I've been thinking, and I can't come up with an answer, why don't size modifiers apply to skills other than Hide? I realize that applying a size mod to most skills is just nitpicking like a gnome getting +4 on perform (string instrument) checks because his fingers are tiny and extra nimble. But what about obvious ones, namely Move Silently? I can't help but think that while a halfling's reduced height provides him with more things to Hide behind, his reduced mass (approximately 30 lb.) should likewise reduce the force and noise of his footsteps while Moving Silently.
Any opinions?
TS
That's a good point. I guess my only hesitation would be that once you start down that road, there's a lot of ground you could cover. For example, falling damage could probably be adjusted for size too.
You also make a good point. Smaller creatures have a lower terminal velocity and therefore can fall farther without injury. I remember being told in elementary school that an ant could fall from the Empire State building and land below perfectly well.
Anyway, I'm in the business of traveling long and winding roads. Can you think of any reason that size mods shouldn't be applied to certain skills like MS, in the interest of game balance?
TS
I was just thinking that if AC and Attack are both affected by size, the Hide should also get it's partner spot. If you're the size of a small house, you're more likely to overlook a cat than another cat would be.
I've had this very thought also but didn't mention it on this thread in order to keep things simple. But now that you've braught up this point, does anyone have any more tidbits on this subject?
The reason that I ask and the purpose of this thread is to slowly modify my D&D game. At the moment, I DM by the books very strictly but have always found (in my opinion anyway) many holes and glitches in the game. At some future point, I hope to run a massively revamped game based on the core books (to ensure game balance) but modified to satisfy my obsession with tweaking. A massive undertaking, to be sure, which is why I'm using Paizo's messageboards to give me more ideas and to reign me in when I want to revamp too much.
Thanks all,
TS
Indeed. If being smaller than your instrument made it easier to play, all cellists would be virtuosos. But that topic's already been covered enough.
Likewise, I'd say you could give a spot bonus to smaller creatures if you wanted to work through all of that, but it would be fair in return to start kicking up the range penalties to spot for them correspondingly. Sure, an ant is more likely to recognize another ant, but it has a thousandth the retinal area as a person, and can't pick out the same detail at a distance. For an ant, five feet is what a football field is to a human. The ant isn't as likely to miss another ant because in large part it's probably standing a few millimeters away from the second ant - a distance at which a human would notice, too.
I do wonder at the lack of bonus to Move Silently. I'd figure that one would be a logical one to boost, too. Kids can be quieter than adults when they make the effort.
Regarding falling, if you wanted to go the extra mile here I'd say knock off 5d6 from the max damage for every size category below medium.
Medium: Max 20d6
Small: Max 15d6
Tiny: Max 10d6
Fine: Max 5d6
This doesn't acheive the end goal of making insects capable of falling without dying, but it's an inconsistency that is itself consistent with other aspects of size in the game. In order to make collossal creatures possible, D&D fudges the strength & lifting system a little. If you ever work out the lifting power of large creatures, you find that things larger than medium become progressively weaker relative to their own mass to an exponential degree - even after accounting for the doubling of lifting capacity you get with each size increase. One human can carry another, but it takes 8 elder earth elementals to carry an unconcious comrade. If the system allowed them to carry each other, they'd need an extra 15 points of strength, which would cause game balance problems in combat.
This doesn't acheive the end goal of making insects capable of falling without dying, but it's an inconsistency that is itself consistent with other aspects of size in the game. In order to make collossal creatures possible, D&D fudges the strength & lifting system a little. If you ever work out the lifting power of large creatures, you find that things larger than medium become progressively weaker relative to their own mass to an exponential degree - even after accounting for the doubling of lifting capacity you get with each size increase. One human can carry another, but it takes 8 elder earth elementals to carry an unconcious comrade. If the system allowed them to carry each other, they'd need an extra 15 points of strength, which would cause game balance problems in combat.
Indeed, larger objects are structually weaker than smaller ones which is what makes spiders able to lift objects many times their own mass and climb with such ease (screw Peter Parker, he shouldn't be able to do that stuff!!!); also why the largest animals on earth, by far, live underwater where gravity cannot cause their own mass to crush their bones. Reconciling D&D's inconsistency with physics was a difficult thing for me to do as a kid (yes I was THAT nerd).
