Weapon scale

[Doublebond]

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.

Regardless of what you meant, Krensky's interpretation was the impression you ended up giving. With that comment you did quite seriously sound like you were declaring a universal truth of some sort—that large characters at level 1 just couldn't work. Now, I understand that this isn't what you meant at all, but you can at least admit your mistake in wording and move on, and not resort to calling someone who made a rather reasonable deduction (given the wording) dishonest.


On another note, the only thing I can see you've seriously suggested, Iku Rex, is removing the error range on large weapons and adjusting large species accordingly. Everything else seems to have been arguments that Fantasy Craft is somehow wrong in one regard or another without much said on how to improve it.

I'd like to get your impression of my post here, as well as the recent series of posts questioning how realistic scaling weapons would actually be.

[Typhon]

Bottom line is you Crafty guys should really stop trying to rationalize the reasoning behind it with physics.
Just go with "We do this to make it possible for you to play a giant race in the game viable. If we gave them everything that would come with being a creature of human origin AND 4x+ the mass of a human, they'd simply stop becoming a race a GM could deal with and so no giant for you. You don't  want to play a giant anyway? Then don't worry about it." and leave it at that.

Once you start trying to argue a logic or math behind why you do it, it becomes a point of contention.
The only way to address it to those convinced it's a "broken" build is to state "If we were to 'fix' it, it would no longer be a racial option to play."
Conversation done.
They get plenty of benifits to help make up for it and you guys do a pretty good job dealing with the "normal" str bit.

BTW a Giant melee would be crazy to play. Pole-arm (3 hex reach), trip, disarm? LOL! Man that would be rough to deal with, even without the crazy str.

[Desertpuma]

Iku, Doublebond made the best point about your worded mix up. Fact is at one point you did say "Large PCs are fine at Level 1" and then a few posts later "Large PCs are broken at Level 1". You did post those. Go back and look if you want.

The Crafty guys are all for discussion and it is one of the main reasons they come to these boards to see what we are saying. I don't know of any other game company that shows on their own forums with this much frequency. Alex has given their rationale for why they made their decision regarding scaling weapons. It is disrespectful to keep telling him that he has not fixed or that he is wrong.

He made his point and the core rules won't change. You can certainly change them for your home game if you want. "Your Dungeon, your Dragon, your way" is the motto for FC. If you don't like it, don't play with those rules. Make some of your own adjustments and run with them.

[Iku Rex]

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.

Regardless of what you meant, Krensky's interpretation was the impression you ended up giving. With that comment you did quite seriously sound like you were declaring a universal truth of some sort—that large characters at level 1 just couldn't work.

What comment. Be specific. I think you're confusing what I actually said, both literally and in context, with what Krensky claimed I'd said.

Now, I understand that this isn't what you meant at all, but you can at least admit your mistake in wording and move on, and not resort to calling someone who made a rather reasonable deduction given the wording dishonest.

I will happily admit to a mistake in the wording. It was foolish of me to assume that my readers would be honest and intelligent. My bad.

As for "reasonable deduction" ... no. It is completely unreasonable to assume that I have a patently absurd opinion ("Iku Rex thinks a Large race with -7 to all ability scores and speed 0 would be overpowered!!!!!"), when a far more reasonable interpretation is available.

On another note, the only thing I can see you've seriously suggested, Iku Rex, is removing the error range on large weapons and adjusting large species accordingly. Everything else seems to have been arguments that Fantasy Craft is somehow wrong in one regard or another without much said on how to improve it.

First of all, you don't have to solve a problem in order to point it out.  

Furthermore, I suggested the 3.5 scaling rule in my very first post to this thread. (In response to the problem of scaled slings and the like.) I also suggested giving Large creatures the 3.x size bonus and penalty to attacks. (As a way to power down Large creatures.)  Both would be improvements.

I'd like to get your impression of my post here, as well as the recent series of posts questioning how realistic scaling weapons would actually be.

I didn't think they needed a reply.  But since you ask.

You're reducing ogres or giants to account for them being Large. Being able to wield larger weapons is one advantage of being large, just like the others mentioned by Crafty_Alex earlier. If a character can't take advantage of one aspect of being Large that's not a big problem, be it the slightly improved weapon damage, grapple bonus or whatnot.

Fantasy Craft has seems to have a policy of not giving hypothetical benefits—or benefits dealing with capacity—much weight, if any, in consideration. To alter the giant species to allow for them to wield inherently better weapons is to nerf each and every giant who doesn't use weapons. What of my giant keeper, rootwalker courtier, and ogre mage who I've until now been using without complaint in my (somewhat eccentric) political campaign? Are they to be forced to suffer a nerf simply because they are technically capable of using weapons they don't need or want?

