| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is more of a question with a couple of potential solutions.
What would you do for making weapon size actually matter??
My roommate and I were discussing this for a character concept of his and found that vanilla rules don't cover it (Other than "No changes")
We came up with 2 primary ideas.
Solution 1
Using a weapon of a different size would change the way the strength modifier is applied.
|Examples|
Character has a StrMod of 4:
- Using a medium weapon gets 1x StrMod to their weapon.
- Using a small weapon gets .5x StrMod to their weapon.
- Using a large weapon gets 1.5x StrMod to their weapon.
- Using a Huge weapon gets 2x StrMod to their weapon.
Potential issues lie in Tiny sized equipment, Dex Equipment (I have a solution here), and weak characters using larger equipment (And vice versa) (Inverting the numbers could work, so a StrMod -4 would act like a StrMod -2)
Solution 2
The traditional 1d4 > 1d6 > 1d8... etc
Potential issues lie with the D&D3.5 issues of old.
Does anybody have other ideas of what could work here, cuz I personally REALLY do not like equipment sizes not mattering.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't, weapon stats changing between size categories was the most unbalancing and broken singular mechanic in all of 3.X with possible exceptions to be made for a GM who gives a blanket pass to the Leadership Feats.
If I had to choose between the two #1 is far FAR better and easier way of doing this although you seem to have forgotten about differently sized Ranged Weapons in your draft.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is more of a question with a couple of potential solutions.
What would you do for making weapon size actually matter??
My roommate and I were discussing this for a character concept of his and found that vanilla rules don't cover it (Other than "No changes")
We came up with 2 primary ideas.
Solution 1
Using a weapon of a different size would change the way the strength modifier is applied.
|Examples|
Character has a StrMod of 4:
- Using a medium weapon gets 1x StrMod to their weapon.
- Using a small weapon gets .5x StrMod to their weapon.
- Using a large weapon gets 1.5x StrMod to their weapon.
- Using a Huge weapon gets 2x StrMod to their weapon.Potential issues lie in Tiny sized equipment, Dex Equipment (I have a solution here), and weak characters using larger equipment (And vice versa) (Inverting the numbers could work, so a StrMod -4 would act like a StrMod -2)
Solution 2
The traditional 1d4 > 1d6 > 1d8... etcPotential issues lie with the D&D3.5 issues of old.
Does anybody have other ideas of what could work here, cuz I personally REALLY do not like equipment sizes not mattering.
I'll admit the weapon size not mattering bothered me a lot in the beginning. It became less of an issue over time, although I'd agree that it probably should matter a little.
One example I had thought of was imagining a sword long enough to be a longsword by a medium individual, but made versatile enough that it could be wielded with two hands by someone small. How could it do more damage by the small wielder. Well, one potentially reasonable explanation would be that by using two hand, needing to use two hands to do it, the wielder gets more leverage and thus more damage. Should it do as much as a medium two-handed sword? Maybe not, but maybe it is ok, or at least not as bad as first thought.
Where this really seems to fall a little more in the less believable realms is with bows of tiny, small, medium, and large sizes. You have the same number of hands, strength is supposed to be less of a factor across them, yet a Tiny Longbow does more damage than the Large Shortbow? If you try to delve into the details of that, you get one of those [ehhh] moments and you're not likely to come up with anything that isn't a really big stretch other than. [simplified the game, so deal with it]
I firmly believe they did a service in getting rid of the double the dice/damage of weapons every two size jumps. (so around x1.5 damage each size bump) That progression made size a giant strategic factor.
I'll admit I kind of wish they had however made it so that each size increase would bump the die size up one. And shrinking could have done the reverse (potentially introducing a d2, d3 options below the d4).
Many smaller creatures by default have a ancestral weakness in STR, so in effect, that would lead to a general reduction in damage from STR based weapons of 1 for being one size smaller. But this weakness is easily largely alleviated by any PC but using their free boost.
This would mean that if the die shrank by 1 each size change, most die changes result in a difference in the average damage of 1. That combined with a theoretical extra +1 via STR bonus would mean STR based weapons would do on average 2 more (or less) damage per size rating. That seems both reasonable and doable.