Back to the Spot issue though; considering, it would make sense to give small creatures a bonus but a penalty on range. I've been considering converting maximum Listen/Spot distance into a range increment system similar to ranged attacks. Speaking of such, why don't Small characters have shorter range with thrown/fired weapons?
*Searches madly for scrap paper and pencil while muttering incoherently*
Unfortunately, if you travel down this path there's no way to get back. Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed system puts Move Silently and Hide together into one skill (Sneak). Just combine the skills like that and you eliminate the problem.
Really D&D is a balancing act between reality and playability. You want the rules to be realistic, but not so realistic that they bog down play. There are so many things in the game that don't change because of size (such as falling damage and monster speeds) that its not worth worrying about.
This is a very hard issue to cover. Size affects alot more in life than it does in the game. But still As Bill said they are just keeping things simple. But i'm sure someone might try to add logic to it. I say you should go for it. Theres no telling what would change or what wouldn't change. If you try to change much plz tell us. Maybe you could widespread this to alot of others on paizo. Oh and I think to simplify the fact that a human can carry another human but it takes 8 elders to carry one, just say that a monster can lift any comrade that is the same as it's self.
Like I said, I'm in the process of revamping the game. I am not concerned with the hassle of modifying monsters with my new rules as the MM is part of my revamping process. Complications from the RAW are fine with me so long as they do not become true minutae such as size modifiers to perform checks and such. This is in part what I have so far:
Small Humanoid: 50 cm to 1 m in height; half carrying capacity; 1 m. by 1 m. space; 1.5 m. reach; +2 Hide/Move Silently; +1 attack; -2 grapple/combat checks; -1 damage.
Medium Humanoid: 1 m to 2 m in height; 2 m. by 2 m. space; 2 m. reach.
Large Humanoid: 2 m to 4 m in height; double carrying capacity; 4 m. by 4. space; 3 m. reach; -2 Hide/Move Silently; -1 attack; +2 grapple/combat checks; +1 damage.
I've converted measurements to metric, as I have always disliked our all-american rulers. Each 5 foot square becomes a 2 meter square. As small and large creatures have uneven reaches, they will operate in combat with 'virtual reach'; a human charging an ogre will visually (on the battle grid) become adjacent to the ogre before attacks are rolled but the ogre will still receive the benefit of attack of opportunity. And yes, small creatures now have smaller reaches as it always should have been! I've toned down the modifiers for small and large creatures to make them (especially large) viable as PCs. Also, the damage modifiers that I mentioned are not in addition to the difference in weapon damage; a halfling wielding a small sized longsword does 1d8-1 rather than 1d6.
Any comments/criticism? (I know you want to)
TS
How size modifiers are implemented is not a good thing.
Part of it is the doubling attack / defense modifiers. It's only a +1/-1 difference for a Medium creature to attack a Large or Small creature, but a +2/-4 difference for a Diminutive creature to attack a Tiny or Fine creature? It doesn't cancel or scale the way it's supposed to.
Another part of it is the Hide modifier. As written, this does not cancel out. A Tiny creature has as little luck finding another Tiny creature as a Huge creature does! Moreover, smaller creatures are quieter too, yet they really aren't THAT drastically harder to see or hear... honestly, how hard is it to spot a fly holding still? If it really had +16 to Hide you'd never see it even on a clean white wall.
Let's not forget poison either. A larger creature's bite or sting pumps a much larger volume of venom into its victim. Even more alarmingly, that volume can be much more overwhelming compared to a smaller creature's body size. Putting 1 oz (1/16 lb) or 1/4 cup of venom into a Tiny creature is effectively the same as putting 4 lb or 1 gallon of venom into a Medium creature!
Finally, there's the carry capacities for smaller-than-Medium creatures. I get that the whole 3/4 carry for Small creatures thing was put in so as not to feel like halflings and gnomes were being dumped on, but this is suspect reasoning. Their equipment already weighs half as much or less. (If we were really being realistic, it should weigh 1/4 to 1/8 as much.) Muscle strength changes with the cross-sectional area, which varies with the square of height; the linear variation of the rules is a good approximation since the amount of your own body you have to carry around varies with the cube of height, but it should start at half Medium for small creatures and keep halving each size below that.
