It bugs me that there is no mechanical difference for characters based on their size. Large characters can get reach, but that is all.
I understand that there are game balance issues here and that things like damage output can't be changed too much. But there definitely ought to be some kind of mechanical effect.
Here are some things I suggest:
Large Creatures
Pro:
* May carry 1 extra point of Bulk Rating.
* May reroll ones on all melee damage rolls (using the new result even if it is a one).
* Get 1 extra HP per level.
Con:
* The AC bonus they receive for their DEX score is reduced by 1. This is affected by the max DEX bonus of armor as if the character's DEX bonus was one point less.
* Any object which can provide cover for a medium creature provides only partial cover, while objects that could provide partial cover for a medium creature provide no cover.
Small Creatures
Pro:
* The AC bonus they receive for their DEX score is increased by 1. This is affected by the max DEX bonus of armor as if the character's DEX bonus was one point more.
* Any object which can provide cover for a medium creature provides improved cover, while objects that could provide partial cover for a medium creature provide normal cover. Objects that are too small to provide any cover for a medium creature could still provide partial cover at GM discretion.
Con:
* May carry 1 less point of Bulk Rating.
* Must reroll any melee damage dice that have their maximum value (using the new result even if it is the same).
* Get 1 less HP per level.
-----------------------
Thoughts?
Small creatures already (more or less) get a hit point penalty for their racial hit dice. Getting another one at level 1 seems a little unfair.
Perhaps they only get 1 hp less at 2nd level and higher?
Well, they do get a bonus to AC to compensate. Do you think that's not enough?
|
They don't really get a bonus to AC. There is no automatic benefit for being small.
Sure, you could argue that they tend to get a bonus to Dex. But the way Starfinder works (stats max out at 18) the bonuses are far, far less important than the penalties. A character of any race who wants a Dex of 18 will have one, its only at all painful if the race has a dex penalty.
When people make certain changes I always tend to ask why.
-I am not understanding the rerolls. Typically don't Larger races have a higher strength?
-I am not understanding the health change. Larger characters already get higher HP then Smaller characters.
I understand the cover and AC parts but what is the argument for the other changes?
I understand the lack of difference between sizes bothers you...but your system doesn't jive with the new aesthetics of Starfinder. They wanted to simplify the rules.
The only reason you want to add back in rules in because you're used to them in Pathfinder. But please remember this is a completely separate game. If you hadn't played Pathfinder (or D&D) before it probably wouldn't occur to you that you "should" have these differences.
They don't really get a bonus to AC. There is no automatic benefit for being small.
They do from the homebrew rules above.
-I am not understanding the rerolls. Typically don't Larger races have a higher strength?
No, they don't.
They get a higher STR racial bonus. But a large creature cannot have a STR any higher than 18, which is the same maximum for a human, or even for an Ysoki.
In Pathfinder, the size penalty to hit basically was cancelled out by a higher STR for larger creatures, so this specifically charted to more damage but about the same chance to hit. That's what I am going for.
-I am not understanding the health change. Larger characters already get higher HP then Smaller characters.
But not by much. Generally only a 2 hp difference. And a Dragonkin or Shobhad gets the same HP as a Shirren or a Vesk, who are both considerably smaller.
The only reason you want to add back in rules in because you're used to them in Pathfinder.
No, even if I hadn't played Pathfinder or D&D 3.5 I would still want there to be a functional mechanical difference to playing a character that is 2 feet tall versus a character that is 12 feet tall. In Starfinder the only mechanical difference is reach and how much space your character occupies.
I understand that they wanted simpler rules. That's fine. But adding size rules wouldn't have broken the game.
I see what you're going with on the cover rules, but I think the values you're working with are too extreme. Gaining normal cover isn't that hard for a ranged character, so bumping that up to improved cover (normally reserved for bunker slits, firing ports etc) is a massive boost.
I'd suggest chopping it down to something like a "you gain a +1 on cover all bonuses if you're small, -1 on cover bonuses if you're Large" at best. Even that is a bit more than I'm comfortable with, to be honest.
-I am not understanding the rerolls. Typically don't Larger races have a higher strength?No, they don't.
They get a higher STR racial bonus. But a large creature cannot have a STR any higher than 18, which is the same maximum for a human, or even for an Ysoki.