To keep the bulk of the rules for PCs the same you could like it seems some other things do, make small and medium really be treated as a singular size rating, and not have it count as a size step for modifying damage. Then simply have it apply to going down to Tiny, or up to Large.
And my solution for doing Die upgrades on d12 would be to suggest offering them a +2 extra damage per die, for the die upgrade. It is more than the normal +1 average a die increase would get, but you have also pushed the die up to the largest damage die normally used.(I'd also contemplated making it become a d12+d4 as an alternate option, but that is a little more complicated.
It seems like multiplying the strength modifier would open up some of what I would potentially consider abuse as you have strong str score get someone to enlarge them one or more tiers and start multiplying their STR modifier. Maybe, at the levels this happens, that extra 5-10 damage may not be too much, but it still seems easy to question.
It isn't hard for me to imagine a tiny sprite wielding a shortbow doing 1d6 damage despite having a 14 STR. [1d6 -1(tiny) +1(14strPropulsive)] or the same sprite's dagger only doing 1d4+1 damage instead of 1d4+2. I wouldn't even be against that applying starting at small (such as goblins, halflings, and gnomes) but that is certainly a bigger change from baseline, so has more impact to the current playerbase character concepts. (though with sprites now, having changes to Tiny impacts such characters)
It is certainly easier for me to accept a Sprite archer with 14 STR and a Longbow doing 1d8 damage vs a Human Archer with 14 STR and a Shortbow doing 1d6+1 damage. (or even a gnome) Their damage would average out somewhat similarly in the end.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What benefit does this give? Why should small martials be arbitrarily worse? It was dumb and annoying in 1e, it's good that it's not in 2e.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What would you do for making weapon size actually matter??
Depends on what you want from it really.
Do you want small characters to just be worse at weapons because they're small? I wouldn't do that. Right now, if you want to play a a "small but fierce" character you can do so easily, why make that harder?
Does it bother you that the halfling's sword might be a bit small but the medium character can use it just fine? Or that the orc's sword works just fine for the halfling that looted it? Personally I rather like this "smedium" - it's much better than playing a published adventure and finding out that half the loot is the wrong size and just bad for you.
I think "smedium" is great, but that doesn't mean item size doesn't matter at all. The huge giant's sword... it's just too big for most characters to use. Need a giant instinct barbarian or something like that if you want to use that.
So that's how I'd handle item size rules: if something is really the wrong size for you, you can't use it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, you can as a GM simply rule, that you can't use weaopns of the different sizes. That doesn't resolve the disconnect of why a needle sized arrow from a weak pixie's longbow does more damage than your dwarf's shortbow with two foot arrows. Even claiming... PCs don't use Monster rules... you still have them measured against one another, even if they aren't using the same rules. (and tiny characters can exist)
Oh, and yes, while it is a little odd, the small = medium may be strange in many ways, isn't a giant for me issue. What gets really hard (and makes the sm = med, things more noticeable honestly) is the fact that a diminutive weapon/creature/pc is theoretically supposed to do the same damage as a large one.
Why would I want to make a smaller ancestry be slightly handicapped in martial damage? Well mostly because it would be a bit intuitive that they would likely have a slight disadvantage? Note, I don't want to invalidate it... as having an awesome small warrior is an excellent concept. Some of the best stories are characters that go against most people's assumptions.
And for further clarification. I'm not saying that a medium person picking up a Large creatures' bastard sword, if the GM determines that they can wield it, that they should get extra damage for it. While the sword is bigger, and potentially capable of doing more damage, it is still being wielded by a medium creature, using a medium creatures' leverage, so it is perfectly reasonable that a medium creature wouldn't do the same damage wielding the oversized weapon would do wielded by a properly sized combatant.
