Upper Krust, where are you? [Immortal's Handbook]

[Gez]

Hello everyone, I'm still reading.

The Truth about the Tarot works for me too -- maybe the site was temporarily down when you tried to see it, Craig ?

About size and damage: I agree the advantage of large sizes have been voluntarily downplayed in the game. That's why halflings are so powerful, and why your average adventurer kills hundreds of giants and huge beasts in his life.

Rather than applying additional modifiers, I think that it could be more realistic to add some new combat options. Notably, what I call "antcrushing". If a creature's speed is lower than it's attacker's reach; and if the creature is at least 3 size categories smaller than it's attacker; then the attacker automatically performs coup-de-grâce on each attack action -- this means that the attacker automatically hit, deal critical damage, add possible sneak damage or other effects you can have on helpless defenders, and force the creature to make a saving throw or die.

That would bump quite a bit the CR of creatures of gargantuan or colossal size.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello everyone, I'm still reading.

Hey Gez mate!

The Truth about the Tarot works for me too -- maybe the site was temporarily down when you tried to see it, Craig ?

Yes, it works now (thanks Bjorn) definately wasn't working when I tried it last night though.

About size and damage: I agree the advantage of large sizes have been voluntarily downplayed in the game. That's why halflings are so powerful, and why your average adventurer kills hundreds of giants and huge beasts in his life.

Strength/Damage is terribly handled in 3rd Ed. - I am simply trying to make the best out of an already bad situation without changing too much.

Rather than applying additional modifiers, I think that it could be more realistic to add some new combat options. Notably, what I call "antcrushing". If a creature's speed is lower than it's attacker's reach; and if the creature is at least 3 size categories smaller than it's attacker; then the attacker automatically performs coup-de-grâce on each attack action -- this means that the attacker automatically hit, deal critical damage, add possible sneak damage or other effects you can have on helpless defenders, and force the creature to make a saving throw or die.

That would bump quite a bit the CR of creatures of gargantuan or colossal size.

Interesting, but (pending review) I am not sure its appropriate.

WotC have already broken their own core rules in the ELH by applying bizarre strength and damage modifiers to many of the monsters. They just did it on the quiet, hoping no one would notice.

My revision adds a clarity to strength/damage and makes some sense of their meanderings.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello mate!

Actually tried to post this a few hours ago and it wouldn't take.

I've been exploring this rule modification for a while now. One thing keeps standing out for me.

What I started designing went like this...

...*Snip*

I have to be honest, I have read over your post five or six times now and I don't understand it.

Here are the changes I advocate:

Strength Scores

Medium Size: 10-11 (typical strength)
Large Size: 26-27...see Stone Giant
Huge Size: 42-43...see Storm Giant*
Gargantuan Size: 58-59
Colossal Size: 74-75...see Iron Colossus

Constitution Scores

Medium Size: 10-11 (typical constitution)
Large Size: 18-19...see Stone Giant
Huge Size: 26-27...see Storm Giant*
Gargantuan Size: 34-35
Colossal Size: 42-43

*Storm Giants (at 21ft. tall) are smaller han the typical 'Huge' monster which would be 24ft. As such they have fractionally weaker ability scores.

Base Dice Damage

Medium: 1d8 (medium sword)
Large: 2d8 (large sword)
Huge: 4d8 (huge sword)
Gargantuan: 8d8 (gargantuan sword)
Colossal: 16d8 (colossal sword)

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Upper_Krust.

Not sure what you don't understand. Let's see if I can clarify this...

You know the attack bonus gained from size? Creatures get a +1 attack bonus for being small and a -1 attack bonus for being large? Well this works exactly the same way, but for damage.

The only significant difference would be that it works in reverse (bonuses for larger than Medium-size creatures and penalties for smaller than Medium-size creatures). Once again, those damage modifiers would break down like this:

Colossal +16, Gargantuan +8, Huge +4, Large +2, Medium-size +0, Small -2, Tiny -4, Diminutive -8, Fine -16.

Like I said earlier, it’s effectively the same thing as giving (for instance) Colossal creatures +32 Strength and Fine creatures -32 Strength (for damage purposes).

No offense Upper_Krust, but your Strength solution lacks flexibility. I'll explain.

Using my proposal, let's say the party wizard cast ray of enfeeblement against a giant for 11 points Strength, lowering his Strength score from 25 to 14. That mean what was once a +7 damage modifier is now a +2 damage modifier. HOWEVER, because the giant is "huge", he will always inflict at least +8 additional damage by virtue of his size (regardless of his current Strength score).

Using your system, you could potentially ray of enfeeblement all of the giant's Strength score into nothing, when really, a giant should always be able to maintain a damage bonus based strictly on their enormity.