But I don't just complain. I'm here to offer solutions!
* Fine: A Fine creature has a +8 size modifier to attack rolls and AC. It has a -16 size modifier to grapple checks. It has -8 to poison saves and save DCs. It has a carry capacity 1/16 that of a Medium creature of equal Strength. It gets +0 to Spot and Listen vs a Fine foe, +2 vs Diminutive, +4 vs Tiny, +6 vs Small, +8 vs Medium, +10 vs Large, +12 vs Huge, +14 vs Gargantuan, and +16 vs Colossal.
* Diminutive: A Diminutive creature has a +6 size modifier to attack rolls and AC. It has a -12 size modifier to grapple checks. It has -6 to poison saves and save DCs. It has a carry capacity 1/8 that of a Medium creature of equal Strength. It gets -2 to Spot and Listen vs a Fine foe, +0 vs Diminutive, +2 vs Tiny, +4 vs Small, +6 vs Medium, +8 vs Large, +10 vs Huge, +12 vs Gargantuan, and +14 vs Colossal.
* Tiny: A Tiny creature has a +4 size modifier to attack rolls and AC. It has a -8 size modifier to grapple checks. It has -4 to poison saves and save DCs. It has a carry capacity 1/4 that of a Medium creature of equal Strength. It gets -4 to Spot and Listen vs a Fine foe, -2 vs Diminutive, +0 vs Tiny, +2 vs Small, +4 vs Medium, +6 vs Large, +8 vs Huge, +10 vs Gargantuan, and +12 vs Colossal.
* Small: A Small creature has a +2 size modifier to attack rolls and AC. It has a -4 size modifier to grapple checks. It has -2 to poison saves and save DCs. It has a carry capacity 1/2 that of a Medium creature of equal Strength. It gets -6 to Spot and Listen vs a Fine foe, -4 vs Diminutive, -2 vs Tiny, +0 vs Small, +2 vs Medium, +4 vs Large, +6 vs Huge, +8 vs Gargantuan, and +10 vs Colossal.
* Medium: A Medium creature has a +0 size modifier to attack rolls and AC. It has a +0 size modifier to grapple checks. It has +0 to poison saves and save DCs. It has a normal carry capacity. It gets -8 to Spot and Listen vs a Fine foe, -6 vs Diminutive, -4 vs Tiny, -2 vs Small, +0 vs Medium, +2 vs Large, +4 vs Huge, +6 vs Gargantuan, and +8 vs Colossal.
* Large: A Large creature has a -2 size modifier to attack rolls and AC. It has a +4 size modifier to grapple checks. It has +2 to poison saves and save DCs. It has a carry capacity 2x that of a Medium creature of equal Strength. It gets -10 to Spot and Listen vs a Fine foe, -8 vs Diminutive, -6 vs Tiny, -4 vs Small, -2 vs Medium, +0 vs Large, +2 vs Huge, +4 vs Gargantuan, and +6 vs Colossal.
* Huge: A Huge creature has a -4 size modifier to attack rolls and AC. It has a +8 size modifier to grapple checks. It has +4 to poison saves and save DCs. It has a carry capacity 4x that of a Medium creature of equal Strength. It gets -12 to Spot and Listen vs a Fine foe, -10 vs Diminutive, -8 vs Tiny, -6 vs Small, -4 vs Medium, -2 vs Large, +0 vs Huge, +2 vs Gargantuan, and +4 vs Colossal.
* Gargantuan: A Gargantuan creature has a -6 size modifier to attack rolls and AC. It has a +12 size modifier to grapple checks. It has +6 to poison saves and save DCs. It has a carry capacity 8x that of a Medium creature of equal Strength. It gets -14 to Spot and Listen vs a Fine foe, -12 vs Diminutive, -10 vs Tiny, -8 vs Small, -6 vs Medium, -4 vs Large, -2 vs Huge, +0 vs Gargantuan, and +2 vs Colossal.