And yes... I can live with SMedium creatures, but it would actually be easier to live with that if tiny creatures did a little less base damage than SMedium. (and like-wise could expect large creatures to be able to do a little more than SMedium)
On the other hand, not enough to not play. The pixie can be the party non-barbarian martial bruiser if we want an over-the-top playstyle! I'm certain that type of character would turn off some players to the game. But I'm certain fixing it would turn off others, such as potentially the one proposing to play that type of character. [Although I will quickly point out, that wouldn't be me. I honestly would probably be more likely to play the Pixie bruiser type character if they actually were overcoming a disadvantage, than despite their small size, have almost all the advantages of 6 foot tall combatants. If the rules just eliminated most of the characters struggles, it just killed much of the purpose of their story.
Note most stories include aspects of, using your unique advantages for your and your allies gain, and also frequently includes (and often more important plots) the overcoming of the things that are your disadvantages. So you can eliminate the effects a choice makes on your ability, so you aren't disadvantaged. But then you are also stealing the value of making that choice and overcoming that very disadvantage. But to each their own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An entire ancestry having to be arbitrarily bad at an entire role of gameplay is poor design. They already have a strength flaw,big they're a sprite. That's how they display them doing less damage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What benefit does this give? Why should small martials be arbitrarily worse? It was dumb and annoying in 1e, it's good that it's not in 2e.
Storywise with a certain supension of disbelief yes you can say it doesn't matter.
But not everyone is comfortable with every design assumption in a fantasy world. Different writers and consumers like to bend different rules and not others.
We should all know that there is an optimal size for a tool using humanoid race. Too small and you are just going to get bullied by much stronger and tougher races. Too large and you just can't move fast or jump.
For me it begars belief that a Tiny Sprite or even a Small Goblin can do as much damage as a Medium Orc. (They can both have the same STR score)
I would definitely have prefered that there was something slightly more substantial between the sizes. The problem with PF1 is not that there were size differences, but that they made the effect so enormous. You got a lot of STR points as well as weapon size.
Something as simple as one pip for weapon die would have been enough. Maybe with some better reach rules, and official penalties for wielding over or under sized weapons.
Does it add a bit of complexity to the game. Yep, but not much.
It would push the smaller races into dex based weaponry. Which is what happens already. It is a small penalty/bonus but it would feel better.
Instead we have this wierd system where size is almost irrelevant and more often than not size is a disadvantage. Equal yes. But at the expense of flavour and realism. There is only so much that can be taken away before players lose touch with their story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't really agree that there's any flavor loss by letting small characters be good with weapons. If anything it's a flavor boon, since it expands on the variety of characters people can make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't really agree that there's any flavor loss by letting small characters be good with weapons. If anything it's a flavor boon, since it expands on the variety of characters people can make.
If you can do anything because there is no structure in the system then the flavour is generic and bland and you have nothing. Small races have a niche. They are effective and balanced, but that doesn't mean totally equivalent.
What is the point of playing a big orc barbarian when you can play a small halfling barbarian and be just as tough and just as strong. What am I getting from being an orc? Nothing.
Real flavour is about meaningful difference. The salt that was different sizes is basically gone.
You can't just throw away all logic, and expect us to enjoy the result. Plenty of people need that logic to make sense of a game world.
Here's some logic for you: more force from being a giant sword means less accuracy, and thus better protection from armor and even dodging. More accuracy from a tiny sword means less force directed just where it needs to be.
In other words, it balances out, unless you really want to break down the gigantic abstractions that are HP, AC and to-hit. ("Tiny" is a fair bit bigger than you're thinking, by the way. :v)
Anyway, my suggestion to those who want buffs for oversized weapons is to give them a side benefit like increased effect for crit specialization stuff. Maybe you always get crit specialization stuff with larger weapons and get the buffed effects from that one rune if your class gives crit specialization already, to balance out the Clumsy it gives. Maybe the efficacy of crit specialization depends on how big the weapon is compared to the target. Whatever suits your homebrew stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can do anything because there is no structure in the system then the flavour is generic and bland and you have nothing.
Someone being able to build a heavy armored sprite paladin doesn't take away from my own human paladin in any way. This doesn't follow.
What am I getting from being an orc? Nothing.
