Weapon Size: Scaling Weapon Range Increments

[Ristamar]

What are you suggesting? Should cloud giants and titans have the same increments as Medium-size PCs?

I admit, the last question was a bit poor. Large creatures don't seem to get much benefit in range, so I doubt there's little, if any, change for small creatures.

But yes, that is what I'm suggeting... that is the rule. The number of increments are the same. I just want to know how much the distance in those increments increases.

Scaling, IMO, is a much cleaner and more accurate method. It also fits with the way they scaled damage for unusually large and small weapons. After all, you dont technically add and subtract damage dice for a 'large' longsword (shifting from 1d8 to 2d6 doesnt count as 'adding' dice ), you just scale up the damage die (or dice).

 

[hong]

Scaling, IMO, is a much cleaner and more accurate method. It also fits with the way they scaled damage for unusually large and small weapons. After all, you dont technically add and subtract damage dice for a 'large' longsword (shifting from 1d8 to 2d6 doesnt count as 'adding' dice ), you just scale up the damage die (or dice).

In practice, just about every Large-sized humanoid-ish creature has a Str of 20 or more. That means that you not only scale up damage dice, you add more modifiers on as well.

 

[hong]

Considering the DMG suggests a Hill Giant (let alone a Stone Giant) has an ECL of +12 (pg. 22), I don't see what the big deal is. I'm guessing the Stone Giant's ECL would probably be +14. So a "14th level" monster with some mediocre feats and skills has a +10 BAB. *shrug* I certainly don't think it makes their missile attacks overpowering or uncharacteristically accurate, even with improved ranges. They're good at throwing boulders, so that's what they do. It's just a simple advantage to being big, which is factored into the ECL (or CR).

ECL and CR have nothing to do with it. You can always assign an ECL/CR that you feel is appropriate, regardless of what a creature's abilities are.

The point is that scaling range increments is something that feels "wrong", for the reasons I mentioned.

 

[Ristamar]

ECL and CR have nothing to do with it. You can always assign an ECL/CR that you feel is appropriate, regardless of what a creature's abilities are.

The point is that scaling range increments is something that feels "wrong", for the reasons I mentioned.

Fair enough on the ECL point. Of course, I would say the same applies to your 20+ Strength argument. It isn't relevant, as base weapon damage has absolutely nothing to do with additional strength damage. A stone giant with a 12 strength can handle a huge great club just as easily as one with 20 strength. The latter just has a bit more juice behind his swings. A medium sized human, even one with a 30 strength, has no chance of using that huge club.

As for the "feel" you mentioned... for me, the existing method makes perfect sense, and your method feels wrong. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Regardless, I do hope a WotC source releases some information on the subject soon. I may write the Sage to see if he can provide any help.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I admit, the last question was a bit poor. Large creatures don't seem to get much benefit in range, so I doubt there's little, if any, change for small creatures.

But yes, that is what I'm suggeting... that is the rule. The number of increments are the same. I just want to know how much the distance in those increments increases.

Scaling, IMO, is a much cleaner and more accurate method. It also fits with the way they scaled damage for unusually large and small weapons. After all, you dont technically add and subtract damage dice for a 'large' longsword (shifting from 1d8 to 2d6 doesnt count as 'adding' dice ), you just scale up the damage die (or dice).

I *know* what the rules are - I'm a rules lawyer (tm). Your point, though, seemed to favor an equal nmber of range increments as well as equal range increments. Obviously, this isn't workable...

Either way could work, but I pointed out why this way might be better. It's a moot point for me, as I don't think it'll come up often - if ever - in my campaign.

 

[Ristamar]

I *know* what the rules are - I'm a rules lawyer (tm). Your point, though, seemed to favor an equal nmber of range increments as well as equal range increments. Obviously, this isn't workable...

Oh.... no, no. Heh. Sorry if I caused any confusion.

I'm a bit of rules lawyer myself. Someone had asked me about this particular subject. To my dismay, I couldn't find a solid answer. The question had been eating away at me, so I broke down and posted a topic about it.

I also agree that these situations don't come up often, and the oversized creatures in the MM generally have the boosted range increment listed for their default weapons. But... I.... just ...have.... to.... know....more!

 

[tzantow]

Use the Ballista as Huge Crossbow

If you use the reference in the DMG where the ballista is essentially a Huge Crossbow then the range increment of 120' vs. 80' is your ratio of a huge weapon to medium. That is approximately a 25% increase in range increment per size category.

 

[JamesonCourage]

If you use the reference in the DMG where the ballista is essentially a Huge Crossbow then the range increment of 120' vs. 80' is your ratio of a huge weapon to medium. That is approximately a 25% increase in range increment per size category.

You just revived a 9 year old thread

It's probably better, in the future, to just start a new thread, and link to the old one.

Welcome to EN World, though.

 

[frankthedm]

If you use the reference in the DMG where the ballista is essentially a Huge Crossbow then the range increment of 120' vs. 80' is your ratio of a huge weapon to medium. That is approximately a 25% increase in range increment per size category.

Not a terrible idea.