Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tinari 02-28-07, 08:00 PM	Reposted to put it into the correct forum. Summary This is a varient rule that i am considering applying to my campaign, and I was wanting feedback on the fairness of said system before I spring it upon my current players. It reduces the effectiveness of damage/area coverage magic the smaller you are, and increasese it the larger you are. Why do it? Basically, I am a bit confused and irriate that a fine creature with wizard levels casting a fireball does XD6 damage in the same area as a colossal creature with the same amount of wizard levels. Fighters suffer and benifit from size for damage with their weapons. I find it weird that "fireball" cast from a creature who's entire ecology could exist in the branches of a tree would effectively destroy and nuke the entire village/township there, but a colossal community that lived in a huge, miles large expanse of houses casting fireball could, at best, torch one house or less. So, I wanted to design a varient to the current system of magic/psionics and such that would scale with the size of a creature to be more appropriate for people of their size. A fireball from a fine creature may be tiny, but fine creatures all have to occupy the same space to hit, so that fine fly wizard could still nuke all the enemies (and allies) that are meleeing in a single square on a board. Likewise, a fireball from a colossal++++ uber super titan actually has a chance to hit more than 2-3 enemies that are partially overlapping in squares, because his fireball is titan sized. The crunchy bits. All changes are cumulative with the previous size catagory changes. Radius referers to burst, emenetaion, spread, cylinders and any other spells of a nature that involves radius length for area. Length referes to spells done in lines and cones, or any other area that uses length as it's main area coverage. Fine+, Fine: -1 damage per die, -5' radius, -10' length. Dimunitive, Tiny: -1 damage per die, -5' radius, -10' length. Small, Medium: No changes. Large, Huge: +1 damage per die, +5' radius, +10' length. Gargantuan, Colossal: +1 damage per die, +5' radius, +10' length. Colossal+, ect: +1 damage per die, +5' radius, +10' length. Hopefully therough example First, reducing dice isn't effective as D6 is one off of the worst you can get, and just doesn't seem to be a great way to go about it, as after a certain point, the dice grow too large. Maybe a smaller bonus was in order. So, I figure going with the base dice was the best way to do it, simply adding or subtracting as needed. Start with Small and Medium, as most LA 0 creatures are small and medium. Absolutely no changes here in either die size or area of affect spells. Great. Next, we'll drop size. Tiny and Dimunitive. They suffer a -1 penalty on each die of damage delt by magical means. Thus magic missile becomes 1D4 damage. Fireball is 1D6-1 per level. And as such, this blanket applies to ANY and ALL dice rolled for damage. Save or die/lose spells are unaffected, thus are more reasonable for small folk. Also, area spells (including benificial area spells or non-direct damage spells) are reduced in area by 5' radius (burst, emenation, spreads, cylinders), 10' length (lines, cones) and similarly for anything I missed. (Am I missing any?) Fireball at 10th level wizard becomes a 10D6-10 spell with a 15' radius spread. Fine will suffer a -2 per level to all dice, and the area is reduced by 10' radius on all stated types, and 20' length from the above stated. This means a fireball from a 10th level wizard fine creature would be 10D6-20 spell with a 10' radius spread. Now, scaling upwards. Large and Huge gain +1 to damage per die rolled (So enlarged human wizards benifit from enlarge other than just gishes) and the area increases by 5' radius for applicable spells, and length increases by 10'. 10th level wizard fireball does 10D6+10 fire damage at a 25' radius spread. Gargantuan or Colossal is +2 damage per die, 10' radius increase, 20' length increase. 10th level wizard, 10D6+20 fire damage at 30' radius spread. Likewise, Colossal+ (for those using the rules) follows the same scaling.
Kursk 02-28-07, 08:14 PM	So small PC's get screwed and Large PC's get buffed? All at no charge! Really, not a good idea.
