Weapon scale

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Fantasy Craft violates one of the cornerstone ideals of the game: it's modular nature.

+1, if nothing else.

[pawsplay]

You are still missing the point with regard to races. All Origins, whether or Talents/Races or Specialties, are based on the same number of points just if selected using a Point-Buy System. These are all balanced in this way.

Right. I guess I'm just crazy because I assumed it included the one or two more points of damage that creatures who use natural weapons get for free. I never realized it was so gamebreaking for Ogres to deal + 0.5 more damage on average than humans using their Large, overpowered longswords. Ok, so there's no downside for Ogres using larger weapons. Is that bad? Is there a reason Ogres should use human-sized weapons? I kind of think they would use ogre-sized weapons. Maybe I'm insane that way.

So, to summarize, origins charge a cost for Large that gives you a situational bonuses to some maneuvers, extra damage (but only for creatures with natural weapons), and carrying capacity (which you'll need for your heavier equipment). In return, it makes you easier to hit, easier to spot, and more easy ganged up on. And it's bad for Large creatures to use larger weapons for some reason?

For most single die weapons, size increases net an average of +1 damage. For d12, it's an average of +0.5. For two die weapons, it's +2.

I can accept that giants do not get a Strength bonus. I can accept that their weapons do no more damage than human ones. I have trouble accepting both of these at the same time. Extra damage should come from somewhere. If there is a balance issue, it should have been factored into Origin costs as a fix. Of course, that implies Large should cost something different for a Drake than for an Ogre.

[Goodlun]

I think its kind of amusing to think that weapons that are designed to be effective at a certain size would some how maintain the same effectiveness in a large or small size.
The idea of a scaled up rapier if you will wouldn't be a very effective well rapier. 
I think an Ogre may have larger weapons for sure but would they just be scaled up versions of weapons designed for a smaller person I doubt the effectiveness of that.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I think its kind of amusing to think that weapons that are designed to be effective at a certain size would some how maintain the same effectiveness in a large or small size.

+1, because stuff like this bears thinking about whether or not it turns out to be completely accurate.

[Crafty_Pat]

I can accept that giants do not get a Strength bonus. I can accept that their weapons do no more damage than human ones. I have trouble accepting both of these at the same time. Extra damage should come from somewhere.

It does - from weapon scaling, at the (balancing) expense of a single point of error range.

[Black_Irish]

If you really want weapon scaling to work in the most correct manner, the answer is very simple: weapons can not scale to size. Physics doesn't allow for it. A small short sword ceases to be a short sword; it no longer has the same mass or structure, and it will not exhibit the same properties in use. The same is true with a large short sword. A small long bow can not exist because a long bow relies on its exact physical properties to do what it does, and any change to the design will break that. A scaled-down pike will not be a pike; it will have neither the reach, nor the structural strength.  One could design a pike-like weapon that maintains the length, but has a thinner shaft -- but it will be much more prone to break and it will be much more difficult to wield because of the change to its center of gravity. A pike that has been scaled for a larger size will be much heavier (and technically longer) and, subsequently, exhibit different properties of momentum (it will be harder to control).

The fact is that Crafty is much closer to having this one right.

[aegis]

it will have neither the reach

Aaaah, reach and weapon size increase ... I can remember D&D 3.5 threads where we went on, and on, and on about this question. 

[paddyfool]

Meanwhile, giants can also hit things with a battering ram or shoot them with a cannon.  Size does matter to the scale of the weapons you can use.

[Catodon]

Also depends on what your group is emulating. If your taking a realism/grit approach (one of my favourites I just love permutations, don't you?) then Black Irish and co. have some good points.
If your taking your cue from mythology (good strong resonating archtypes there, gotta love that) then simply scaling up weapons matches many stories and myths.
Either way in a game as 'cinematic' as FC either choice is allowed by adjusting 'fluff' to fit, that's all.

[paddyfool]

Fair point, Catodon.  For that feel, I reckon Morg's house rule would work well.

[Typhon]

I hope this will be all Cliffnoted someplace lol.

[jolt]

If you really want weapon scaling to work in the most correct manner, the answer is very simple: weapons can not scale to size. Physics doesn't allow for it. A small short sword ceases to be a short sword; it no longer has the same mass or structure, and it will not exhibit the same properties in use. The same is true with a large short sword. A small long bow can not exist because a long bow relies on its exact physical properties to do what it does, ...snip

This is, in fact, exactly how we do it.  A pixie might use a sewing needle for a pike but that doesn't mean he gets to use pike stats; he uses the stats for sewing needle.  If someone asks me for a "small" pike I'm going to say, "Sure, here's your spear".  A human, with what he calls a pike, standing next to a pixie, with what he calls a pike, are using two entirely different weapons.  I base what a weapon does on what the weapon actually does, not on what the person using it happens to call it.  That's how we do it anyway.


The fact that someone elses game does it differently is completely fine and one of the strenghts of FC.  It's what I liked about RoleMaster in the late '80's.  Despite its apparent complexity the system was very easy to modify without screwing up the rest of the game.

jolt

[Swift]

I have no problem with the RAW, as they work well enough.  However, I find the argument that weapons cannot scale to size incomplete.  Weapons can certainly scale to size.  The problem is that there are two different considerations, that do no scale proportionately.

From the wielder's perspective, a weapon would scale based on strength relative to mass, and balance point relative to grip.  As long as these ratios remain constant, a weapon will perform exactly the same in terms of fighting style, whether the wielder is 10' tall, or 3' tall.  This is, however, from the wielder's perspective.

The other consideration would be the shift in impact/durability.  A weapon 3x heavier, in the hands of someone with 3x the strength (Giants having 4x, based on carrying capacity), would achieve 3x the impact.  (Penetration may vary, based on the ratio of surface area, but this is getting too mathy even for me.)  This would be the "realistic" version.  This would also be game breaking.  Which is why I don't have any issues with the RAW.

As for the increased error range, I come back to the image of hobbits dodging around and under a cave troll.

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.

[Catodon]

I have no problem with the RAW, as they work well enough.  However, I find the argument that weapons cannot scale to size incomplete.  Weapons can certainly scale to size.  The problem is that there are two different considerations, that do no scale proportionately.

From the wielder's perspective, a weapon would scale based on strength relative to mass, and balance point relative to grip.  As long as these ratios remain constant, a weapon will perform exactly the same in terms of fighting style, whether the wielder is 10' tall, or 3' tall.  This is, however, from the wielder's perspective.

The other consideration would be the shift in impact/durability.  A weapon 3x heavier, in the hands of someone with 3x the strength (Giants having 4x, based on carrying capacity), would achieve 3x the impact.  (Penetration may vary, based on the ratio of surface area, but this is getting too mathy even for me.)  This would be the "realistic" version.  This would also be game breaking.  Which is why I don't have any issues with the RAW.

As for the increased error range, I come back to the image of hobbits dodging around and under a cave troll.

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.

Yes to all but I think that the issue for realism is that the strengths and other propertiees of the materials do not scale. A double size sword is not made out of steel that has twice the rigidity or tensile str. My work with biological materials makes me think that wood is likely to be even more problomatic but a carpenter would know more.

[Swift]

True enough.  I mentioned durability without really addressing it.  I wouldn't expect them to be more durable.  I wouldn't be surprised if they lost durability.  But which way, and to what degree, and if it would be enough to measure in game mechanics is beyond me.  Materials strength is not my forte.

If I think about it long eough, it occurs to me that the keeping the "grip/balance" ratio on the same scale as the "weight/strength" shift may require substitution of materials, if the two don't scale evenly.  But then my brain starts swimming.  And I only allow that when there's a lifeguard on duty.