* Colossal: A Colossal creature has a -8 size modifier to attack rolls and AC. It has a +16 size modifier to grapple checks. It has +8 to poison saves and save DCs. It has a carry capacity 16x that of a Medium creature of equal Strength. It gets -16 to Spot and Listen vs a Fine foe, -14 vs Diminutive, -12 vs Tiny, -10 vs Small, -8 vs Medium, -6 vs Large, -4 vs Huge, -2 vs Gargantuan, and +0 vs Colossal.
Note 1: When a creature doubles in size, it doubles in size, in all dimensions, not just height. The spaces for creatures should be 10 ft large, 20 ft huge, 40 ft gargantuan, 80 ft colossal. Likewise, a truly Small creature's space would be 2.5 ft - enough to fit 4 creatures in the same space as a Medium creature. Of course, I realize this doesn't mesh with the D&D Minis already produced for 3.5E. But there's always hope for the designers to take basic arithmetic again before 4E comes out. And besides, I play online, so I don't use minis. ;)
Note 2: Size-related feats and abilities shouldn't say "only usable by Small or smaller creatures," "only usable by Large or larger creatures," or anything of the sort. Size is entirely relative. It is perfectly reasonable for a creature of any size - yes, even a Huge giant - to use Clever Wrestling against foes of larger size for a +2 bonus per size category of difference. After all, on that giant's scale, a gargantuan dragon is effectively "the size of an ogre."
As to falling damage, if it really bothers you that much, do something like... -25% falling damage for every size below Medium, +25% falling damage for every size above Medium.
So a creature of each size category falls 80 feet and suffers 8d6 falling damage. The DM rolls his fixed dice and comes up with 48 damage. This breaks out to 0 damage to the Fine creature, 12 to the Diminutive, 24 to the Tiny, 36 to the Small, 48 to the Medium, 60 to the Large, 72 to the Huge, 84 to the Gargantuan, and 96 to the Colossal. It's small but it makes a difference.
Ok bug, here it goes, and wow! btw:
1. I agree that the +1/+2/+4/+8 size bonus progression is bogus; I'm going with +1/+2/+3/+4.
2. I like the size mods to Listen/Spot; I just forgot to add them earlier.
3. Ideally, it would be great to have all size mods reflect relative size: i.e. +2 for a human spoting an ogre but +4 while spoting a hill giant. However, I myself would not want to modify these rolls during every encounter with every monster. Especially in this circumstance, as the DM would need to apply the spotter's bonus as the hider's penalty seeing as how the player doesn't know what the size difference is until the spot check is actually successful.
4. I agree that larger creatures should be better able to resist poison. In fact I've considered giving them a bonus to Fort saves in general while penalizing their Reflex saves.
5. I agree to fudge off with 3/4 carrying capacity for small size. This and the medium size reach for halflings/gnomes has actually caused confusion among new players. Just a few weeks ago I had to tell a new player that her human did NOT get an attack of opportunity against a dire rat as she expected. When I explained why this was (for game balance), she could only look at me confusedly which I totally understand.
6. Agreed, small equipment should weigh 1/8 normal; small creatures are physical powerhouses RELATIVELY speaking.
7. Agreed, double size should equal double space. In fact I have Colossal humanoids taking up 32 m. x 32 m. space.
8. Agreed, size related feats should not be restricted by size. Sure the average hill giant has less use of Clever Wrestling than a halfling but what about that clan of hill giants that live alonside the MOUNTAIN giants' territory?
9. Finally, I love your solution to the falling damage situation!
Again, wow.
TS
Edit: Doing the math, I find that a magically enlarged colossal human would not even be able to lift his colossal size short sword off the ground. (carrying capacity x16 while equipment weight is a whoping x4096)
As rediculous as it is, I'm going to stick with x2 x4 x8 x16 equipment weight in the interest of simplicity, unless anyone comes up with a better idea.
TS
3. Ideally, it would be great to have all size mods reflect relative size: i.e. +2 for a human spoting an ogre but +4 while spoting a hill giant. However, I myself would not want to modify these rolls during every encounter with every monster. Especially in this circumstance, as the DM would need to apply the spotter's bonus as the hider's penalty seeing as how the player doesn't know what the size difference is until the spot check is actually successful.
4. I agree that larger creatures should be better able to resist poison. In fact I've considered giving them a bonus to Fort saves in general while penalizing their Reflex saves.
