every race now that I want to play and I come right back to playing humans... so I guess medium for me. Big enough to open doors easilly and reach things on the top shelf, small enough not to have to duck.

nijineko
12-23-2009, 02:59 PM
the bonus feat and skill points are nice too. ^^

Frobozz
12-23-2009, 03:15 PM
the bonus feat and skill points are nice too. ^^

Yea! That's just icing on the cake! I think my problem is with other races, is that I've never had a GM that made them appeal to me. They always portrayed them too stereotypical and expect me to play them the same. I think the last time I played a dwarf, he hated being underground and had the personality of a snake-oil salesman. :laugh:

fmitchell
12-24-2009, 04:45 PM
I think my problem is with other races, is that I've never had a GM that made them appeal to me. They always portrayed them too stereotypical and expect me to play them the same.

I'll spare you my standard rant on the subject.

I wish more RPGs allowed you to play a human dwarf (small-d, plural dwarfs) or giant (small-g): human lineage and culture but notably smaller or larger than human norms, real-world health problems optional. Except for GURPS and Iron Heroes I'm hard pressed to think of any. (Actually, when I was trying to convince myself to run D&D 4, I thought of having a human-only campaign, but adapting racial traits to humans of atypical size, build, or lineage.)

tesral
12-24-2009, 09:06 PM
I'll spare you my standard rant on the subject.

I wish more RPGs allowed you to play a human dwarf (small-d, plural dwarfs) or giant (small-g): human lineage and culture but notably smaller or larger than human norms, real-world health problems optional. Except for GURPS and Iron Heroes I'm hard pressed to think of any. (Actually, when I was trying to convince myself to run D&D 4, I thought of having a human-only campaign, but adapting racial traits to humans of atypical size, build, or lineage.)

Dude, if that is what you want, we'll do that here. I had one character that was a stock pure human at Andre the Giant size. I am not limited by the "book".

cigamnogard
12-25-2009, 12:26 AM
GF is building a Troll - any suggestions? She is actually leaning towards a paladin troll too boot!

tesral
12-25-2009, 12:31 AM
GF is building a Troll - any suggestions? She is actually leaning towards a paladin troll too boot!

Suggestions would depend on system.

I suggest said troll be a romantic.

Nevek
12-25-2009, 01:37 AM
Small all the way, halfings, or growth stunted elves ftw.

Save gold hiding in a party members backpack instead of paying for an extra room in an inn.

Easier to hide, and also a lot easier for other characters to throw me to safety. It has come up once or twice. second edition mostly, don't have swim, have someone throw you across the river into a bush.

tesral
12-25-2009, 02:23 AM
I need a large character skilled in the ancient art of hafling-fu.

cigamnogard
12-26-2009, 11:03 PM
Suggestions would depend on system.

I suggest said troll be a romantic.

She's a cutie but romantic?
3.5
Eberron

tesral
12-26-2009, 11:50 PM
She's a cutie but romantic?
3.5
Eberron

Why not. A troll bard, that desperately seeks a handsome prince to knock over the head and take home?

templeorder
12-27-2009, 10:11 AM
I'ma medium weapon fan myself. Playing in more reality based games, bigger weapons are far less useful in tight quarters, and can injure companions in the wrong cases. Small weapons don't do enough damage unless used from surprise - medium ones seem like the perfect balance. Though small ones can be carried concealed. Also, what setting? I mean some have powerful smaller weapons, and they can also be used as a delivery vehicle for poison - though most of my groups would not use poison for fear of repercussions.

cigamnogard
12-28-2009, 05:07 PM
I'ma medium weapon fan myself. Playing in more reality based games, bigger weapons are far less useful in tight quarters, and can injure companions in the wrong cases.
Melee or ranged?

templeorder
12-28-2009, 09:41 PM
Melee or ranged?

melee. For ranged, theres a lot more flexibility. It depends on the game group - if the GM is a bear about physics and reality, light and medium weapons without much arc would be my choice - unless the character were better suited for outdoors with lasso, nets, bows, etc. - but i rarely play those.

cigamnogard
12-28-2009, 10:06 PM
melee. For ranged, theres a lot more flexibility. It depends on the game group - if the GM is a bear about physics and reality, light and medium weapons without much arc would be my choice - unless the character were better suited for outdoors with lasso, nets, bows, etc. - but i rarely play those.