No law of game design says that every race has to be equally good at using weapons and unarmed attacks.

And you're forgetting that the increased error range was introduced in the errata/revised book. Presumably the original races were balanced with the original scaling rule in mind. Changing it changes the power relationships subtly for all the races. It's a huge stretch to claim that every race and character concept was originally balanced just wrong and, by a remarkable coincidence, was fixed just right by fiddling with the weapon rules.  Or, you could claim that every race and concept was adjusted just right in the errata to make up for the balance shifts due to the scaling rule. This would also be silly, and it would remove any real reason for the change in the first place.

This doesn't even bring up the fact that having the gear system impact the character system of the Fantasy Craft violates one of the cornerstone ideals of the game: it's modular nature. As it is, the gear system is balanced in itself. That means that you could potentially swap it out for another gear system with minimal difficulty. I could make a new gear system that doesn't even include scaled weapons and the game will run fine. But, if I changed the species system to be dependent on the gear system for balance, then I loose that capability. If I remove large weapons from such a game, then giants and other large characters will loose even the hypothetical benefit of being allowed access to better weapons. I'd be forced to create my own giant, rootwalker, unborn, and ogre species, and all because I changed a minor part of the gear system. Indeed, as it is currently, I can remove giants from the game entirely, and allow medium characters to wield large weapons and it's still balanced.

There is no such ting as a perfectly modular game. Rules are interconnected. Just look at this very topic! If you replace the 1.5 weapon system with the almost identical system from 1.0 the game supposedly breaks. Remove scaling altogether and some character concepts become unavailable, leading to a slight shift in balance. (Just as you were making a big deal out of how extra weapon damage is an advantage for weapon users over unarmed attackers.)

(Edit: Made some minor additions.)

[Iku Rex]

Iku, Doublebond made the best point about your worded mix up. Fact is at one point you did say "Large PCs are fine at Level 1" and then a few posts later "Large PCs are broken at Level 1". You did post those. Go back and look if you want.

I did not post those. Go back and look if you want.

The Crafty guys are all for discussion and it is one of the main reasons they come to these boards to see what we are saying. I don't know of any other game company that shows on their own forums with this much frequency. Alex has given their rationale for why they made their decision regarding scaling weapons. It is disrespectful to keep telling him that he has not fixed or that he is wrong.

Being a game designer does not make him infallible. If I don't agree with his reasoning I'm not going to treat him like a fragile child and humor him. If he doesn't want to continue talking about it he can always just stop posting [replies to my posts].

Edit: Added clarification.

[Iku Rex]

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).

Physics apply to creatures as well. If you scale a human to a larger size he won't be able to wield his old weapons as easily as before. They'll feel wrong. Unbalanced. He'll want a weapon that's scaled to his new size so that it feels like his old weapon.  (And this doesn't have to be a direct scaling as if it was a computer model.)

In other words, a short sword exhibits different properties in use depending on whether it's wielded by a Small, Medium or Large creature. If you want to use short sword tactics and combat moves, you want a shorts sword adapted for your size.

[pawsplay]

I will happily admit to a mistake in the wording. It was foolish of me to assume that my readers would be honest and intelligent. My bad.

You know, if you don't like the company here, you can leave.

[Desertpuma]

Being a game designer does not make him infallible. If I don't agree with his reasoning I'm not going to treat him like a fragile child and humor him. If he doesn't want to continue talking about it he can always just stop posting.

No ever said he was infalliable. What I said was he gave you the answer as to why they do it they way it is set up. You made your point initially and he gave you the correct response for FC. Now, you are belaboring the point. You are not humoring him and telling him he can stop posting on his own forums is disrespectful.

I will happily admit to a mistake in the wording. It was foolish of me to assume that my readers would be honest and intelligent. My bad.

You know, if you don't like the company here, you can leave.

I'm in full agreement.

The core of the game will not be adjusted to fit your singular view Iku Rex. Belaboring the point, telling the designers not to post on their own forums because they might disagree with you and basically being a flaming troll means you can leave. The topic has been discussed and the designers have told you their reasons for why things are done the way they are in FC. If you don't like it, you can leave.

[Iku Rex]

Being a game designer does not make him infallible. If I don't agree with his reasoning I'm not going to treat him like a fragile child and humor him. If he doesn't want to continue talking about it he can always just stop posting.

No ever said he was infalliable. What I said was he gave you the answer as to why they do it they way it is set up. You made your point initially and he gave you the correct response for FC. Now, you are belaboring the point. You are not humoring him and telling him he can stop posting on his own forums is disrespectful.

