| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1GrimcleaverNov 11, 2008 5:32:35 | I loved a lot of the stuff that started coming out late in the run of third edition. I loved having a new core race in each Races book (even as I ripped my hair out trying to figure out where these races came from...no help there). Now there's the chance to make some of the cool guys like the goliaths a core part of the setting, almost from the ground up--PHB II features goliaths! How cool is that? Pretty cool. That said, with them showing up much earlier in the run and with the opportunity (as we've seen with every single PC race so far--tieflings to dwarves) to reconcieve them to be a bit more fun and to fit a bit more solidly into the 4e world. I love that they're a primal people, totally dependant on each other, but at the same time competative and daredevil to the core. I love that. I love the big skinny build with the bald melon head and the warty urban cammo skintones. I don't love that they only really live in migratory camps like orcs or gnolls. I'd like to see cities of goliaths. I'd like to see goliath adventurers who aren't exiles whose societies have turned their back on them for being losers who can't pull their weight. Being a loser right from chargen--how fun is that? I dig the solidarity, the mutual self-reliance, the spiritualism, the crazy stuntman mentality...but now that the race isn't air dropped out of nowhere is there a possibility to have a bit more urban culture to them? Just a touch, as an option? Please? Just my two bits. Really excited for PHB II to come out. |
| #2enigmashockNov 11, 2008 16:17:39 | I loved Goliaths in 3.5 as well. I think they are a great race in terms of temperment, flavor and mood. Fantastic for Barbarians, but a Goliath Paladin or Druid could rock too (no pun intended). |
| #3Tharag_BoccNov 11, 2008 17:22:35 | I don't love that they only really live in migratory camps like orcs or gnolls. I'd like to see cities of goliaths. I'd like to see goliath adventurers who aren't exiles whose societies have turned their back on them for being losers who can't pull their weight. Being a loser right from chargen--how fun is that? I can't agree. I liked that goliaths were a more tribal and nomadic culture. I'm not interested in seeing them turned into city dwellers, we already have enough such races. Also not all goliath adventurers were outcasts. Some where seekers looking for their place in the world, sort of a vision quest scenario. |
| #4stogoeNov 11, 2008 17:43:49 | We already know that Oversized Weapon is out for all PC races. What do you think will replace it for the Goliath? |
| #5enigmashockNov 11, 2008 17:54:06 | We already know that Oversized Weapon is out for all PC races. What do you think will replace it for the Goliath? Why do you say that? Even the character generator has legal oversized weapons for bugbears, minotaurs, etc. Can you cite any statement that says this? |
| #6Tharag_BoccNov 11, 2008 18:19:32 | We already know that Oversized Weapon is out for all PC races. What do you think will replace it for the Goliath? I certainly hope not. One of my favorite aspects of the 4e monster manual was that they gave Bugbears the oversized quality. I think that taking oversized away from the minotaur, in the recent Dragon magazine article, was a mistake. Sure oversized is a great ability for maxing out a character's damage output, but there are more important things then damage. While selecting one of the oversized races gave a player access to bigger weapons, that same choice closed the door on abilities and tricks associated with other races. Also, if the removal of oversized weapon was indeed a matter of balance, then it's also a slap in the face to all the smaller races like the Halfling. If one subscribes to the belief that the weapon damage of oversized races was to overpowering to be balanced than how can one believe that small races aren't equally overshadowed by medium races. Should WotC continue to remove the oversized trait from races like the Bugbear and Goliath, I will be most disappointed. There is a strong precedence for hulking brute races in fantasy settings, and if they don't continue to receive the oversized quality than WotC need to find other ways to highlight their size and power (and no a STR bonus isn't enough, a human can get one of those). |
| #7doctorhookNov 11, 2008 18:29:32 | Why do you say that? Even the character generator has legal oversized weapons for bugbears, minotaurs, etc. Mike Mearls mentioned this in a thread somewhere. It's being discussed heavily in a 4E Rules Forum thread at ENWorld.org. |
| #8doctorhookNov 11, 2008 18:34:50 | I certainly hope not. One of my favorite aspects of the 4e monster manual was that they gave Bugbears the oversized quality. I think that taking oversized away from the minotaur, in the recent Dragon magazine article, was a mistake. Sure oversized is a great ability for maxing out a character's damage output, but there are more important things then damage. While selecting one of the oversized races gave a player access to bigger weapons, that same choice closed the door on abilities and tricks associated with other races. A flat damage bonus is better. Rather than giving a "hulking" race the ability to wield large weapons (which can cause major problems with damage dice), give them a Strength bonus as a racial ability modifier, as well as a flat +3 (or something) to damage, to represent the size factor. This is more consistent, and will usually give a comparable damage increase anyway. |
