Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Plecak" data-source="post: 3487928" data-attributes="member: 2436">Hi guys,I have started thinking about modifying the rules related to size categories.What I do not like about the current rules is that size does not influence hit points. That is, a 30th level fighter and a 30HD gargantuan dragon will both end up having about the same number of hit points.The second thing I do not like is the way damage scales with size. How is that a 400 ton colossal dragon landing on the top of your head deals only 4d8 points of damage? Compare that to the damage that a 1 ton block would do.Seeing as a monster of size x is, on average, eight times bigger than a monster of size x - 1, I would expect the bigger monster:to have eight times more strength,to have eight times more hit points (including any Con bonuses),to deal eight times more damage.For example, if a first level human cleric, on average:has the strength score of 10,has 4 hit points,deals 4 points of damage with a heavy mace,then I would expect a hill giant, on average:to have the strength score of 20,to have 32 hit points (including any Con bonuses),to deal 32 points of damage with a heavy mace.However, under these rules, colossal creatures become really scary. For example, a colossal silver great wyrm would, on average:have the strength score of 50,have 16384 hit points (including any Con bonuses),deal 16384 points of damage with a bite.The problem with my version is that it would be almost impossible for players to fight 'big creatures'. Basically, an army would be needed to defeat a colossal dragon.Is there any reasonable way to balance my version, while still retaining the flavour? What are your thoughts?Thanx in advance.</blockquote>

Verification