Voldar_Mecorthio 02-28-07, 08:21 PM	:bigeyes: :mymy: :blink: :twitch: :uh-huh: :ahem: :yuck: This is flat out the dumbest idea I have ever heard. Seriously, I see what you're saying, but that is the worst way of handling magic I have ever seen on these boards. Okay, I'm exagerating, but this is still an awful idea. Tell me this: What player with one tenth of a brain cell would not choose a big race? Being large or larger for noncaster classes is an even tradeoff; you get a strength and damage boost but take penalties to dexterity, AC, and attack rolls. You're sizing magic gives no downside. No moron would ever play a medium sized mage. Even from a flavor aspect, the titan casting fireball and the pixie casting fireball are casting THE SAME SPELL!!! If a society of colossal creatures made a society and started fireballing each other, they would make a DIFFERENT, BIGGER FIREBALL!! The spell Fireball in the PHB creates a fireball of indicated size and potency. THAT'S ALL. No matter who casts it, unless the caster uses metamagic, it produces THE SAME RESULT. Compare this: If a great artist and a bum on the street each paint the same painting, that is THE SAME PAINTING. It doesn't matter who painted it, when you don't look at the artest, the product is the same. It doesn't matter that one of the artests is a professional and one is a bum, painting a picture (casting fireball) creates the same painting! If you use the same colors and the same brush strokes in the same order, it will ALWAYS be the same. It won't vary by who paints it. Fireballs won't vary depeding on who cast them (they will increase/decrease in damage, but that's a CL variable, not a race/size variable).
Archtyrant Terevoth 02-28-07, 08:29 PM	I'd probably make it natural size, not magically augmented size. So that you don't have people casting enlarge person for spellcasting power boosts. Also, while increasing the area is probably ok, I'd leave the damage alone.
Xavon 02-28-07, 09:04 PM	Nope, bad idea. Fireball is the size and damage it is because of the amount of magic energy it takes to cast, and the skill of the caster. Neither one of these things is effected in the slightest by the size of the caster. I thought (hoped) your were going to present an arguement why larger creatures should take more damage or have worse saves against certain types of spells...
Tinari 02-28-07, 11:24 PM	Thank you for the feedback. In general, larger creatures have more con and thus get an extra point per hit-die. Being larger is full of benifits? No, not entirely. Sure, you can grow to colossal and then start belting out higher damage, larger area spells of the evocation school. But now that disintigrate spell cast by your fine friend will not only be much more likely to hit you now, but you won't have any benifits to save against that kind of spell. But, given the amount of negativity in the feedback, I guess I'll back down from the idea. As it stands, going small was nothing but benifits for casters as it in no way altered their ability to deal damage, while increasing their survivability by augmenting their AC in ways armors can't. Being large simply made them bigger targets, with the lower AC to rely on keeping them out of harms way when the fights come their way. But, I'll just scrap the idea and accept that smaller casters are superior in practically every way to large casters at this time, and large melee is generally better than small melee, and that's the holy order of things, hehe. Compare this: If a great artist and a bum on the street each paint the same painting, that is THE SAME PAINTING. It doesn't matter who painted it, when you don't look at the artest, the product is the same. You're right. It is the same painting. But guess what? A medium sized person painting on a 10'x10' canvas would be able to finish a painting. A dimunitive sized person painting on a 10'x10' canvas would be able to do the same painting, but take a much longer amount of time due to circumstances brought about by size. (Using dimunitive sized brushes, having to use ladders to get to different areas, ect) So small PC's get screwed and Large PC's get buffed? All at no charge! Yes. Small PCs get screwed (Well, not small, but smaller than small PCs) and large PCs get buffed. Yes, all at no charge. Can you tell me why a mage type class would pick a large race? Being small increases their dex (touch attack spell boost) their attack rolls (more touch attack spell love) their size AC (always good to avoid touch spells, touch attacks, trips, ect) their dex to AC (because having a high AC is always a boon). They can get THIS all free of charge as the current magic system stands. A large caster has a lower dex, lower attack roll, lower AC and has no benifits. So, yes it IS at a charge. The charge of being a bigger target with worse attack rolls for using the better magic at your disposal.