| #9GrazelNov 11, 2008 19:43:39 | It was stated that oversized will remain in the MM since those race writeups were meant to help a DM make NPCs. Any race that gets a full pc writeup will have oversized replaced with something else. Note that not only did the minotaurs lose oversized, they got a new feature to replace it and the damage from their other features and racial power were increased. As for the Goliath I don't know much about them, I'd stopped collecting 3.5 stuff by the time they got added. From what I've read in the thread though I think they work fine as a nomadic/primal race. You don't want them to be city dwellers as that conflicts with primal. You could easily have semi-permanent or permanent 'base camps' and villages though. Many nomadic cultures aren't just aimless wanderers. They have set locations and paths they follow. With the PoL setting of 4e it's likely that individual goliats would leave their tribe for a variety of reasons, not just being an outcast (though no reason that can't be an option). They're tribe could have been wiped out by a roaming threat or disease. They might hook up with a group of adventurers when the adventurers come accross their tribe. From the sounds the goliath wouldn't strike out alone but wouldn't be 'odd' if they hooked up with a new 'tribe'. |
| #10GrimcleaverNov 12, 2008 3:14:17 | I guess my thing is that Goliaths never ended up feeling core because they always lived "out there" and you never really saw them. It's the same problem of the humanocentric world that 4e has worked so hard to curb with elves and dwarves--who always used to live "out there" in deep creepy woods or way down underground in mines. It was like there were cities of other folk, and then cities of humans. 4e feels a lot more blended, and I like that--granted I think the writers do tend to slip into comfortable stereotypes sometimes *ahem--Hammerfast*. I like the idea introduced in the Races and Classes books that the PC races are different from a lot of the other civilized races out there because of the long diplomacy developed over the lifespan of the Empire of Nerath, that the PC races are all friends and have blended their cultures together significantly. I'd like to see the Goliaths folded into that, with rough and tumble city states rather than the thatch roofed human villages, elven tree-cities, or dwarven castle-towns. Maybe their towns even favor a bit more the natural materials side of things--tentpoles hung with painted hides for walls in town, big braziers stacked with logs to cook everyone's food and provide light at night, public squares demarkated with circles of uneven stones. Give their society a look, a primal look--with touches of ramparted Uruk from Gilgamesh, the Tabernacle from the Old Testament, or Garif (FFXII) or Tauren (WoW) architecture. You can fold primal into the look of a society. You can build on it and make it a style that could be very original. I guess it's mostly about the relationships between the races for me. I'd like goliaths to be as big a part of the game as elves are. You make them mountaintop nomads and the only time you really see their civilization is when you happen to be up in the tops of the mountains and in the right place at the right time. With the dwarves, they changed them to make their cities more on the slopes of mountains--so regular folks could see and interact with them. With elves, it was about moving the tree-cities to the edges of the woods so you could show off their society in a way that made sense for PCs to try and go there. I'd like to see the same here. Take the goliaths and bring them front and center. Keep the big, keep the primal, keep the spiritual--but like everything else in 4e don't make it impossible to ever run into. That's my hope anyway. |
| #11enigmashockNov 12, 2008 13:41:17 | A flat damage bonus is better. Rather than giving a "hulking" race the ability to wield large weapons (which can cause major problems with damage dice), give them a Strength bonus as a racial ability modifier, as well as a flat +3 (or something) to damage, to represent the size factor. This is more consistent, and will usually give a comparable damage increase anyway. I disagree with this assessment. If you have, let's say, a fighter with an an 18 strength who attacks with his weapon which does 1d10+4 damage (9.5 Average damage). Take the same fighter, with an "Oversized"-trait and you get 1d12+4 damage (10.5 avg damage-11% damage increase ) Now apply a +3 across-the-board damage to the same guy and he does 1d10+7 damage (12.5 average damage - 32% damage increase) Even with the most extreme 2 handed weapon, say a maul where you do 2d6+4 damage (11.5 average damage) Oversized: 2d8+4 (13.5 average damage - 17% damage increase) vs. +3 Flat: 2d6+7 (14.5 average damage - 26% damage increase) I don't see how a flat bonus like that will work. If you drop the flat bonus down to +2, it is still on par, if not overpowered (with smaller weapons) than using large-sized weapons. and +1 would barely be worth it, if not already on par with an oversized weapon. |