In Pathfinder, the size penalty to hit basically was cancelled out by a higher STR for larger creatures, so this specifically charted to more damage but about the same chance to hit. That's what I am going for.
Need help with this one because I might be playing wrong. Where does it say you can only have a max ability score of 18? What page number? Or do you mean max at lvl1?
But not by much. Generally only a 2 hp difference. And a Dragonkin or Shobhad gets the same HP as a Shirren or a Vesk, who are both considerably smaller.
Vesk and Shirren both get a +2 to con and I think that's why they get that bump to HP. Same reason why Dwarves are at +6hp.
Where does it say you can only have a max ability score of 18? What page number? Or do you mean max at lvl1?
Yes, at level 1. But after that, all the races grow in ability scores at the same rate using the same system. So if a Dragonkin character and an Ysoki character both maximize STR they will have the same STR at any given level.
I didn't want to increase the maximum STR because that would grant both a to-hit bonus and a damage bonus and a bonus to skills and potentially a bonus in resolve points.
Vesk and Shirren both get a +2 to con and I think that's why they get that bump to HP. Same reason why Dwarves are at +6hp.
I thought that until I picked up Alien Archive. But this is not a universal rule. Not all species that have a CON bonus get this. Draeliks, Formians, Ryphorians, Verthani and Wrikreechee all are medium and have a +2 CON bonus but only start with 4 HP.
Maraquoi have a CON bonus but start with 5 HP.
Nuars and Reptoids don't have CON bonuses but get extra HP; Nuars start at 6 and Reptoids start at 5.
Urogs are large and have a CON bonus. You would think that they would end up with 8 HP but no, they still have 6.
I see what you're going with on the cover rules, but I think the values you're working with are too extreme. Gaining normal cover isn't that hard for a ranged character, so bumping that up to improved cover (normally reserved for bunker slits, firing ports etc) is a massive boost.
I'd suggest chopping it down to something like a "you gain a +1 on cover all bonuses if you're small, -1 on cover bonuses if you're Large" at best. Even that is a bit more than I'm comfortable with, to be honest.
Whether or not you can gain cover generally depends on the map you are presented with. The GM ultimately controls this.
I see what you mean about improved cover. I wasn't sure about that part, and I may change it.
Do you agree that an object that is too small to provide cover for a medium creature might provide partial cover for a small one? Or that an object big enough to provide partial cover for a medium creature might provide normal cover for a small one?
I see what you're going with on the cover rules, but I think the values you're working with are too extreme. Gaining normal cover isn't that hard for a ranged character, so bumping that up to improved cover (normally reserved for bunker slits, firing ports etc) is a massive boost.
I'd suggest chopping it down to something like a "you gain a +1 on cover all bonuses if you're small, -1 on cover bonuses if you're Large" at best. Even that is a bit more than I'm comfortable with, to be honest.
Whether or not you can gain cover generally depends on the map you are presented with. The GM ultimately controls this.
I see what you mean about improved cover. I wasn't sure about that part, and I may change it.
Do you agree that an object that is too small to provide cover for a medium creature might provide partial cover for a small one? Or that an object big enough to provide partial cover for a medium creature might provide normal cover for a small one?
I broadly agree with you on cover, but feel I should note that even on a featureless plain cover bonuses are a feat and a move action away. Or you can use your own party members as soft cover. Not a bad option since it's essentially free AC for you, especially if you're a drone mechanic. I haven't played Starfinder for very long, but so far I've found that cover bonuses are common and I wonder if the system isn't balanced around you using them. Running into CR 1/2 thugs with a +6 attack bonus was a bit of a wakeup call in that regards.
As for your questions, I agree - with the caveat that you should then also take into consideration that an object high enough to provide cover for a medium creature would effectively be a wall for a small creature. A 4ft wall of sandbags is only waist-height for a vesk but it would completely break line of effect for an ysoki.
I worry that going down this route will lead to a great deal of deliberation on whether or not an object is partial cover, cover, or a wall - and you'll potentially need to do it thrice over in a party with all three sizes represented. For my games it's easier to handwave this and just use the default cover rules - we lose a little bit of detail, but we avoid a potentially major speed bump in combat.