What's with these Mods?

[KarinsDad]

The OP has a valid point.

The difference between Gargantuan and Colossal should be the same difference as between Tiny and Small.

And in reality, the reason this does not seem to make a difference is that the vast majority of creatures are in the Tiny to Huge range where the difference is actually 1 for each step (and the vast majority of games are played where creatures are in this middle range).

Dim: +4

Tiny: +2
Small: +1
Medium: 0
Large: -1
Huge: -2

Gargantuan: -4
Colossal: -8


But, I agree with the OP. This is a bad rule since it make it easier for a Gargantuan creature to hit a Colossal creature than a Medium to hit a Large.

I never really thought about this before. Maybe I'll house rule it.

That will make my Great Wyrm Dragons even tougher. Bwa ha ha ha ha.

 

[Deset Gled]

This progression also does not fit in with the rest of D+D math. This progression doubles on every step. But in D+D math, doubling a double should be the same as a triple.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Ok so if we want to represent this geometric progression, our size mods should look something like this:

Fine: +240
Dim: +112
Tiny: +48
Small: +16
Medium: +0
Large: -8
Huge: -12
Garg: -14
Colossal: -15

As you can see, this chart is not Medium-centric the way the +/-8 chart is and it adequately represents the laws of physics.

J/k. You're never going to use this and neither am I because it's just not practical; while the current mods are practical but don't make sense.

 

[KarinsDad]

Ok so if we want to represent this geometric progression, our size mods should look something like this:

Fine: +240
Dim: +112
Tiny: +48
Small: +16
Medium: +0
Large: -8
Huge: -12
Garg: -14
Colossal: -15

As you can see, this chart is not Medium-centric the way the +/-8 chart is and it adequately represents the laws of physics.

How does this represent the Laws of Physics with regard to "to hit" and "AC"? We are not talking mass here, we are talking hitting something bigger or smaller than yourself. I can hit an insect out of the air quite often not because I am especially quick, but because my hand is the size of a 10 story building with respect to the insect. Your chart here would give the insect an AC boost of 240 and I would never be able to hit one.


To hit and AC due to size should be linear. The chances of a Tiny hitting a Small should be the same as a Small hitting a Medium, etc. up and down the chart. For example:

Fine: +4
Dim: +3
Tiny: +2
Small: +1
Medium: +0
Large: -1
Huge: -2
Garg: -3
Colossal: -4

or

Fine: +8
Dim: +6
Tiny: +4
Small: +2
Medium: +0
Large: -2
Huge: -4
Garg: -6
Colossal: -8

depending on the ratio of how often something should be hit in a D20 system. Personally, I think the +4 to -4 system (delta 8 on a D20) works best because it allows a Colossal creature to hit a Fine one, even if the Colossal creature does not have a boatload of Hit Dice.


Btw, size modifiers should only apply to ranged attacks. For melee attacks, larger creatures should easily be able to hit smaller creatures as long as they are within reach range if both are in combat trying to hit each other. This is a reoccurring design flaw in many gaming systems. IMO.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

How does this represent the Laws of Physics with regard to "to hit" and "AC"? We are not talking mass here, we are talking hitting something bigger or smaller than yourself. I can hit an insect out of the air quite often not because I am especially quick, but because my hand is the size of a 10 story building with respect to the insect. Your chart here would give the insect an AC boost of 240 and I would never be able to hit one.

An earlier poster commented that the current geometric size mods are more in line with the laws of physics; I know of what he speaks but I can't adequately explain it.

To hit and AC due to size should be linear. The chances of a Tiny hitting a Small should be the same as a Small hitting a Medium, etc. up and down the chart. For example:

Fine: +4
Dim: +3
Tiny: +2
Small: +1
Medium: +0
Large: -1
Huge: -2
Garg: -3
Colossal: -4

or

Fine: +8
Dim: +6
Tiny: +4
Small: +2
Medium: +0
Large: -2
Huge: -4
Garg: -6
Colossal: -8

My point exactly.

 

[Corsair]

1/2/4/8 is a weird pattern?

The geek in me caught that first too.

 

[Moonstone Spider]

The thing about a steady progression is, it doesn't fit from a Medium character's viewpoint. If the creature is twice as big as me I get +1, then +2 if he's four times my size.

But a monster 70 feet tall? Stevie Wonder should be able to hit that size of a target. +8 even seems a bit small. +4 is pitiful, it's many times larger than the proverbial broadside of a barn.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The geek in me caught that first too.

You're only a geek if you count sheep like that!

"... uhh... can't sleep. 1... 2... 4... 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384, 32768, 65538 great! Now I can't sleep at all because I want to make a c++ program that displays your input number of ascii-art sheep."

 

[reel_big_gish]

I think a Tribonacci sequence fits the bill.

+1,+1,+2,+4,+7,+13,+24, et al

And of course a Quadronacci sequence for the other direction.

-1,-1,-2,-4,-8,-15,-29,-56, et al

but then again, i use perfect numbers (6, 28, 496, 8128) for the fighter BAB progression. gotta keep up with the casters

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

The thing about a steady progression is, it doesn't fit from a Medium character's viewpoint.

And why is the Medium viewpoint more important than any of the others?

Thanks for the input everyone. Since I'm writing up all the monster progressions anyway, I'm houseruling a flat +/-2 per size category because it's just simpler and more intuitive.