bartleby42 03-01-07, 02:04 AM	I don't think there are that many incentives for being a large race when it comes to playing a caster. But your system does give some really big ones. The additional radius is huge, this is a signifigant buff. But what might be reasonable is if you change your suposition a little bit, how about "Large creatures think in larger radii, and small creatures think in smaller radii, and every spell only has so much power to go around." With that rational you can have a table like this, pertaining only to AoE spells | Small | Medium | Large Damage +2/die ------- -2/die Radius -5' ------- +5' Cone -5' ------- +5' length with a minimum radius of 5' and a minimum cone length of 5' it might work. For smaller and larger just add 2 and subtract 5 feet. This should work fine for the PCs, giving reason to play a large creature and reason to play a small creature, but where this gets wacky is a Dragon. An Collosal dragon will be doing -8 per die, which is less than ideal, even if you scale it back to only a -1 penelety for size increase it is still a -4 to each die. The rule needs work, but I think this is a step in the right direction.
Evil DM Mk3 03-01-07, 06:47 AM	Actually this MIGHT be workable, so long as you take note of this I thought (hoped) your were going to present an arguement why larger creatures should take more damage or have worse saves against certain types of spells... You could, jsut about, make it balanced via a method of damadge for AoE spells is multiplied by the number of squares of the effect you are in (so multiply by a freaction for very small creatures). It is still not likely to work out but if you REALLY wanted to make this work, you would ahve to go down this path. After all, they are beign hit by more/less of the spell after all.
Cyanide300 03-01-07, 01:14 PM	I really don't see a need for this, nor do I see how it makes sense. First of all, magic and its power comes from mind, not the body. This is why a higher Int, Wis, or Cha makes magic more powerful. Not higher Str, Dex, or Con. Magic does not come from the physical. Secondly, there are plenty of disadvantages to being small. You can't think of casters as being stuck in this little bubble where nothing big interacts with them. They are in the world just as much as your other characters. If the casters in your game never get attacked, and nobody ever tries to grapple them, or indimidate them, or chase them down, then the DM is doing something wrong. Small size carries stiff penalties on carrying capacity, not only from size, but usually from a strength penalty as well. Small creatures also take a penalty on virtually all of the special combat actions. Small weapons are more easily disarmed, small creatures are easier to grapple, easier to trip, easier to overrun, and easier to bull rush. They are also easier to indimidate, which makes them shaken and applies -2 penalty to several things (noteably it more than negates their attack bonus for small size). In addition, at lower levels, the large caster already has the advantage of doing more damage with a bow or crossbow than a medium or small caster would do, thus he is not so reliant on spells for his combat usefulness. In addition to that, he can move to use touch spells on smaller creatures without moving into their reach. He also has an increased carrying capacity, probably moves faster, and probably has a bonus to a physical score that would otherwise be lower for a caster. He is also better at disarming opponents that get too close to him, he is better at getting himself out of a grapple (a situation all casters dread), and he is less likely to be tripped, bull rushed, or overrun than a medium or small caster. When you look at the mechanics of the game, a bonus or penalty of 1 to attack and AC becomes increasingly less signifigant as the character levels up. His touch attacks will soon easily beat most opponent's touch ACs. Also, the fact that BaB steadily increases while AC is dependant almost entirely on items makes for ever diminishing returns on AC bonuses. At low levels, a plus or minus 1 AC is a big deal. At mid levels it's not a difference maker most of the time, and at high levels it's virtually meaningless.
