Suggestion: Don't have size affect ability scores

[Dausuul]

It can be a problem when you need to make a large-sized PC race under Pathfinder/3e.

This can be addressed in various ways. It's very much a corner case, however. Meanwhile, big monsters are a dime a dozen in D&D.

 

[Number48]

What is the point of avoiding "Strength bloat?" Considering the very practical annoyances of having the same Strength score mean different things at different sizes, I don't see the benefit.

Personally, I think that if a monster is five times as strong as an average human, it should have a Strength score five times as high as the human's. Clean, simple, and intuitive. There's nothing wrong with big numbers.

Except if that big number is a saving throw. Huge stats mean impossible to hit/affect.

 

[Hassassin]

Except if that big number is a saving throw. Huge stats mean impossible to hit/affect.

Impossible to affect in that way. I'm fine with a giant being (practically) impossible to grapple or trip or whatever would allow a Str save.

 

[Umbran]

Except if that big number is a saving throw. Huge stats mean impossible to hit/affect.

Yes, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The average strength halfling (str 10) *shouldn't* generally be able to beat the average strength ogre (also with str 10) at arm wrestling.

You could fix that by adding a modifier to the roll, sure. But if you are gong to modify *every* roll, you might as well just change the stat, so you don't ave to remember modifiers.

 

[Dausuul]

Yes, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The average strength halfling (str 10) *shouldn't* generally be able to beat the average strength ogre (also with str 10) at arm wrestling.

You could fix that by adding a modifier to the roll, sure. But if you are gong to modify *every* roll, you might as well just change the stat, so you don't ave to remember modifiers.

This sums up my attitude. If you have a tug of war with an elephant, you shouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell. The elephant just wins.

The only place where it might be a concern is if Strength applies a direct modifier to your attacks. If elephants have Strength 50, then an elephant's attack would be getting +20 on the attack and damage rolls, at least using the 3E system. However, I would rather see this fixed by having diminishing returns on the attack and damage bonuses for high Strength*. Then Strength scores can remain consistent across the entire size range.

[SIZE=-2]*Or not have Strength directly affect attack and damage at all.[/SIZE]

 

[howandwhy99]

If I have a 20 Str Fighter and I run into a 30 Str monster, I have an easy way to compare our respective values regardless of his size. Easier than having to multiply his encumbrance factors or something.

Our DM isn't nearly so nice. He doesn't read the stats of the monsters to us when we encounter them. Including size into part of the description upon viewing gives us some clue to what we're facing. Having size (and some other things) relate to strength, CON and DEX allows us a somewhat reliable gauge for judging potential combat.

I'd say, give sizes a min & max with some stats and then show in the rules how to break these and what the cost will be in the system. By having a base and cap we can easily make creatures who fit with the system. Dinosaurs are big and strong. Cats and mice aren't (they aren't even 1st level challenges).

Otherwise we end up with one orc the threat of a red dragon and another less than a mouse. And them being indistinguishable twins.