Troll Lord Games

You know what i mean... the size category of a monster. What did you think i meant?
In previous incarnations, monster size had a gaming effect. In 1st Ed it determined the damage die to use.

In C&C, it seems to be entirely for flavor's sake. Sure it might come up in determining whether a monster could fit in a hole, or something like that. but that's something that has to be determined (fudged?) by the CK anyways.

Does monster size have any numerical impact anywhere? Am i missing something?

-Fizz

I believe you get a +2 to grapple checks for being larger than your foe. Large monsters also automatically win initiative, unless you have a reach weapon.

Size also enters implicitly in the design of creatures, when AC is concerned. A small creature will tend to have a larger AC due to being fast, while a large creature will be penalised. You do not see it explicitly in the monster descriptions, but should you design a creature, these factors are taken into account.

it dos not give you an automatic boost per see, but I always found it stupid that being larger makes you stronger, your weapons alone deal more damage and well, you are twice more of a killer now.

Overall I think D&D tends to give two ways of increasing changes from size and well, they should never be used together, imo.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

Just to get feedback...

In AD&D, weapons did "more" damage to larger creatures and "less" damage to small creatures. Do people agree with this? Or do you take the reverse tact? (ie weapons should do more damage to smaller critters and more to larger ones)

I'm doing up a weapons & armor book for TLG and would like to know the "General" opinion on this...
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot

I never liked how AD&D 2nd edition dealt with weapons, from speed factor down to large and medium damage.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

Nifelhein wrote:
I never liked how AD&D 2nd edition dealt with weapons, from speed factor down to large and medium damage.

Agreed. Speed factor is an onus, and changing weapon damage based on size of opponent just throws another monkey-wrench into combat. Keep it simple!

Fizz wrote:
Does monster size have any numerical impact anywhere? Am i missing something?

In a sense. Take a look at the # of HD of larger sized creatures.

I mentioned in another thread somewhere, which was about weapon sizes, that the # of HD of larger creatures is used as a to hit bonus, possibly could be used as a damage bonus, and that such a larger # would factor into how often a bigger creature hits. Thereby doing more proportional damage.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

sieg wrote:
Just to get feedback...

In AD&D, weapons did "more" damage to larger creatures and "less" damage to small creatures. Do people agree with this? Or do you take the reverse tact? (ie weapons should do more damage to smaller critters and more to larger ones)

I'm doing up a weapons & armor book for TLG and would like to know the "General" opinion on this...

I found that it did make sense in some ways.

For example, consider a two-handed sword. Only a fraction of the blade can ever be actively damaging a small creature. If the creature is only 2 feet thick, then at best only 2 feet of the sword can be inflicting damage. But against a dragon, the entire 6+ feet of the blade could be impaled into the beast. More of the blade can be effective, hence more damage.

Conversely, iirc, a dagger did 1d4 against small and 1d3 against large. In this case, the dagger is too small to effectively penetrate the skin of a large creature to do damage. But it's plenty to get through the thin skin of smaller critters.

I do like the idea of speed factors, but they need to be implemented in a better way other than determining who goes first. A fast weapon should allow more attacks, but that requires a much higher level of complexity than the standard round by round combat. (You'd need to carve up rounds into segments or somesuch to do it right- more detail than crusaders desire).

Anyways, i'm not sure i'm a proponent of either, just that their can be a logical case made for each.

-Fizz

gideon_thorne wrote:
I mentioned in another thread somewhere, which was about weapon sizes, that the # of HD of larger creatures is used as a to hit bonus, possibly could be used as a damage bonus, and that such a larger # would factor into how often a bigger creature hits. Thereby doing more proportional damage.

The worry with this is the 3E effect; most of the damage resutling from the damage bonus, and very little from the weapon itself. IE, 2d6 + 12 or something. The +12 dwarfs the average 2d6 roll.

-Fzz

Fizz wrote:
The worry with this is the 3E effect; most of the damage resutling from the damage bonus, and very little from the weapon itself. IE, 2d6 + 12 or something. The +12 dwarfs the average 2d6 roll.

-Fzz

Yes, but its an abstract. The size of the weapon being proportional to the larger creature.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

gideon_thorne wrote:
Yes, but its an abstract. The size of the weapon being proportional to the larger creature.

Well, i just meant that the range of damage is effectively reduced. You get hit by a 2d6+12 weapon you know you're taking 14 damage minimum. There is no chance for a `glancing blow' or somesuch. I think it's good to keep that glancing blow possibility available, regardless of how big the critter is.

IMC, to adjust for larger critters and their weapons, i just up the damage die or increase the number of dice. IE, if a human club does 1d6, then an ogre's club ought to be at least 1d10. A storm giant's 3d10. (Or something along those lines.)

But it's rather fudged right now- don't have any hard rules on determining the increase. (Hence my original question. )

-Fizz

If I put such in the Castellans guide, I'm leaning toward the die type going up/down myself, but I'm still unsure if its worthwhile even as an optional rule.
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot

I think changing the die type works well if you have very defined size categories, like 3.X does, C&C has mainly three of them and thus, does not work well with much variations unless you seek more free choice for the game master and define guidelines based on HD of a creature, provided they are of larger size and the HD is not from classes.

Too much trouble imo.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

Tank wrote:
Large monsters also automatically win initiative, unless you have a reach weapon.

Where does it say that?
_________________
Basic Action Games http://www.bashrpg.com

Check us out for free demos and downloads or visit us onFacebook.

BASH MAN wrote:
Where does it say that?

The reference is on page 115 of the 2nd printing under the heading of 'Initiative'. I include the relevant passage below for clarification:

"There is one exception to initiative: when a creature uses a weapon with a reach of greater than 10 feet against an opponent with a weapon with less than a 6 foot reach, or when a large creature is fighting a medium or smaller sized creature. In the first round only, the creature with the more lengthy reach or of larger size is allowed to attack first, even if the creature with the shorter weapon or the the smaller creature won the initiative roll. This rule only applies if the creature with the shorter reach or smaller creature approaches within ten feet. Such action counts as the action for that round for the larger creature or the one with the longer weapon."

Not 'exactly' the same thing as stating Large Creatures win initiative. The one change I've made (unconsciously) is that I don't restrict this to the first round of combat but the first round where melee combat is joined.

Example: First round has certain members of the party firing arrows at a giant while the Dwarven Fighter and Human Fighter begin to close in on melee. The giant who rolled poorly for initiative throws a boulder at the human and misses. Next round, archers continue their volley and come within range of the Giant. Before the fighters can act though, the Ogre swings and nails the Dwarf.

It seems to work well enough...

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

moriarty777 wrote:
I include the relevant passage below for clarification:

Thank you, Mr. Red. I often sacrifice too much precision for brevity.

No problem!

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

sieg wrote:
Just to get feedback...

In AD&D, weapons did "more" damage to larger creatures and "less" damage to small creatures. Do people agree with this? Or do you take the reverse tact? (ie weapons should do more damage to smaller critters and more to larger ones)

I'm doing up a weapons & armor book for TLG and would like to know the "General" opinion on this...

I like the way it works now in C&C, each weapon does a set amount of damge, no matter what the size of the foe.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!