I hope that helps clear it up for you.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Swings and roundabouts.

Upper_Krust.

Hello again mate!

Not sure what you don't understand. Let's see if I can clarify this...

You know the attack bonus gained from size? Creatures get a +1 attack bonus for being small and a -1 attack bonus for being large? Well this works exactly the same way, but for damage.

The only significant difference would be that it works in reverse (bonuses for larger than Medium-size creatures and penalties for smaller than Medium-size creatures). Once again, those damage modifiers would break down like this:

Colossal +16, Gargantuan +8, Huge +4, Large +2, Medium-size +0, Small -2, Tiny -4, Diminutive -8, Fine -16.

Like I said earlier, it’s effectively the same thing as giving (for instance) Colossal creatures +32 Strength and Fine creatures -32 Strength (for damage purposes).

No offense Upper_Krust, but your Strength solution lacks flexibility. I'll explain.

Using my proposal, let's say the party wizard cast ray of enfeeblement against a giant for 11 points Strength, lowering his Strength score from 25 to 14. That mean what was once a +7 damage modifier is now a +2 damage modifier. HOWEVER, because the giant is "huge", he will always inflict at least +8 additional damage by virtue of his size (regardless of his current Strength score).

Using your system, you could potentially ray of enfeeblement all of the giant's Strength score into nothing, when really, a giant should always be able to maintain a damage bonus based strictly on their enormity.

I hope that helps clear it up for you.

I understand your proposal now.

However I am not sure I agree with it. Your argument that my method lacks flexibility doesn't add up.

Technically a wizard should be able to drain a giant of strength. However the giant will still be dealing higher damage dice remember.

If we apply occams razor then since both our methods do the same yet yours calls for a rule addition whereas my own simply calls for only a slight revision then the simpler of the two is the best. Not only that but many of the epic monsters already use my proposed changes (like I said WotC simply kept things quiet) so its already partially integrated.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Upper_Krust

But you yourself just admitted that those Strength bonuses are broken...

WotC have already broken their own core rules in the ELH by applying bizarre strength and damage modifiers to many of the monsters. They just did it on the quiet, hoping no one would notice.

Meaning... why augment arbitrary and broken Strength values with more arbitrary and broken Strength values (unless you can somehow demonstrate that your values "are not" arbitrary).

But even if you could... with the "damage size modifier" that I am suggesting occams razor (as I understand it) barely needs to draw blood. The damage bonus is universal and follows a logical progression. It simply needs to be "tacked on" using a convention that is already in active use now (the attack size modifier).

Whereas in the case of your Strength solution, occams razor needs to cut much more deeply. You have to recalculate not only the Strength bonuses for every creature it applies to, but their melee damage as well.

Hardly a more simple solution.

While the Epic Level Handbook Strength bonuses you speak of are "partially" integrated (albeit broken by your own admission), the game mechanic I advocate using is "completely" integrated into Dungeons and Dragons, to the point where it is now taken for granted. Not to mention it works.

 

[The Forsaken One]

Wahahahaha 666th post in the thread

 

[Upper_Krust]

Upper_Krust

Hello again mate!

But you yourself just admitted that those Strength bonuses are broken...

Many of the entries in the ELH 'break' the core rules. However, they actually make more sense than the core rules. My revision roughly equates to the ELH (and the monster manual giants and golems).

Meaning... why augment arbitrary and broken Strength values with more arbitrary and broken Strength values (unless you can somehow demonstrate that your values "are not" arbitrary).

They are not arbitrary in that they (more or less) equate to the ELH.

But even if you could... with the "damage size modifier" that I am suggesting occams razor (as I understand it) barely needs to draw blood. The damage bonus is universal and follows a logical progression. It simply needs to be "tacked on" using a convention that is already in active use now (the attack size modifier).

Exactly. Its something 'tacked on'.

With occams razor 'less is more', as it were.

Whereas in the case of your Strength solution, occams razor needs to cut much more deeply. You have to recalculate not only the Strength bonuses for every creature it applies to, but their melee damage as well.

Hardly a more simple solution.

But you have to do that with yours anyway.

While the Epic Level Handbook Strength bonuses you speak of are "partially" integrated (albeit broken by your own admission),

They are themselves broken in that they are not defined by WotC - something I am taking care of.

the game mechanic I advocate using is "completely" integrated into Dungeons and Dragons, to the point where it is now taken for granted. Not to mention it works.

Don't get me wrong, I like your method too

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello there!

Wahahahaha 666th post in the thread

You devil you!

 

[The Forsaken One]

Inspired me to play a Neutral Evil Nomad in my next game this week