If it's melee - how can you accidently hit your teamate then?

templeorder
12-29-2009, 09:42 AM
Because a massive 2 handed weapon with a wide arc does not leave a a lot of room to maneuver around in tight quarters. We play with fumble rules, and that scenario becomes far more likely. Sorry, did not mean to imply that friendly fire became a normal part of play just because of it.

cigamnogard
12-29-2009, 06:56 PM
We have played with fumbles and what not but have found that:
A/ They are not in the core rules
B/ A miss is bad enough
C/ Your character has spent hours of training - if he/she was to miss it would not be by much
D/ A five foot square is still pretty big so hitting another five foot area seems extremely silly
--- Merged from Double Post ---
:fencing::fencing::fencing:


Because a massive 2 handed weapon with a wide arc does not leave a a lot of room to maneuver around in tight quarters. We play with fumble rules, and that scenario becomes far more likely. Sorry, did not mean to imply that friendly fire became a normal part of play just because of it.

templeorder
12-30-2009, 10:02 AM
Then we do not share the same idea of a fumble. A fumble is not a miss, a fumble is a random event that completely causes things to go wrong. Stumbling, tripping, losing grip, weapon breaking, getting a sword caught in a beam, everything can go wrong. In our fumble rules, weapons do base damage only - so death's not likely unless a character is near death anyway, but it can do damage. And its only one of the possible results. Combat is often chaotic, crazed and uncordinated and many things can happen - i've been in many SCA/TFA/GOA type fights and i've seen 'fumbles' - they do happen. They are a fumble because they transcend training and simple miss (which i disagree - a miss sometimes is not 'bad enough' and a hit and simple damage is often not 'good enough' for many players seeking more flavor)...

cigamnogard
12-30-2009, 11:10 AM
I'ma medium weapon fan myself. Playing in more reality based games, bigger weapons are far less useful in tight quarters, and can injure companions in the wrong cases.
No?
--- Merged from Double Post ---

Because a massive 2 handed weapon with a wide arc does not leave a a lot of room to maneuver around in tight quarters. We play with fumble rules, and that scenario becomes far more likely. Sorry, did not mean to imply that friendly fire became a normal part of play just because of it.
How about now?
--- Merged from Double Post ---

Then we do not share the same idea of a fumble. A fumble is not a miss, a fumble is a random event that completely causes things to go wrong. Stumbling, tripping, losing grip, weapon breaking, getting a sword caught in a beam, everything can go wrong.
Not quite what you said.

templeorder
12-31-2009, 08:49 AM
Accidental brushes are rare but do happen... as part of a fumble. If i implied all fumbles are friendly fire then i was wrong. However, the idea of larger weapons requiring more space and having potentially more severe fumble repercussions still stands. I'm not really sure what you are debating at this point... While i'm not claiming to be an "adventurer", the hundreds if not thousand or so fights i've been in from no armor, to chain armor and from bare knuckle to bastard sword bear out this principle. I've never fought in a 10 foot wide by 40 foot long dungeon corridor, but a forest yes, cave yes, the dark yes. I've fumbled with varying results from a numb hand to hitting those i did not intend to, to losing grip on my weapon. The larger the weapon, the more likely i was to hit someone else accidentally with butt or tip... all in all, short thrusting weapons seem the best in terms of least accidents, but lack the flash and impact of something larger. Medium weapons - broadswords (thats a large group i know), maces, some axes...

cigamnogard
12-31-2009, 10:00 AM
Accidental brushes are rare but do happen... as part of a fumble. If i implied all fumbles are friendly fire then i was wrong. However, the idea of larger weapons requiring more space and having potentially more severe fumble repercussions still stands. I'm not really sure what you are debating at this point... While i'm not claiming to be an "adventurer", the hundreds if not thousand or so fights i've been in from no armor, to chain armor and from bare knuckle to bastard sword bear out this principle. I've never fought in a 10 foot wide by 40 foot long dungeon corridor, but a forest yes, cave yes, the dark yes. I've fumbled with varying results from a numb hand to hitting those i did not intend to, to losing grip on my weapon. The larger the weapon, the more likely i was to hit someone else accidentally with butt or tip... all in all, short thrusting weapons seem the best in terms of least accidents, but lack the flash and impact of something larger. Medium weapons - broadswords (thats a large group i know), maces, some axes...
Understandable - you are not a soldier who trains each and everyday with his weapon - are you? You have a job of some sort I assume. One might refer your skills as similiar to militia, half-trained, or perhaps a weekend 'fighter'. Now imagine practising 24/7 = now you would be a PC - how often then would you fumble?

tesral
12-31-2009, 12:28 PM
Once in a while. Everyone eats a bumble nut now and again. The most practiced people blow it. That is why Baseball counts errors.

Now, I disagree with the one in twenty chance no matter what. I use roll down if a one would not normally miss. I don't make a 1 automatically a fumble either. So the higher level you are the less likely a fumble would happen.

cigamnogard
12-31-2009, 01:03 PM
Once in a while. Everyone eats a bumble nut now and again. The most practiced people blow it. That is why Baseball counts errors.

