Size bonus to AC - drop it?

[Kerrick]

Take 2 basic (medium) commoners: AC 10, Attack bonus +0.
Commoner A needs a 10 to hit Commoner B.

Make those two commoners Large: AC 9 (10-1), Attack bonus -1 (0-1).
Commoner A still needs a 10 to hit Commoner B.

AR

Aha, got it.

Ah, I see. I'd say that your misgivings are well-founded. If you're going to change size modifiers, I suggest doing away with the +/- 1/2/4/8 scheme -- because it just doesn't make sense and it serves no purpose. A simple +/- 1 or 2 per category would be better.

TS

It does, actually, because the minimum sizes increase exponentially too - Large is 8 feet, Huge 16, etc., so the modifiers have to keep pace with them.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Aha, got it.


It does, actually, because the minimum sizes increase exponentially too - Large is 8 feet, Huge 16, etc., so the modifiers have to keep pace with them.

Using that reasoning, size modifiers (including grapple mods) should look like:
Fine: -15
Dim.: -14
Tiny: -12
Small: -8
Medium: +0
Large: +16
Huge: +32
Gargantuan: +64
Colossal: +128

But it's just as consistent, and much simpler, to apply a flat +/- 1 or 2 to each category just as is done with grapple modifiers.

TS

 

[Kerrick]

Using that reasoning, size modifiers (including grapple mods) should look like:

Why? A -16 size penalty for Large creatures would give most of them a 0 AC - that's just stupid. Not to mention that most of the larger monsters will also have 0 ACs from these mods. Small creatures, OTOH will have ridiculously high ACs way out of proportion with any logic. -1/-2/-4 is much more reasonable, and it works.

Grapple modifiers are a flat +/-4 per category, which is far too much - that's the main reason grappling is so broken.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Why? A -16 size penalty for Large creatures would give most of them a 0 AC - that's just stupid. Not to mention that most of the larger monsters will also have 0 ACs from these mods. Small creatures, OTOH will have ridiculously high ACs way out of proportion with any logic. -1/-2/-4 is much more reasonable, and it works.

Grapple modifiers are a flat +/-4 per category, which is far too much - that's the main reason grappling is so broken.

Yes it is absurd and unbalanced, but it is the only logical conclusion of the 'size mods must vary exponentially because height/mass increases exponentially' theory. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the 'beginning' of the chain of exponential modifiers should begin at Medium size, because we think of it as the 'normal/center' size and because it is given +0, but by logic the chain of exponential modifiers should start at Fine because it is the smallest size.

All that I'm trying to point out here is that the +/-1/2/4/8 scheme pretends to be realistic and logical, but fails because it also tries to balance all the size categories, which it also fails to do at the high and low end of the size spectrum. (Ever notice how dragons actually lose AC after making the transition from Gargantuan to Colossal? It's not consistent with other age categories, and it's not balanced.) Hence, a +/-1 per size category scheme would be equally realistic and logical, a bit simpler and more balanced.

Alright, I understand if you don't want to change this particular rule, as it would require the editing of quite a few monster stat blocks. I just figured that you're going to be fixing quite a lot more grapple entries, so you might as well fix a few AC entries. It's just a suggestion.

TS

 

[Angrydad]

The dragons' losing AC when they go from Gargantuan to Colossal makes sense to me. Bigger targets. Their scales get tougher, which is shown via natural armor, but they're so big that it doesn't matter. Someone will hit them more easily now. The confusion here can stem from the fact that I think natural armor could be better represented as Damage Reduction instead of AC bonus. But that requires yet more crazy reworking of an already complex system.

 

[R1C0F3TT]

The grappling system isn't broken.
A collosal creature's graple modifier essentially makes it impossible for a medium creature to grapple a collosal creature, which makes sence. There is no way a six foot tall human is going to be able to hug a 100ft+ dragon so that it won't be able to move. The RAW is the most realistic system.