You're getting being an orc and everything that comes with it, same as you would if that halfling barbarian never existed.
All you've accomplished in the latter scenario is tell someone who would want to play that other character that they're not allowed to. Woo?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Squiggit: Actually, saying that size has no meaning actually does discredit any character concept based on size. So sure, if your argument that big hobgoblin barbarian who know that they have an advantage over smaller creatures such as goblins, and thereby have exploited it, is acceptable to be a false concept, and just false premise on the part of the character. Then you are right. I firmly do not believe the rules should prohibit small or tiny martials. I repeat, I am firmly against the rules making them impossible, I just think that it makes sense for size to play a small mechanical part in it. Because to me it makes sense, and it sounds like I'm not alone. I don't want to discredit any small character concepts. I want to enable them, and often enabling, involves allowing them to overcome a perceived/presumed disadvantage.
@Alfa/Polaris: I'm all for explanations for things, and yours isn't bad, and is pretty close to what I use to try to curb the thoughts pushing out scratching its way out of my suspension of disbelief bubble. [quite honestly, very similar to my own internal justifications] However, note that taking these to heart, it also can just as easily justify giving the rapier the same damage as the two handed sword. I think we all agree everything doing the same damage is not the direction we want to go. But I'm going to try not to belabor the point. The very points you make are a big part of my thoughts, and explanations if someone asks why. 1st is of course game design strategies, and purely metagame and character balance reasons. In universe, I'd be leaning on what you said, but pointing out/freely admitting it is very flawed.
Now: I'll admit, I was leaning towards it making sense to increase die size for larger weapons in general... and shrinking die size for smaller ones, but your points have made me think about some other game mechanics that get implicated in such a change. Changing die size can impact certain special attacks or character features which may look at a die size and offer an increase if under something, or allow a special ability if die size is something or less. Increasing the die size creates a notable complication for these rules, where you need to define, does the die size change before or after these feat evaluations, and how does it stack with the nod die size increase stacking? It also like any die size increase or decrease has a heightened impact at higher levels with striking runes impacting how many of this smaller or larger die is.
So, I'm inclined more now to consider, if I were to homebrew size changes. I am considering having it be simply a +1 damage for each size increment above large to the expected damage naturally done by a large creature using a large weapon. Note I'm imagining Giant Instinct barbarians their already greater bonus subsumes this bonus, and does not stack with it. This bonus isn't modifying the die, it is just extra damage, so doesn't get multiplied if a striking or similar rune is used. It also doesn't affect other damage such as additional precision damage, splash, or spell damages.
Using a larger weapon than your size may be possible (as per rules) but does not grant this bonus. You aren't built to properly leverage the weapon of that size. (Class features, such as Giant Instinct barbarians, or feats may change this, but is prevue of the specific ability, not general rule)
Weapons of a smaller size would simply produce a -1 to their base damage. The minus is not applied multiple times if a striking rune, or other method of increasing dies of damage. It also doesn't apply to additional dies of damage such as precision, splash or spell damages for instance. One special instance that I would apply, would be at the choice of the attacker, if an attack uses a d4, instead of each size step taking a -1 to damage, they can instead choose to step the die down one step from 1d4 to 1d3 to eventually 1d2. At higher levels due to striking runes it may become relevant to simply use the normal die and take the normal negative, but the option is to help the smaller weapons remain more viable even for smaller creatures.
Wouldn't you have to admit the above would maintain some relevance of size, without creating a big long term impact on viability of any concept.
Really, a small modification to damage for Tiny, or Diminutive creatures doesn't kill any concepts I can think about. What seemed more problematic was when I realized that a Sprite riding a small beast, would be unable to attack any small or medium creatures with a melee weapon, unless they get a reach weapon. Because, if they are riding a small creature, it is doing the moving, and it can't occupy the same square as another small or medium sized creature, right? They can normally step into a square with a larger creature because of being so small, but by riding something they lose that for anything not, I think large or larger, if I am correct. Being unable to attack seems like a bigger issue than doing perhaps 1 less damage on average per attack. Am I wrong about that?