Now, I disagree with the one in twenty chance no matter what. I use roll down if a one would not normally miss. I don't make a 1 automatically a fumble either. So the higher level you are the less likely a fumble would happen.
Right - agreed. But, if you were to make fumbles work would they work like another crit. Hmmmm...not explaining myself. So, if you roll a 20 and score a crit then let's day you need another 20 to confirm (for example) then if you roll a 1 do you need another 1 to confirm the fumble? And/or would different weapons have higher fumble/'threat' values? Maybe?

Swordnboard
12-31-2009, 01:09 PM
What I usually do is if they roll a 1: either I roll a d20 or they roll again. Depending on the result, something happens: a fumble, drop, self-hit, weapon sunder possibility, just a regular miss, hit a friend, a lucky fumble (miss terribly but things work out somehow), etc. There was a great thread on this in this forum somewhere... someone had a table and everything for how they did it... (sorry, I don't remember where it is).

EDIT: Ahh, there it is (under Ask a GM: making failure cool) http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7227

cigamnogard
12-31-2009, 01:19 PM
What I usually do is if they roll a 1: either I roll a d20 or they roll again. Depending on the result,
And what would determine the result? I agree the higher level/more practised the less it should happen.

Swordnboard
12-31-2009, 02:20 PM
Typically what I do is at lower levels they need to roll above a 10 on the second roll to avoid anything bad or silly happening. At higher levels I pretty much phase it out except for the double-1 roll. With two critical fail rolls back-to-back, I always do something (usually different every time), and it's usually more silly than bad when I GM... But I don't use a formula to determine this -- it's more off-the-cuff or rule of thumb. It depends on how the game is going, etc.

cigamnogard
12-31-2009, 03:44 PM
Typically what I do is at lower levels they need to roll above a 10 on the second roll to avoid anything bad or silly happening. At higher levels I pretty much phase it out except for the double-1 roll. With two critical fail rolls back-to-back, I always do something (usually different every time), and it's usually more silly than bad when I GM... But I don't use a formula to determine this -- it's more off-the-cuff or rule of thumb. It depends on how the game is going, etc.
Hmmm...not sure I would, as a player, appreciate that. As criticals are not a 50/50 way to go. Seems like it is easier to fumble than crit.

michael
12-31-2009, 03:48 PM
I answer to the original question i like the ogre. Give him a great big sword and an appetite for elves! Better yet, go modern and give him an M-60, a kevlar helmet (and an appetite for elves). Is sci fi you pleasure? Then give me an ogre with a great big sword that chops up mecha and (you guessed it) eats the elves inside!

cigamnogard
12-31-2009, 03:51 PM
I answer to the original question i like the ogre. Give him a great big sword and an appetite for elves! Better yet, go modern and give him an M-60, a kevlar helmet (and an appetite for elves). Is sci fi you pleasure? Then give me an ogre with a great big sword that chops up mecha and (you guessed it) eats the elves inside!
Interestingly enough I built an ogre who had been exchanged/ransomed/entrusted with the nearby elven tribe for the elven heir. The elf had grown up with ogres and the ogre had grown up with the elves. Which had achieved peace between the two peoples.
So, no my ogre did not hate elves but appreciated them. It made for odd roleplaying moments to be sure.

Swordnboard
12-31-2009, 04:16 PM
Hmmm...not sure I would, as a player, appreciate that. As criticals are not a 50/50 way to go. Seems like it is easier to fumble than crit.

Yeah, if I GM'd with strangers I probably wouldn't use fumble rules at all. However, I GM with close friends and family, and having funny things or unexpected things happen is part of what makes the experience enjoyable to us. On a typical fumble roll I usually don't penalize the PCs, I just describe an epically failed swing or RP it in some such manner, or have something happen that they didn't intend. Only rarely have I had PCs shoot each other or something drastic. We're a pretty lighthearted group, so we tend not to take that kind of stuff overly seriously -- it usually all works out ok.

cigamnogard
12-31-2009, 06:01 PM
Yeah, if I GM'd with strangers I probably wouldn't use fumble rules at all. However, I GM with close friends and family, and having funny things or unexpected things happen is part of what makes the experience enjoyable to us. On a typical fumble roll I usually don't penalize the PCs, I just describe an epically failed swing or RP it in some such manner, or have something happen that they didn't intend. Only rarely have I had PCs shoot each other or something drastic. We're a pretty lighthearted group, so we tend not to take that kind of stuff overly seriously -- it usually all works out ok.
We had a "new" DM and with his fumble rules instead of saving or party member we killed him. When I took over the campaign the fumbles were removed from gameplay.

templeorder
01-01-2010, 12:25 PM
Now i see where the issue may be. I don't use the 1 in 20 for either flat fumble or critical results. Those represent possibilities based on total level and chance to hit - not just 5% of the spectrum on either end - i then use a resistance check (based on level) after that to assess 4 potential outcomes - the more experienced will have a much less chance of doing any damage to a friend (worst possible outcome).