Archtyrant Terevoth 03-01-07, 02:25 PM	When you look at the mechanics of the game, a bonus or penalty of 1 to attack and AC becomes increasingly less signifigant as the character levels up. His touch attacks will soon easily beat most opponent's touch ACs. Also, the fact that BaB steadily increases while AC is dependant almost entirely on items makes for ever diminishing returns on AC bonuses. At low levels, a plus or minus 1 AC is a big deal. At mid levels it's not a difference maker most of the time, and at high levels it's virtually meaningless. This thinking is entirely wrong. A stackable bonus of +1 to a d20 roll is equally significant at all levels, so long as you haven't fallen behind so far that you only hit on a 20 or only miss on a 1. Each +1 increment is a 5% shift of probability of success. It really doesn't matter if you're talking about a +21 versus an AC of 32 or a +1 versus an AC of 12. Both are going to require an 11 or better and with a +1 bonus will now require a 12 or better.
Cyanide300 03-01-07, 04:04 PM	This thinking is entirely wrong. A stackable bonus of +1 to a d20 roll is equally significant at all levels, so long as you haven't fallen behind so far that you only hit on a 20 or only miss on a 1. Each +1 increment is a 5% shift of probability of success. It really doesn't matter if you're talking about a +21 versus an AC of 32 or a +1 versus an AC of 12. Both are going to require an 11 or better and with a +1 bonus will now require a 12 or better. Yes, a +1 on attacks does give you a 5% better chance to hit. However, consider that if you had a 5% chance to hit and you increased that chance to 10%, that is a 100% improvement. However, if you have a 60% chance to hit and you add another 5%, that is only an 8.3% improvement. As the gap between average AC and average attack bonus closes, you become more likely to land hits. Each time you become more likely to hit, that 5% bonus becomes less influential. At low levels, this bonus is signifigant because AC jumps quickly due to the inherent +10 and the low cost of adding bonuses (1530gp for full-plate and a tower shield that gives +12 AC) relative to the cost of adding to attack. However, because AC does not increase soley from leveling, while attack bonus does, this gap begins to close. At higher levels, AC hits a wall while attack continues to increase, further closing the gap. As average chance to hit increases, that 5% bonus to hit chance becomes less and less influential. In the case of casters making mostly touch attacks, this gap closes even faster because fewer things add to touch AC. A ring of protection +5 and gloves of Dex +6 grant a +8 to touch AC, while the same gloves of Dex +6 grant a +3 to the caster's ranged touch attacks. At level 10 (for a wizard or sorc) the AC provided by those items can be completely negated for signifigantly less cost, and the BaB is still increasing steadily.
Tinari 03-01-07, 04:54 PM	Grappling wizards with their newfangled "freedom of movement" type magics isn't the easiest, or the best solution. And only at low levels does a wizard and his weapon matter. When it gets to a certain point, you don't even need to hold a weapon anymore for as far as what you're good at doing anymore. But I agree with most of what you're saying. But how does it not make sense? A third level spell should be, from the perspective of fine creatures, a massive nuke that can hit every portion of their entire community, from one city wall to another, dealing what would be practically death for every member of the community? For a community of colossal beings, that same spell becomes a tiny splash of fire that might hurt one house, and injure/main a few people at best. Limit yourself for a moment to a campaign of nothing but fine people and creatures. Suddenly, the area of every spell seems to be almost all encompasing of everything in the area. But if you limit yourself to a campaign of nothing but colossal people and creatures, trying to get more than a few people in one of your large area spells becomes a difficult task. Maybe the damage shouldn't be modified, because indeed, the STRENGTH of the spell comes from the mind. But the SIZE should come from the perspective of the one using it, at least in my own world, that seems fitting.