 

[Kerrick]

Yes it is absurd and unbalanced, but it is the only logical conclusion of the 'size mods must vary exponentially because height/mass increases exponentially' theory. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the 'beginning' of the chain of exponential modifiers should begin at Medium size, because we think of it as the 'normal/center' size and because it is given +0, but by logic the chain of exponential modifiers should start at Fine because it is the smallest size.

Well... considering that we (human beings) are Medium, it makes sense to have everything compared to us as the baseline. Besides, if you start at Fine, what would the size mods be? You'd still have to start at a negative number for everything to balance out correctly.

All that I'm trying to point out here is that the +/-1/2/4/8 scheme pretends to be realistic and logical, but fails because it also tries to balance all the size categories, which it also fails to do at the high and low end of the size spectrum. (Ever notice how dragons actually lose AC after making the transition from Gargantuan to Colossal? It's not consistent with other age categories, and it's not balanced.) Hence, a +/-1 per size category scheme would be equally realistic and logical, a bit simpler and more balanced.

Dragons lose AC because they were done badly. I've already taken care of that problem.

Let's say we go with a flat modifier - let's use +/-2. Every size larger and smaller would have a special size modifier a lot larger (or smaller) than that of their normal size modifier - Small would be -2 instead of -1, Tiny -4 (-2), Diminutive -6 (4), etc.; Large would be +2 (+1), Huge +4 (+2), Gargantuan +6 (+4). Also, using the normal size modifier for grapple checks is easiest because you don't have to remember another progression - you use one number for AC, attack bonus, and grapple modifier. As a designer, you should know that fewer numbers means less work.

Alright, I understand if you don't want to change this particular rule, as it would require the editing of quite a few monster stat blocks. I just figured that you're going to be fixing quite a lot more grapple entries, so you might as well fix a few AC entries. It's just a suggestion.

Heh. As it happens, I've gone through almost ALL the statblocks in the Monster Manual (I'm working my way through Animals now, and I still have Vermin to do), converting them to PP stats. Mostly it's just adjusting skills, tweaking natural armor bonuses, and fixing feats here and there, but I am doing grapple bonuses too.

The grappling system isn't broken.
A collosal creature's graple modifier essentially makes it impossible for a medium creature to grapple a collosal creature, which makes sence. There is no way a six foot tall human is going to be able to hug a 100ft+ dragon so that it won't be able to move. The RAW is the most realistic system.

Right - there's no way it could (or should) be done, but there's no rule that says "You can't grapple a creature more than x sizes larger or smaller than you are." There should be, but there isn't. I guess either they figured common sense might step in, or they just didn't consider it, but either way they dropped the ball.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

The dragons' losing AC when they go from Gargantuan to Colossal makes sense to me. Bigger targets. Their scales get tougher, which is shown via natural armor, but they're so big that it doesn't matter.

Using your logic, dragons should also lose overall AC during the transition from any other size category to the next bigger one. But they don't. Hence, size mods are inconsistent.

Well... considering that we (human beings) are Medium, it makes sense to have everything compared to us as the baseline. Besides, if you start at Fine, what would the size mods be? You'd still have to start at a negative number for everything to balance out correctly.

I'm not saying that Medium shouldn't have +0. I'm saying that the difference between the size mods is inconsistent and nonsensical between size categories. Let me try a new way to explain it:

Say I'm a wizard and I create two clones of myself. For whatever zany reason, I Reduce one of them but leave the other one Medium size. Then out of boredom I invent a new spell to animate them both and make them fight each other. You know what their size mods are, but the specific mods themselves are not what's important; the important fact is that their size mods are separated by a mere 1 bonus.