In my play group we rarely use this stuff - but in epic combats we tend to much more for flavor. In my system, you can actively try and achieve a critical with penalties by announcing it ahead of your action...

cigamnogard
01-07-2010, 02:11 PM
Now i see where the issue may be. I don't use the 1 in 20 for either flat fumble or critical results. Those represent possibilities based on total level and chance to hit - not just 5% of the spectrum on either end - i then use a resistance check (based on level) after that to assess 4 potential outcomes - the more experienced will have a much less chance of doing any damage to a friend (worst possible outcome).


I think I follow - could you please use an example?

templeorder
01-08-2010, 10:44 AM
Yeah -
I'll cite a very memorable catastrophe from about a year ago.

3 characters enter and ruined tenement, where hidden rites are going on in a city captured during war. One of the characters charges the main congregation. His initial attack is a fumble (100). His adjusted level is 6, he re-rolls his attack skill. Note here that each character has "Action measures" they use in a round.

Of the 5 possible results (result outcomes have 4 levels of quality + failure):
1) Goof - cannot recover to attack (but can defend) the rest of the round
2) Stumble - No further normal actions for the round to recover
3) Lost - Weapon slips and grip is lost; without lanyard it is dropped; all further actions lost in assess and react.
3) Catch - Weapon jams/malfunctions dangerously or catches on something. All further actions lost in assess and react. Weapon must be fixed/freed to be used.
4) Knockback - Bad choice of motion/movement; all remaining AM lost. RCT check to see if hold on weapons is preserved, CRD check or knocked down.
5) Off target - Slip or miscalculation causes weapon to strike friendly target; average damage only + normal adjustments. All further offensive actions lost in shock.

Note that some outcomes fall into next round where AM must be potentially spent in recovery. This may not be enough context without more of the rules... but the higher the skill, the more likely lower results... and less likely friendly fire happens...

cigamnogard
01-08-2010, 04:56 PM
Thanks - not for me.

templeorder
01-09-2010, 12:40 PM
Some people like advanced combat rules, some don't. I'm not a huge fan at all (slows down play too much), but my players asked for both critical and fumble rules to be used. My own core rule set does not use these. To me a fumble is just a miss and loss of remaining actions, a crit is just another multiplier on damage. Its flat and does not reflect experience, simply random happening.

In the above scenario, i forgot to cite what happened - character got their sword stuck in a beam and it was enough time to get jumped and beaten by a half dozen unarmed worshipers. The fumble itself did not do much, but the result allowed him to be swarmed.

cigamnogard
01-10-2010, 11:21 PM
Yes, it slows down play way too much.
It resulted in the direct death of a PC.
-was the first thing I removed as a DM when I took over the campaign.

Gabriel_Knight
01-14-2010, 06:18 PM
Small or Medium here, more different than that seems to be going for munchkin factor.
Anyways I find that outside large<->small the roleplaying gets way limited.

cigamnogard
01-14-2010, 07:38 PM
Small or Medium here, more different than that seems to be going for munchkin factor.
Anyways I find that outside large<->small the roleplaying gets way limited.
Ummm....I totally disagree but would like to hear your point of view.

cigamnogard
02-09-2010, 05:22 PM
GF has built another charcter this time a halfling wild plains outrider. Should be interesting with her raptor mount.

WhiteTiger
02-09-2010, 09:31 PM
Small or Medium here, more different than that seems to be going for munchkin factor.
Anyways I find that outside large<->small the roleplaying gets way limited.

There may a higher "tendency" towards power-gaming when large or huge creatures/characters are allowed to be played as PC's but it's still up to the player to bring something to the table roleplay wise.

cigamnogard
02-10-2010, 01:46 PM
There may a higher "tendency" towards power-gaming when large or huge creatures/characters are allowed to be played as PC's but it's still up to the player to bring something to the table roleplay wise.
Yes, the troll character multiclassed as a paladin and picked up an Eberron (education) feat. Recently in my blog, Eberron story line, the troll character, Arrah, may appear a little dim witted but she correctly identifies a poisonous character - as a bitter nightshade = a flower:

“Greetings Slamanthar. We are from the Ministry of Magic. My name is Solanum Dulcamara and these are my associates Dicentra Cucullaria and Atropa Belladonna. We are here to take you to…”
“...Arrah not know you – who are you?” interupted Salamantahr’s protector.
“My name is Solanum Dulcamara – here are my papers.” The human spell-caster / spokesperson handed his papers over to Salamanthar.
“Flowery name – sounds bitter to my ears – Salamanthar goes with Arrah.”
“Arrah, is it? Well, Arrah there is no room in this skycoach, but there will be another along shortly. Just wait here and come along presently. Salamanthar, this way if you please.”. Retrieving his papers from Salamanthar he gestured towards the nearby skycoach.