3. These size differentials are already incorporated into the use and description of the Hide and Spot skills.
PHB 3.5, Chapter 4: Skills, Hide states: "A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size bonus or penalty on Hide checks depending on its size category: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16."
What this means, if I can use your statement, is that Spot shouldn't be '+2 for a human (Medium) spotting an ogre (Large)' because the Ogre is already getting a -4 penalty to his opposed check, which is Hide.
4. Larger creatures already get a bonus to poison: it's the fact that they have more Constitution (and thus more Fort). A monster that advances larger than Medium gets +4 Constitution per size increase, which (in turn) grants it a +2 bonus to its Fortitude save per increase. See the MM, Increasing Hit Dice, Size Increases, Table 4-2: Changes to Statistics By Size for a reference table.
3. These size differentials are already incorporated into the use and description of the Hide and Spot skills.
PHB 3.5, Chapter 4: Skills, Hide states: "A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size bonus or penalty on Hide checks depending on its size category: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16."
What this means, if I can use your statement, is that Spot shouldn't be '+2 for a human (Medium) spotting an ogre (Large)' because the Ogre is already getting a -4 penalty to his opposed check, which is Hide.
4. Larger creatures already get a bonus to poison: it's the fact that they have more Constitution (and thus more Fort). A monster that advances larger than Medium gets +4 Constitution per size increase, which (in turn) grants it a +2 bonus to its Fortitude save per increase. See the MM, Increasing Hit Dice, Size Increases, Table 4-2: Changes to Statistics By Size for a reference table.
While you are correct in stating that size differentials are already incorporated into Hide/Spot due to size mods to Hide, I am considering alternative ways to supplant the current system rather than augmenting it.
While most creatures do have more Con the larger they are, Con in itself is arbitrary as all the other six ability scores. If Con were directly related to size, gnomes would not get +2 Con.
TS
Got Ooze? That has got to be one of the funniest screen names I have ever seen. I darn near P!$$ed myself laughing.
Thanks :D (I think?)
While you are correct in stating that size differentials are already incorporated into Hide/Spot due to size mods to Hide, I am considering alternative ways to supplant the current system rather than augmenting it.While most creatures do have more Con the larger they are, Con in itself is arbitrary as all the other six ability scores. If Con were directly related to size, gnomes would not get +2 Con.
Alright on the first one.
I see where you're at on the Poison for larger creatures being more effective. They have already incorporated that into the Save DC for the Poison ability.
MM, Chapter 7: Glossary, Poison ability to reads:
"The Fortitude save DC against a poison attack is equal to 10 + 1/2 poisoning creature's racial HD + poisoning creature's Con modifier."
*emphasis mine
What that extra added DC means is that each individual creature's Poison save is adjusted proportionately because of size, and that you don't have to adjust for every foe that every poison-bearing creature faces. They thought it easier to have the DC be harder than have the Save be easier (it makes more sense).
Here's hoping I helped.
Monster poisons are all well and fine, but what about character poison? Shouldn't an Enlarged fighter be better able to resist an assassin's poison than that same fighter in Reduced form? I personally think so.
Keep the comments coming, even the critisism. It keeps me from isolation-mania.
TS
3. These size differentials are already incorporated into the use and description of the Hide and Spot skills.
PHB 3.5, Chapter 4: Skills, Hide states: "A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size bonus or penalty on Hide checks depending on its size category: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16."
What this means, if I can use your statement, is that Spot shouldn't be '+2 for a human (Medium) spotting an ogre (Large)' because the Ogre is already getting a -4 penalty to his opposed check, which is Hide.
A) Size modifiers are supposed to cancel. But as is, a halfling with a +4 size bonus to Hide is just as good at hiding from other halflings as he is at hiding from humans, ants, or great wyrms. To cancel it out you would have to give him a +4 size bonus to Spot checks... which, since it would improve all Spot checks (including to see things at a distance despite his smaller eyes, etc), just doesn't make sense and is also too powerful. (It also paradoxically means that larger creatures somehow see less far.)
B) The modifier to Hide (which should include Move Silently also) is way too large. I am a fairly unobservant person but I still regularly notice ants crawling on the pavement without actively searching for them. Hell, I can see the tiny particles moving in the air if I focus. I work with mice and I can hear them move, if I'm not running windows media player through my phone / earbuds.
