Silicon Sorcery: Collosi... also... Really big creatures and creatures with weak spots.

[Drakli]

Which issue of Dragon Magazine featured the Silicon Sorcery article on Shadow of the Collosus? That's one of my most favorite games of recent days, and has incredibly striking and beautiful fantastic entities (the Collosi.) Also... did it give ideas on how to recreate Collosi as D&D creatures... and if so, did it give an apt way to represent immense creatures and/or foes with very specific weak points? I mean, it kind of defeats the purpose/design/focus/epic-ness of these majestic Collosi if an adventurer can just walk up, stand in front of them, and whack at them until they fall down. Witness any of the battles in the game, and tell me any different, and... well... I'll be stunned.

As fond as I am of D&D, one thing that bothers me is that it doesn't very well represent either of these traditions of fantasy and legend (gigantic monster to be ridden/climbed, monster with a specific weak-spot, or combo of both.) The Collosal Red Dragon may be... well... collosal, but because (stat-wise,) it's mostly a shapeless blob of hit-points, fighters still just go up to it and beat the hit points out of it... apparently through hitting its toe-nail.

I wish there was a way to have PCs scale these sorts of gigantises, clamber up the bodies, and stick them in the eye/horn/throat/patch-of-missing-scales-on-their-chest(cough, Smaug)/other-significant-weak-spot. It seems more epic and fantastic to me that way. Walking up and poking their toes doesn't cut it for me.

[Thanis Kartaleon]

Well, a easy house rule for that could be that melee sneak attacks and critical hits don't apply to creatures more than one or two size categories larger than you unless you climb up to reach their soft spots... but there is the achilles heel....

[Drakli]

Thanis Kartaleon wrote:

Well, a easy house rule for that could be that melee sneak attacks and critical hits don't apply to creatures more than one or two size categories larger than you unless you climb up to reach their soft spots... but there is the achilles heel....

Hmm. Good thinking. You know, for sneak attacks, I rather like that. It makes sense, and makes PCs rogues work for their extra damage where it makes (not just realistic, but dramatic) sense for them to have to, (and provides gripping visuals of heroes clinging to dragon-spines or giant-beast-shagginess.) Plus, rogues usually have the kind of Dex I'd imagine for not losing their balance and access to lots of climb ranks to boot. And for critical hits, it makes sense too, because of the placement of vitals... but I somehow doubt a fighter will try climbing the beast to get in range said vitals, since you really can't "go for a critical hit." You either roll a 20 (or 19-20) or you don't. Unless maybe climbing the beast increases the chances you'll get a critical... hmmm...

As for achilles heels... okay, yes, that's a genuine weak-spot in reach, and I think it'd be cool to imagine a good hit landing there once, but I can't imagine, say, a dragon getting hit there repeatedly before getting wise unless the rogue is clinging to said heel (as per scaling the beast above) and not letting go. Plus, saying the criticals and sneak attacks keep hitting the heel again and again makes me imagine a man being attacked by chihuaua dogs or something nipping his feet, rather than an epic battle between man and collosal beast of fury.

[ericthecleric]

One house rule I’ve considered is the following: Extra damage- from sneak attacks, skirmish damage, and energy weapons (like flaming, holy, etc), and the like is that the die type (usually d6) sizes up or down according to size differences, just like base weapon damage. Thus, a halfling’s sneak attack deals d4 damage, while an ogres sneak attack uses d8 base damage. The reasoning for this is that if a diminutive creature sneak attacks you in the eye with a flaming weapon the size of a cocktail stick, it’s going to hurt a lot less than if a human did so. Similarly, being sneak attacked in the eye (etc) with a weapon the size of a tree trunk is going to HURT.

Another house rule I’ve been toying with, but not used yet is this. Keep base damage the same for creatures, regardless of size, and ignore the size adjustments to Strength for purposes of extra damage (reverse engineer in most cases). However, bigger creatures multiply damage dealt by the following, and take less damage when hit, according to the following table:
Damage dealt: Damage taken:
Large multiply x2 divide by 2
Huge multiply x3 divide by 3
Garg. multiply x5 divide by 5
Col. multiply x9 divide by 9

Smaller creatures divide damage dealt, and take more damage when hit, by the following:
Damage dealt: Damage taken:
Small divide by 2 multiply by 2
Tiny divide by 3 multiply by 3
Dimin. divide by 5 multiply by 5
Fine divide by 9 multiply by 9

For example, a cloud giant (Huge, Str 35, but Str 19 for damage bonus) would gain a +4 Str bonus for damage using a one-handed weapon. Using a longsword (base 1d8+4) results in a range of 15-36 points of damage per hit after tripling, or 30-72 on a critical. When struck for damage, they divide damage by 3.

Another example: a grig (Tiny, Str 5, but Str 13 for damage bonus) would gain a +1 Str bonus for damage using a one-handed weapon. Using a longsword (base 1d8+1) results in a range of 1-3 points of damage per hit after dividing by 3, or 1-6 on a critical. When struck for damage, they multiply damage by 3.

Of course, this system makes bigger creatures MUCH more deadly, and smaller creatures a lot less deadly, but it seems more realistic. The multiplying and dividing should be applied before damage reduction. If a bigger creature hits a smaller creature, damage is really deadly, while a smaller creature rarely deals much damage to a bigger creature.

Thoughts, anyone?

[DeadDMWalking]

Of course a system like this would completely readjust the CR system. In addition, certain creatures need to be re-evaluated for both their strength and their constitution. If they're not taking as much damage because they are larger, they shouldn't have a much higher Constitution modifier.

As far as mimicing realism, I think it is a better system.

As far as increasing playability, probably not.

Certainly you should discuss it with your players. It will also have the effect of making players not play small characters. They may be more inclined to choose a large (or larger creature) so you may have to adjust level adjustments.

Lastly, spells like "enlarge person" and "righteous might" will need to be reevaluated. With the differences in size creating more differences, I think you should consider a move up of those spells by at least 2 levels.

[MaxSlasher26]

They are located in Dragon 336. I don't have it on hand, but I believe it did mention that they had to be defeated in intricate manners like in the game.

However, the stats are for one single colossus that can be altered. I found this just fine, though I comment that there are in fact two colossi in the game that are nowhere near colossal in size. They are large or perhaps huge. (And they're annoying as hell to beat!)

I just beat this game a week ago, so I've been planning a Shadow crossover in my online game recently. ;)