Now say that a wizard of some Colossal sized race gets bored and does the same thing that I did. The difference in size mods between his Colossal clone and his Gargantuan clone is 4 points, rather than just 1. This seems wrong to me, but you argue that increasing size mods with size makes sense because mass and volume are increasing. Okay, that seems like a reasonable argument...until you consider:

A Tiny wizard gets bored and follows the new clone gladiator fad. The difference in size mods between his clones is 4 points, just like the big wizard clones. So if size mods should increase with volume and mass, the difference between two big sizes (Colossal & Gargantuan) should be greater than the difference between two little sizes (Fine and Dimunitive). But by RAW, the difference is exactly the same. Also, from Fine to Large size, the size mods actually increase in an inversely exponential manner which is contrary to your own theory of increasing volume and mass. (The difference between size mods get smaller, or remains the same, during the transition from each size category from Fine to Large. But then when we hit Huge the difference in size mods suddenly begin to increase during each transition.)

Dragons lose AC because they were done badly. I've already taken care of that problem.

How?

Let's say we go with a flat modifier - let's use +/-2. Every size larger and smaller would have a special size modifier a lot larger (or smaller) than that of their normal size modifier - Small would be -2 instead of -1, Tiny -4 (-2), Diminutive -6 (4), etc.; Large would be +2 (+1), Huge +4 (+2), Gargantuan +6 (+4). Also, using the normal size modifier for grapple checks is easiest because you don't have to remember another progression - you use one number for AC, attack bonus, and grapple modifier. As a designer, you should know that fewer numbers means less work.

I don't consider the difference of, at most, 2 modifiers to be 'a lot' bigger/smaller. I'm all for simplicity and less numbers to remember, but I don't think that argument applies here. +/-2 is easier to remember than the current exponential progression. Also, I thought you are changing grapple mods to +/-2?

Heh. As it happens, I've gone through almost ALL the statblocks in the Monster Manual (I'm working my way through Animals now, and I still have Vermin to do), converting them to PP stats. Mostly it's just adjusting skills, tweaking natural armor bonuses, and fixing feats here and there, but I am doing grapple bonuses too.

What exactly is your design goal for PP?

TS

 

[Kerrick]

Say I'm a wizard and I create two clones of myself. For whatever zany reason, I Reduce one of them but leave the other one Medium size. Then out of boredom I invent a new spell to animate them both and make them fight each other. You know what their size mods are, but the specific mods themselves are not what's important; the important fact is that their size mods are separated by a mere 1 bonus.

Now say that a wizard of some Colossal sized race gets bored and does the same thing that I did. The difference in size mods between his Colossal clone and his Gargantuan clone is 4 points, rather than just 1. This seems wrong to me, but you argue that increasing size mods with size makes sense because mass and volume are increasing. Okay, that seems like a reasonable argument...until you consider:

A Tiny wizard gets bored and follows the new clone gladiator fad. The difference in size mods between his clones is 4 points, just like the big wizard clones. So if size mods should increase with volume and mass, the difference between two big sizes (Colossal & Gargantuan) should be greater than the difference between two little sizes (Fine and Dimunitive). But by RAW, the difference is exactly the same. Also, from Fine to Large size, the size mods actually increase in an inversely exponential manner which is contrary to your own theory of increasing volume and mass. (The difference between size mods get smaller, or remains the same, during the transition from each size category from Fine to Large. But then when we hit Huge the difference in size mods suddenly begin to increase during each transition.)

You have a valid argument, except for one thing: size mods are relative, not absolute. As a Fine creature gets larger, yes, his size mod will become smaller - because he's getting closer to Medium size, the baseline for all size modifiers. As he gets larger, guess what? It's going to get bigger, because he's going further from the baseline again. A Large creature is twice the size of a Medium, a Huge twice the size of a Large, etc. - hence the doubling size mods. Likewise, a Small is half the size, a Tiny half that size, etc.

How?

Short version: I was playing around with the ACs, trying to get a nice progression (i.e., +3/size, like how it's supposed to go) and I had to tweak a few things, including sizes. Reds, golds, and silvers, at great wyrm, are now Titanic (the category above Colossal), but it makes sense - the cutoff for Titanic size is 128 feet long, and a great wyrm is most likely going to hit that.

I don't consider the difference of, at most, 2 modifiers to be 'a lot' bigger/smaller. I'm all for simplicity and less numbers to remember, but I don't think that argument applies here. +/-2 is easier to remember than the current exponential progression.