3. Ideally, it would be great to have all size mods reflect relative size: i.e. +2 for a human spoting an ogre but +4 while spoting a hill giant. However, I myself would not want to modify these rolls during every encounter with every monster. Especially in this circumstance, as the DM would need to apply the spotter's bonus as the hider's penalty seeing as how the player doesn't know what the size difference is until the spot check is actually successful.
C) It's too much trouble to work out relative sizes within each size category and apply different size modifiers to them. Both ogres and hill giants are size Large. Therefore, the same size modifiers should apply to each. (In my system, a Medium creature therefore gets +2 to Spot and Listen against both ogres and hill giants.)
4. Larger creatures already get a bonus to poison: it's the fact that they have more Constitution (and thus more Fort). A monster that advances larger than Medium gets +4 Constitution per size increase, which (in turn) grants it a +2 bonus to its Fortitude save per increase. See the MM, Increasing Hit Dice, Size Increases, Table 4-2: Changes to Statistics By Size for a reference table.
D) There's no reason for ability scores to change with size. If you take a Medium size human and hit him with a shrink ray, he doesn't become physiologically weaker and more frail. He is simply not able to apply his Strength as effectively or over as large of an area (represented in lower carry capacity and damage dice). He shouldn't suddenly become sickly and susceptible to every disease and death spell out there. Hit him with a growth ray, and he doesn't bulge with more muscles than the proportionate increase of those he already has; he is just able to apply them more effectively. He shouldn't suddenly become as healthy as a horse and able to shrug off polymorph spells and flesh to stone beams just because he's taller.
I understand the reason why they chose to modify Constitution - because they didn't want to deal with characters having any kind of "soak" rating, or with the consequences of "negative" damage reduction (for shrinking). But it's really the most elegant way to deal with the situation, if you don't want to deal with all the other logic holes.
I didn't delve into this with the prior post because this veers off more into modifying other rules systems (armor, etc) and not just size. But instead of increasing damage dice, Strength, Constitution, etc, you just use more simple, constant modifiers per size category. I'll stay away from discussing armor etc here and just talk about size.
D.1) Damage die sizes are constant. A weapon that deals 1d8 damage for a Medium creature deals 1d8 damage for a Fine or Colossal creature.
Reason: Reduces the math you have to do. Stabilizes things for the following rules.
D.2) +2 bonus to physical damage for every size category above Medium. -2 penalty to physical damage for every size category below Medium.
Reason: Represent the different damage capabilities of the various size categories, in a simple form that is easy to apply (no changing of base dice). Likewise represents that except when you go to multiple dice, even under the current system the difference between sizes is 2 points of damage.
Logic / Special Pleading: Represents that a Fine creature should be capable of dealing non-0 damage to other Fine, Diminutive, sub-Fine, etc creatures. A Fine fey gal going at another Fine fey gay with a Fine dagger should be dealing damage each hit, not 0 for the reduced die size.
Science: Increased mass is offset by increased surface area. Being hit by X amount of force hurts less if it's spread over the area of a beach ball (a giant's fist) than if that exact same level of force is applied over the area of a pill bottle (a halfling monk's fist). Thus, the size modifier is just 2 per size category.
D.3) +2 increase to damage reduction per size category over Medium. -2 penalty per size category under Medium. A creature with negative damage reduction takes more damage from every attack.
Reason: Cancels out the size modifier from D.2. Our Fine fey catfight proceeds with no effective size modifiers since at this point everything is cancelling out.
Logic / Special Pleading: If a human stomps on one of our fey gals, he does more damage to her, as you'd expect (+8 in this case). If an elephant tramples over a halfling and a human, the halfling takes more damage, which makes sense.
D.4) If you change the size modifier in D.2, the same change needs to be made to D.3 to keep things canceled out.
