Weapon scale

[pawsplay]

I wouldn't imagine at all that larger or smaller weapons would simply be scale models of medium weapons. Rather, I think they would be proportionately larger or smaller to the extent they became more wieldly to their intended user. Just as giants tend toward a heavier, squatter build than humans, I imagine their Large weapons would tend toward adequately sized grips and such but not necessarily a fully scaled blade or shaft.

[Oleyo]

"the strengths and other propertiees of the materials do not scale"

Exactly.  That's why a real skyscraper is much weaker (relatively) than, say, a perfect 1/100th scale model of itself.

edit: PS ...not that I think this would necessarily be fun/interesting to model in an RPG.

[Goodlun]

I would be very tempting to model up several different sized swords in Pro E just to see what exactly would happen.  Of course I rarely have access to the software and have extra time for fun projects.  I will have to see what I can do....

[Oleyo]

I also may try adding to Morg's Scaled-for-Large, the following:

"...if the weapon is Small or larger, it also gains the massive quality if it doesn't already have it"

Since FC strength is constant, then the character would need to be a strong large creature to use large (scaled-to) weapons like, say, the cave troll in LOTR.  On the other hand if you don't spend ability points to make your large character actually stronger than your average Medium Folk then sorry, you need to use little medium folk weakling weapons.

PS ...maybe I would call the cave troll Huge, but you get the idea...


edit: Just realised it would be wonky or annoying to save against a knockdown for every attack so I modified the rule a bit to apply to certain sized weapons only.

[Oleyo]

Also, now that I think of it, I might add this to the standard scaling rule instead, as I would probably want to keep the error range increase even for the normal wielder once I start fooling around with the massive quality. Gotta think more about it...

[Black_Irish]

Don't forget Keen. Very useful and appropriate for an enlarged weapon. I personally model a giant's battle axe by adding the Giant, Massive, and Keen qualities instead of making it a large weapon. It has much more potential that way.

[Oleyo]

Good call, I like that idea.  It's actually pretty cool how many different ways FC allows you to modify weapons.

[aegis]

My own house rule, is to drop the error range modifier on small scale weapons (only), and to rule a melee weapon two-handed if the size category is equal to the wielder's (the maximum wieldable), which seems more in keeping with the base table.

Don't forget small scale weapons are 25% cheaper! That may be a (mechanical) justification for the error range increase as well.

[paddyfool]

Don't forget Keen. Very useful and appropriate for an enlarged weapon. I personally model a giant's battle axe by adding the Giant, Massive, and Keen qualities instead of making it a large weapon. It has much more potential that way.

Also, if you start with a cheap weapon, you can stick a lot of appropriate upgrades on it.  My fire-brave ogre started out with a bastard sword, because the massive quality was fun, effective, and pretty appropriate.  However, looking at the upgrades, a giant-crafted massive machete might have been an even more fun, effective, and cheaper way to go, if a little less appropriate for him (EDIT: further to this, making it superior would make it as good or better in almost every way, for a total of 52.5 silver rather than 60).  Keen, fitting though it might be, is only useful once you're already frequently doing 21 or more damage in a hit without a repeatedly exploding damage die; generally speaking, it's for higher-level play only.  Going large-scale, meanwhile, is currently priced at a level for what it gives you where for most weapons it'll only be worth it when you've already taken everything else you might want and still have silver to burn.   It's highly applicable to very cheap or free weapons, however (and highly appropriate for large rocks).

[Oleyo]

Wow, I only just realized that Massive was an upgrade.  I always thought it was a quality only...

That's what happens when you keep reading the book, but don't have anyone to play with

[Goodlun]

Wow, I only just realized that Massive was an upgrade.  I always thought it was a quality only...

That's what happens when you keep reading the book, but don't have anyone to play with

So here it sits instead of scaling a weapon up in size one should just upgrade a weapon for a bigger character with the massive quality gives it the proper flavor if you ask me with out running into any of the other issues.

[Oleyo]

Yeah, i would tend to agree with you.  I like that alot.  And I like the side-benefit of Massive requiring real, purchased high strength for Large fellas (or ladies).

If I do end up using scaling, I will definitely be enforcing a massive upgrade as well on a case-by-case basis.  Woohoo, nice work Crafty-Guys

PS I am in the process of coalescing my group so I should be running FC soon!