| #12Tharag_BoccNov 12, 2008 15:00:16 | A flat damage bonus is better. Rather than giving a "hulking" race the ability to wield large weapons (which can cause major problems with damage dice), give them a Strength bonus as a racial ability modifier, as well as a flat +3 (or something) to damage, to represent the size factor. This is more consistent, and will usually give a comparable damage increase anyway. The only particularly tricky consistency issues with oversized weapons is how they interact with the brutal weapon quality (such as everyones "favorite" the large execution axe, 2d6 brutal 2 for average damage of 9). Personally I don't much care for brutal weapons, they seem like a poorly concepted method to increase a weapon's average damage without effecting maximum damage. One of the design goals of 4e was to eliminate extra dice rolls, having basic non-magical weapons with a reroll mechanic add unnecessary extra rolls to the game. For me brutal is barely passable as a quality on superior weapons, but brutal military weapons are something I have great difficulty tolerating. If it comes down to a choice between a game with brutal weapons and a game with oversized weapons, I will choose oversized weapons every time. |
| #13viktor_von_doomNov 12, 2008 15:03:27 | Meh, I hope they do something to make Goliaths interesting, I found them extremely boring back in 3.5 and felt Half Giants were far more intersting. |
| #14doctorhookNov 12, 2008 15:15:06 | The only particularly tricky consistency issues with oversized weapons is how they interact with the brutal weapon quality (such as everyones "favorite" the large execution axe, 2d6 brutal 2 for average damage of 9). Personally I don't much care for brutal weapons, they seem like a poorly concepted method to increase a weapon's average damage without effecting maximum damage. One of the design goals of 4e was to eliminate extra dice rolls, having basic non-magical weapons with a reroll mechanic add unnecessary extra rolls to the game. For me brutal is barely passable as a quality on superior weapons, but brutal military weapons are something I have great difficulty tolerating. If it comes down to a choice between a game with brutal weapons and a game with oversized weapons, I will choose oversized weapons every time. ^This guy, right here. Talk to this guy. |
| #15Tharag_BoccNov 12, 2008 15:15:46 | Meh, I hope they do something to make Goliaths interesting, I found them extremely boring back in 3.5 and felt Half Giants were far more intersting. I can't even come close to agreeing with this. Goliaths had a rich and intersting culture detailed across several pages of Races of Stone. Half-Giants had about half of a page in the Expanded Psionics Handbook, and only had any interesting fluff if one was familiar with their background in the Dark Sun campaign setting. Also since Half-Giants were a magically created slave race rather than true half-breed, such as the half-elf or half-orc, the name was somewhat misleading. I would just as soon see these two races merged together in 4e as a single race, using Goliath as the race name proper while including a note that they are sometimes called half-giants. |
| #16doctorhookNov 12, 2008 15:32:25 | ... This. When Goliaths were first mentioned for PH2, I heard this comment floating around. I don't think it was official, but I liked it and I gather some others did too. FWIW, I never really find either race particularly interesting. My hope is that by merging them, they might become interesting! (Imagining them merged has already made them interesting in my mind.) Besides, they've already merged and reportioned several races for the sake of cutting out superfluousness; why not Goliath and Half-Giant? I think there's a good case to be made here. |
| #17NyronusNov 12, 2008 15:51:27 | The only particularly tricky consistency issues with oversized weapons is how they interact with the brutal weapon quality (such as everyones "favorite" the large execution axe, 2d6 brutal 2 for average damage of 9). Personally I don't much care for brutal weapons, they seem like a poorly concepted method to increase a weapon's average damage without effecting maximum damage. One of the design goals of 4e was to eliminate extra dice rolls, having basic non-magical weapons with a reroll mechanic add unnecessary extra rolls to the game. For me brutal is barely passable as a quality on superior weapons, but brutal military weapons are something I have great difficulty tolerating. If it comes down to a choice between a game with brutal weapons and a game with oversized weapons, I will choose oversized weapons every time. There is also the problem of being able to wield two-handed weapons one handed. Can we say Epic Level Dual Blood-Claw Mordenkrad wielding Minotaur Pit Fighter/Ranger? 8d6 + Weapon Mod x6, + 3d8, + Wis Mod x2 As an At-will. Yeah. Of course, a proper Barbarian Demi-God with some luck and a single Bloodclaw Mordenkrad can do a good 12d6 + Weapon Mod x 18 + Strength Mod x 6 a turn and he only takes his weapon modifier damage once. So the argument is not truly valid. |
| #18Janx_14Nov 12, 2008 16:03:19 | What is the original origin of the Goliath race? (lore-wise) They could easily be made a race of people who did interbreed with giants ages ago. Also, oversized does not let them wield 2h weapons in 1 hand, merely wield 2h and 1 weapons of Large Size. |