YMMV. The +4/size grapple mod doesn't work because it's too big and/or because it's a flat modifier instead of a scaled one. I couldn't really say whether or not a flat +2/size would work, though - you'd have to test it.

Also, I thought you are changing grapple mods to +/-2?

No, I was just using that an example.

What exactly is your design goal for PP?

In a nutshell: to fix the broken parts, streamline game play, and make things more interesting and fun. I want to keep the 3.5 ruleset alive for those of us who still use it, and the best way to do that is to overhaul it.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

You have a valid argument, except for one thing: size mods are relative, not absolute. As a Fine creature gets larger, yes, his size mod will become smaller - because he's getting closer to Medium size, the baseline for all size modifiers. As he gets larger, guess what? It's going to get bigger, because he's going further from the baseline again. A Large creature is twice the size of a Medium, a Huge twice the size of a Large, etc. - hence the doubling size mods. Likewise, a Small is half the size, a Tiny half that size, etc.

Aha, we've gotten to the crux of the issue! The idea that Medium size is the logical baseline for size mods is what I've been trying to get at. You say it makes sense, but why? It's easy to fall into this trap because most PC races happen to fall into the Medium category, but that doesn't make the 4'-8' range significant in any mathematical way. Let me make an analogy:

I tell you that I'm going to DM a seafaring campaign and that I've made basic stats for a range of ships, including 'super ships' that are larger than anything in the real world. I then show you the stats. Looking over them, you see that:

Size I ships are 4'-8' long and have an AB and AC mod of +8.
Size II ships are 8'-16' long and have an AB and AC mod of +4.
Size III ships are 16'-32' long and have an AB and AC mod of +2.
Size IV ships are 32'-64' long and have an AB and AC mod of +1.
Size V ships are 64'-128' long and have an AB and AC mod of +0.
Size VI ships are 128'-256' long and have an AB and AC mod of -1.
Size VII ships are 256'-512' long and have an AB and AC mod of -2.
Size VIII ships are 512'-1,024' long and have an AB and AC mod of -4.
Size IX ships are 1,024'-2,048' long and have an AB and AC mod of -8.

As you can see, each size category is exactly double the length of the previous category. Therefore you would logically think that I would either assign each category a flat linear bonus, or I would assign each category an exponentially increasing bonus that begins with Size I. But I didn't; I arbitrarily assigned Size V as my baseline and then assigned exponential bonuses to either extreme of it. Why? The largest ships in real world history happen to fall within Size V, but that doesn't make that category mathematically significant.

See where I'm going with this analogy? Medium size seems like a good baseline for size mods because we happen to be Medium creatures and because the word 'medium' implies baseline-ness, but using Medium as a mathematical baseline is as nonsensical as me choosing Size V ships as a baseline. If any size category is used as a mathematical baseline, it should be Tiny because Tiny is closest to zero mass. Assigning Medium as the baseline for size mods is effectively saying "In D&D, the laws of physics have decided that creatures 4' to 8' are special." Not that the laws of physics are the same in D&D as they are in real life, but in such cases they have been changed for the sake of simplicity and expediency. In the case of size mods, D&D's laws of physics are neither simple nor expedient.

Short version: I was playing around with the ACs, trying to get a nice progression (i.e., +3/size, like how it's supposed to go) and I had to tweak a few things, including sizes. Reds, golds, and silvers, at great wyrm, are now Titanic (the category above Colossal), but it makes sense - the cutoff for Titanic size is 128 feet long, and a great wyrm is most likely going to hit that.

Do titanic creatures get -16 to attack and AC?

In a nutshell: to fix the broken parts, streamline game play, and make things more interesting and fun. I want to keep the 3.5 ruleset alive for those of us who still use it, and the best way to do that is to overhaul it.

That's an admirable goal. 3e isn't my preferred rule set, but I respect anyone who puts a significant amount of effort into any rule set.

TS