[Typhon]

I'm soooooooooooo staying away from this topic lol.
I'd so get banned.

[Iku Rex]

(Sorry about the delay - didn't notice your post. I'll try to keep this brief.)

The 3.x rule is quite elegant actually. Since size changes come with a bonus and penalty to defense and attack, creatures of equal size are on equal terms when it comes to hitting and missing.

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree then. When I ran my 3.0 campaign I found the rule absolutely maddening - constantly having to compare relative sizes between attacker and defender to determine the true attack bonus. I am told 3.5 changed it some, but I still do not buy a big guy has a hard time hitting a smaller thing if the small thing is no more nimble than the larger thing.

(The 3.x rule does not depend on relative sizes, in 3.5 or 3.0. It's a fixed bonus or penalty.  3.0 SRD, .rtf . )

The big guy has a harder time hitting a smaller thing in Fantasy Craft too. Smaller characters get a bonus to defense. Larger characters get a penalty.

(Imagine two characters with identical stats fighting in front of a magical shrinking/growing ray that only affects their size. In 3.x you can shrink or grow them with no effect on the fight. In FantasyCraft they'll have a harder time hitting each other when they shrink, and hit a lot when they grow. Even though, from their point of view, nothing about the opponent has changed.)

Points to 3.5 then. This is generally an outlier in our system as growth/shrink effects are pretty rare considering our modern game heritage.

The point was not that you absolutely need a game mechanic for hypothetical battles taking place in front of hypothetical magical shrinking/growing rays.  The point was that the symmetrical bonuses allow characters of identical size to fight on equal terms. They let you avoid the human-centric clunkiness. And as an added bonus, Large creatures become a little less powerful.

[Iku Rex]

It makes perfect sense.

I'm not going to repeat myself any further. Both pawsplay and I have explained this ad nauseum. When you stubborny refuse to acknowledge any kind of problem it is very clear that you have no interest in any reasonable discussion.

And did the sky fall? Was it an impossible change? Is 3.5 unplayable because of that rule change?

Did the sky fall here? Is Fantasy Craft unplayable because of this rule change?

Of course FC isn't unplayable. It just slightly less good than it could have been.

And you seem to have once again lost track of what we were talking about. In this case we were talking about whether or not 3.0-style weapon size rules could be changed to 3.5-style weapon size rules. Obviously they can.

What? It's the same rule as FantasyCraft, only for attack bonus as well as defense!

Nor is there any particular need for "tweaks and excuses", at least not becasue of that particular rule.

If I don't want my giant monster to be hit by the PCs every single time, I need to find some tweak or excuse to jack up it's AC.

*Blink*

Once again, FantasyCraft also gives giant monsters a defense penalty. You have the same problem.

(And in DnD 3.x monsters generally get Str and natural armor to make up for the attack penalty.)

I don't need to "make up my mind". What is it you don't understand? There is no contradiction here. Crafty_Alex claims that something is "broken". He thinks it's the rules for scaling weapons, and so naturally that's what gets fixed. I say that IF anything is broken it's allowing Large characters from level 1. That's the problem, and in order to fix that problem you need to look at what you give characters from race on level 1.

The interpretation that I think Large characters are inherently overpowered no matter what other drawbacks a race has is plainly absurd.

Frankly, the whole argument is plainly absurd, but here we are. Frankly your words at one point say 'Large PCs are fine ant level 1' and then say 'Large PCs are broken at level 1.'

Decide whether you're arguing that Large PCs are unbalanced at level one or not then we'll continue.

I've explained this several times now.

I never said that "Large PCs are broken at level 1". And I certainly never said that "Large PCs are, and must always be, no matter what, broken at level 1", which is how you are dishonestly "interpreting" it.

I have said that IF they are unbalanced at level one the real problem is the bonuses and penalties from race. And even if I had categorically stated that "Large PCs are broken at level 1" (in 1.0 or 1.5) it should be obvious to any honest, normally intelligent person that I was referring to the current balance level, not some universal truth.

Just what do you expect to accomplish by arguing with the designer (Alex) anyway?

Just what do you expect to accomplish by arguing with me?

I don't see why I should be ignoring Crafty_Alex just because he's a designer. Designers need to be challenged about the rules. Even if they don't always change their mind. "We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't."

Not to mention that a designer is generally more likely to have an informed and well reasoned opinion than some random fanboy.