You are a genius Underfoot! Raw weapon damage would naturally have a DR counterpart, Though I'm going to stick with +/-1 per size category. As for skills (hide, ms, listen, spot, archery and melee) and combat maneuvers (bull rush, etc...) I'm going with +/-2 per category as I feel that these stats can have a bit more extreme bonuses without making Large/Small characters inviable as PCs. And yes, I have converted base attack and AC into skills...just seems logical. As for larger creatures loosing sensory effectiveness while realistically being able to see farther distances...that's a touch one. I've considered the possibility of reducing Listen/Spot increments for smaller creatures (and vica versa) but I already find environmental increments complicated enough. Perhaps capping off total listen/spot range would suffice?
Reduction in size actually would make one more vulnerable to disease; faster heart rate to spread it and less physical matter to pass thru before reaching vital organs. Old time miners used to bring caged pidgeons into deep expeditions with them; when the pidgeon dies, the miner knows that the environment will soon become deadly to himself. Understood, birds in general have EXTRA fast heart rates, but a similar sized rabbit's beats a lot faster than a human's. Being magic and therefore not subject to logic, I understand your objection to a giant being less susceptible to polymorph and such, but I can also imagine it being more difficult for a mage to manipulate the mass of the giant because of its well, MASS. Further, if I give large creatures bonuses to fort saves versus poison, environmental dangers and diseases it would be easier to simply take the final step and say 'bonus on ALL fort saves' rather than needing to define each type of save that is affected.
yo ho ho and a bottle o' Jack Sparrow!
If you're going to go to the trouble of modifying sighting distance, instead of doing caps, go in and modify the actual range increment at which creatures take Spot penalties. I think that's probably too much realism and trouble to bother with though in a game.
Mining canaries, of course, are testing for poison, not disease. (And I already accounted for poison.) If anything, most humans I know are far more sickly and disease-ridden than most small household animals I know, becoming ill far more often than their pets.
I am not sure where the reference to environmental dangers comes from. Creatures both tiny and huge have thrived in every environment from the desert to the arctic. Though tiny creatures do a little better in warmer climes than large creatures, and large creatures do a little better in cold climes than tiny creatures, the difference is small enough that it is not something that needs to be taken account of in game mechanics. After all, small mammals survived the nuclear winter produced by the iridium meteor that ended the reign of the dinosaurs.
Tangentially... on your base attack as a skill, if you're intent on attacking as a skill you might want to make the various weapon groups skills instead of base attack itself. Base Attack as a skill would by default be better than every other skill in the game put together and anyone who didn't have it at maximum ranks, even a wizard, would be a fool.
Mining canaries, of course, are testing for poison, not disease. (And I already accounted for poison.) If anything, most humans I know are far more sickly and disease-ridden than most small household animals I know, becoming ill far more often than their pets.
Humans are only more sickly than their pets because there are more doctors than veteranarians. Over the past century or so, humans (who occupy the 99th percentile of all animals for body mass) have evolved/devolved in the lax environment of modern medicine. I myself have two genetic defects that should have killed me shortly after birth, yet medicine promises me a relatively long life.
I am not sure where the reference to environmental dangers comes from. Creatures both tiny and huge have thrived in every environment from the desert to the arctic. Though tiny creatures do a little better in warmer climes than large creatures, and large creatures do a little better in cold climes than tiny creatures, the difference is small enough that it is not something that needs to be taken account of in game mechanics. After all, small mammals survived the nuclear winter produced by the iridium meteor that ended the reign of the dinosaurs.
Environmental danger = 'poison' in the mines. As a side note, poison is really only an acid (a chemical) that attacks the body's inside rather than it's outside. Sure, lemmings have specifically evolved to survive in arctic climes but looking at animals on the whole, size counts whenever bodily health is concerned.
Tangentially... on your base attack as a skill, if you're intent on attacking as a skill you might want to make the various weapon groups skills instead of base attack itself. Base Attack as a skill would by default be better than every other skill in the game put together and anyone who didn't have it at maximum ranks, even a wizard, would be a fool.
I like the idea of Melee applying only to a group of weapons. Of course, archery and melee are cross-class for the mage. Haven't decided what to do about the rogue, as Dex is the key ability for Melee, not Str. (I've applied Str requirements to most weapons and armor) Important note: a multiclass character does not compile all of his class skills together. A warrior/mage would only be able to have max ranks in melee for his warrior levels and 1/2 ranks for his mage levels. Oh yes, and I'm starting with those three classes. Only. For now.