Cyanide300 03-02-07, 09:07 AM	But I agree with most of what you're saying. But how does it not make sense? A third level spell should be, from the perspective of fine creatures, a massive nuke that can hit every portion of their entire community, from one city wall to another, dealing what would be practically death for every member of the community? For a community of colossal beings, that same spell becomes a tiny splash of fire that might hurt one house, and injure/main a few people at best. Limit yourself for a moment to a campaign of nothing but fine people and creatures. Suddenly, the area of every spell seems to be almost all encompasing of everything in the area. But if you limit yourself to a campaign of nothing but colossal people and creatures, trying to get more than a few people in one of your large area spells becomes a difficult task. You are placing artificial boundries on the worlds of these tiny and large creatures. Yes, what you're saying would make sense if the world only had tiny or colossal creatures. But in a world where everyone is tiny, nobody is tiny, everyone is normal. That's not the way most D&D settings are. There's a mixture of large and small creatures. For the small creatures, magic helps to level the playing feild. Their small size is a distinct disadvantage in mundane combat. Although a small creature may be 20% more likely to hit a large creature, the large creature's equivilant weapon probably does nearly 100% more base damage (1d10 small greatsword vs 3d6 large greatsword). But using magic like a fireball lets the small creature turn his small size into an advantage. For the large creature, his size provides an advantage in mundane combat. Using magic is secondary because he's already got the upper hand against most creatures. The balance comes from the fact that small creatures have a disadvantage in physcial combat, but an advantage in magical combat. Resulting in 1 disadvantage and 1 advantage. On the other side, larger creatures have an advantage in physical combat, and a disadvantage in magical combat. Again, 1 advantage and 1 disadvantage. If you make magic scale with creature size, then the smaller creature has a disadvantage in both magical and physcial combat, while the larger creature has an advantage in both phsycial and magical combat. That's not balance. Also, Freedom of Movement isn't on the wizard's spell list, so he needs somebody else to cast it for him. On top of that, it can be dispelled just like any other magical effect. If the half-ling wizard proves impossible to grapple, an opposing caster would probably do something about that. If you're just fighitng creatures, let the wizard have his fun. It's not like he's a threat with anything but his magic.
Kursk 03-02-07, 11:39 AM	But I agree with most of what you're saying. But how does it not make sense? A third level spell should be, from the perspective of fine creatures, a massive nuke that can hit every portion of their entire community, from one city wall to another, dealing what would be practically death for every member of the community? Look at it this way. Magic has its own natural laws like physics. Different, but laws none the less. It takes a certain minimum amount of fissionable material to make a bomb. So you have a "minimum" size for an A-bomb, no matter who makes it. Not a perfect example but a crude analogy.
Tinari 03-02-07, 11:57 AM	Yes, it takes at least X amount of fissionable material to make an atom bomb. For a tiny creature, gathering X could be a daunting task that takes a while. For a gargantuan creature, gathering X just means grabbing up a large handful of material to put together into the bomb. It ties into that "painting" analogy from earlier. There's an optimal size for it. If you're larger, you have to use smaller brushes than you're used to. If you're smaller, you have to get step-ladders to reach places, having to use more brush strokes to get the same paint in a space or use large and cumbersome brushes. I agree that strength of magic should come from the mind, and thus that is why I said in a previous post that maybe touching the damage of magic isn't the way to go about it, but the area that magic covers should. Ask a fine creature with an illusion spell to "Make an illusion of a door." You get a door that's about inches tall, centimeters thick. Ask a medium creature, you get the standard door you and I would think of. Ask a colossal creature, and you get a mammoth whopper of a door. Likewise, it seems like the amount of time and effort a person of signifigantly smaller size would have to use to produce a fireball of signifigantly larger than what he'd normally see would change. Even some spells as of now benifit smaller people more than larger people in this "size doesn't matter" system of magic. Turning 100 cubic feet of material into usable, functioning things is a huge, huge, HUGE amount of things for a fine person who casts said spell. But to a colossal person, that'd be enough for one person to have a few minor things. Regardless, I can see that this idea, in the general concensus, makes no sense or seem a bad, poorly thought out idea, so other than trying to explain myself and my reasoning behind this, I think I'll let the idea die until I come up with another way to make the change, involving the size of people and taking damage as well, heh.