Yes, that's right, I'm not humoring him. I'm treating him like an adult with an interest in rules beyond what the official FC rules are right now. And I am certainly not telling him to "stop posting on his own forums". You just quoted me saying that he can stop posting replies to me "if he doesn't want to continue talking about it".

Oh, wait. This is going to be another "interpretation" again, isn't it. Where you "interpret" me to mean that he should, for no apparent reason, leave the forum if he doesn't want to talk to me. As opposed to not posting replies to my posts.

Fine. I'll go change it. Maybe I can nip this in the bud.

The topic has been discussed and the designers have told you their reasons for why things are done the way they are in FC. If you don't like it, you can leave.

Ah. Agree with everything. Or leave. Nice cult you have here.

[Desertpuma]

It is not agree with everything or leave. I never said that.

I said he has given his response to you regarding the reasons for the rules. Yet you continue to belabor the point. I even said you can change it for your own home game but the core rules set will not be adjusted and they told you why.

I think your added clarification was unnecessary since I understood the context of what you were saying already. I think we all knew you were talking about posting in regards to this subject. Have you noticed he stopped posting in regards to it a couple of pages ago?

[Doublebond]

The topic has been discussed and the designers have told you their reasons for why things are done the way they are in FC. If you don't like it, you can leave.

Ah. Agree with everything. Or leave. Nice cult you have here.

Ironic that you should complain about people misinterpreting your posts and then say that.

You need to take a break. You're just sounding more and more like a troll. I can't even take you seriously any more.

[Goodlun]

Ah. Agree with everything. Or leave. Nice cult you have here.

Or you could simply put forth something compelling and interesting when you have a disagreement about the rules.

[Krensky]

Iku, Doublebond made the best point about your worded mix up. Fact is at one point you did say "Large PCs are fine at Level 1" and then a few posts later "Large PCs are broken at Level 1". You did post those. Go back and look if you want.

I did not post those. Go back and look if you want.

If anything is "broken" it's allowing Large characters from level 1. That's the problem, and nerfing every logical advantage of Large characters is not a sensible solution.

That was the first thing you said on the issue.

You recent posts have descended into ad hominem attacks directed at me, the designers, and the rest of the community. I am forced to interpret this as you not having anything worthwhile left to say on the issue and no longer desire a reasonable, respectful conversation on the issue. Similarly, you are the only one insisting their's a problem with the rule. Pawsplay and other's don't care for it, but they're either used Morgenstern's (aka Scott Gearin) alternate rule, come up with their own, or something. They're not here insulting the boards and designers trying to get the system rewritten.

As for my part, I respond to what you write as I have no way to know what you intended. If their is a disconnect between your writing and intent, that is not my failure.

I'm hardly a fanboy, I've butted heads with the designers over one or two things. The fact that I like a rule you dislike and refuse to change my opinion does not make me a fanboy. Similarly, the people on these boards are among the smartest and most intellectually honest I've interacted with in this hobby.

This is Crafty's house. They let you come in and ask questions, criticize, and make suggestions. I suggest you show some respect to your hosts and fellow guests and stow the attacks and attitude.

[Oleyo]

Maybe everyone should step back and realize this was just a discussion over weapon scale game mechanics. 

There are a thousand ways one might make any game.  I don't believe that only one or two are "right".  I don't understand the need to insist that ones own method is the only right way and the need to prove another's way as "wrong".  Such proof is impossible.

There are several rules that I find work better (for me) that I use.  I will not try and insist that others should adopt my methods, or even recognize that mine are "better" in any way.

I am sure this discussion has long since become not-helpful to Crafty because of these hard lines and defensive positions.

Lets just brainstorm mechanics, without any of the above assumptions, eh?

WHOS WITH ME!!??  *places hand palm down in middle of huddle, waiting expectantly*

[Iku Rex]

It is not agree with everything or leave. I never said that.

Not literally, no. But it seemed like a fair summary of your statement that "if you don't like [the reasons for why things are done the way they are in FC] I can leave. Since that's not what you meant I will of course not say it again.

I said he has given his response to you regarding the reasons for the rules. Yet you continue to belabor the point.

People have replied to me. I've answered with my opinion. It's a thing I do.

I think your added clarification was unnecessary since I understood the context of what you were saying already. I think we all knew you were talking about posting in regards to this subject.  

Thank you. I apologize for giving you too little credit.  
 

Have you noticed he stopped posting in regards to it a couple of pages ago?

Well, I stopped posting too. (I didn't notice his most recent post right away.) But sure, if he's tired of the thread that's perfectly understandable. Edit: Or maybe he doesn't work during the weekend.