Kursk 03-02-07, 12:01 PM	I agree that strength of magic should come from the mind, and thus that is why I said in a previous post that maybe touching the damage of magic isn't the way to go about it, but the area that magic covers should. The blast radius would be a function linked to the "laws of magic" like the example of the A-bomb I gave. Not the perspective of the bomb builder.
Bauglir 03-02-07, 03:38 PM	It's a bad idea in terms of mechanics. I can see the logic, but even making spell size alone scale differently can be bad for the game. Suddenly that Great Wyrm with Enlarge Spell is casting fireballs half the size of the local castle. When you think about mechanics, you have to think about them from the point of view of Medium and Small characters, because that's what the vast majority of PCs are. That said, feel free to houserule it or talk your DM into it if you think it makes a lot of sense.
Tinari 03-02-07, 05:15 PM	It's a bad idea in terms of mechanics. I can see the logic, but even making spell size alone scale differently can be bad for the game. Suddenly that Great Wyrm with Enlarge Spell is casting fireballs half the size of the local castle. When you think about mechanics, you have to think about them from the point of view of Medium and Small characters, because that's what the vast majority of PCs are. That said, feel free to houserule it or talk your DM into it if you think it makes a lot of sense. I think that seems reasonable. The Great Wyrm example. And, about the a-bomb comparison, yes. If the minimum size of a-bomb is 10 megaton, then a fine, tiny, small, ect s going to make a 10 megaton bomb. But for colossal people, that would be too easy, and it'd be comparitively easier for them to make a 100 megaton bomb, given their increased carry capacities, increased strength scores to move it around, ect. Buuuut, this idea is a dud bomb anyway, so oh well.
Xavon 03-04-07, 01:59 AM	There are a number of problems with your ongoing arguments, Tinari. And for the sake of simplicity I will use Pixie to mean a random, Tiny sentient; Human for a random Medium sentient, and Giant for a random, Giant size sentient First is your assumption that each race researches its own versions of the various spells. This is counter to the D&D standard, which says that basic magical knowledge and most common spells were handed down from one ancient source (be it dragons, gods of magic, or the lost civilization of supermagi), and are standardized throughout the world. A Pixie or Giant who wants to cast fireball probably isn't going to research the spell from scratch, they are going to learn the common version. Second, even if one were to accept that each race had its own version of the spells suited for their size, the AoE of a spell is tied to the power of a spell; its level. If Pixies had a 5' blast radius fireball, because it was all they thought they needed, it would not be a 3rd level spell. Reducing the AoE by a factor of 16 would decrease the amount of energy needed to cast the spell, thus decreasing its level. Unless you are also assuming that a Giant spends more mana to cast a third level spell than a Human, in which case should the Giant also not be able to cast a medium size (Human) fireball for the same amount of power as a human, and considerably less than the Giant version. Should not a Human be able to cast the Pixe Fireball 16 times instead of using the Human version once. Third your counter argument on the nuclear weapon holds no weight, for three reasons. 1) despite the analogy (which is good), spellcasting is a mental exercise, not a physical one. Your argument that the Giant could gather the fissionable material faster is akin to arguing the large creature could compute a complex mathmatical sequence faster. 2) By your original intent, the Pixie is making a Tiny sized bomb, the Human Medum sized bomb, and the Giant a Giant bomb. In which case each crafters would need to gather a propertionally similar amount of material, making the time required roughly the same. Indeed the Giant is at a disadvantage because their might not be enough U 238 in the continent or even the whole world. 3) IF we do instead assume that all three creatures are building a medium bomb, the Giant would have the advantage in materials gathering, but the Pixie would make up that advantage in assembly time (Sony, because Caucasians are too damn tall) ------------- This concept is game damaging and illogical. If you want to make something like this work, you need an MP system rather than Vancian spell levels; and also should probably consider something in line with the Palladium Mega-Damage system.