| #19viktor_von_doomNov 12, 2008 16:09:34 | I would just as soon see these two races merged together in 4e as a single race, using Goliath as the race name proper while including a note that they are sometimes called half-giants. God no, keep the boring Goliath away from my Half Giants. |
| #20WEContactNov 12, 2008 16:19:43 | There is also the problem of being able to wield two-handed weapons one handed. Can we say Epic Level Dual Blood-Claw Mordenkrad wielding Minotaur Pit Fighter/Ranger? We can't actually, and we all say thankya. Oversized doesn't allow a Minotaur (or a Bugbear, since PC Minotaurs don't have Oversized anymore) to wield weapons as if it was large. What it says is this: Oversized: You can use weapons of your size or one size larger than you as if they were your size. There's nothing about wielding two-handed weapons in one hand; that's something only Large creatures can do. EDIT: Wow, er, didn't see Janx answer. Oh well. |
| #21GrazelNov 12, 2008 16:57:30 | The issue with oversized has more to do with powers than basic attacks. Sure a flat +2 and oversized generally evens out on a basic melee attack doing 1[w]. Having a flat bonus though with a power that does 3[w] you see a difference. Bastard Sword 1d10 (1d10+2 with +2 flat bonus), has slight highter average. Large Bastard Sword 1d12 Now put in that power: Flat Bonus with bastard sword doing 3[w] = 3d10 + 2 (5-32 dmg) Oversized with Large Bastard sword doing 3[w] = 3d12 (3-36 dmg) While the average damage isn't likely to be far apart the max damage capacity is 4 higher for the oversized. Also pretty much every oversized race also gets a STR bonus so will be doing more damage on average with weapons than non-oversized races. The advantages of oversized over a flat damage bonus grows with the more [w] damage the attack does since the flat bonus is applied just once per attack while the oversized damage range gets applied for every [w] of damage. |
| #22GrimcleaverNov 12, 2008 18:12:18 | I wouldn't mind merging the half-giant information with the goliath stuff. I'd always found the roll-your-alignment-each-day half-giants to feel too much like a gimmick. I liked them because they were like 600 pound versions of Gene Simmons. Their look was great. Their backstory kind of stunk and their mechanics always felt like a gimmick though. They're pretty tied to the Dark Sun setting, but if you merge them, at least now the core races fit better than having to have two really similar races in the same setting. It could make for a cleaner integration of the two. Heck, in a lot of ways I think Goliaths--the old migratory mountain kind at least, fit better with the Dark Sun flavor than the multi-alignment magical hybrid guys. |
| #23NyronusNov 13, 2008 8:09:49 | What is the original origin of the Goliath race? (lore-wise) They could easily be made a race of people who did interbreed with giants ages ago. From PHB: "Large creatures can use two-handed weapons intended for creatures one size category smaller than themselves and treat them as one-handed weapons." From Monster Manual: "Oversized: You can use weapons of your size or one size larger than you as if they were your size." Sizes go Small -> Medium -> Large -> Huge Ergo, Minotaur can wield any medium two-handed weapon 1-handed. |
| #24That_Blasted_SomoflangeNov 13, 2008 9:37:17 | Personally, I hope that the Goliath eats the half-giant and takes all it's DNA.. err stuff.. whatever. Half giants have always been a 'meh' race to me. Nothing really special about them. And don't get me started about Giants in Dark Sun... I mean come on, giants in a world where food and water is so scarce? I do believe they should have died out a LONG time ago. Anyways, here's my take of the goliath from another thread about goliaths, minus the oversized quality and replaced with 'Size up a fella', as goliaths are supposed to be somewhat good at reading body language and such. Goliath Average Height: 7' - 8' Average Weight: 280-340lbs Ability Scores: +2 Str, +2 Con Size: Medium Speed: 6 Vision: Normal Languages: Common, Giant Skill Bonuses: +2 Athletics, +2 Nature Mountain Movement: When climbing you use your full speed, and treat all jumps as if you had a running start. When making an athletics skill check, roll twice and take the best result. Size up a Fella: Goliath receive insight as a trained skill Throw your Weight Around: Any power that pushes, pulls, or slides a creature is increased by 1 square. They also receive a +2 to all Bull Rush attempts. This is what I'd like to see. Another race that doesn't have any powers (like the dwarf). Of course, since the goliath is already done by now, there's probably no chance of the above coming true for me. |
| #25doctorhookNov 13, 2008 10:13:53 | The issue with oversized has more to do with powers than basic attacks. Sure a flat +2 and oversized generally evens out on a basic melee attack doing 1[w]. Having a flat bonus though with a power that does 3[w] you see a difference. Just so we're clear, which do you advocate? Flat damage bonus or Oversized? Depending on perspective, your post could be taken as an endorsement of either. Like I said, I prefer a flat damage bonus, because it's more consistent. It doesn't open the door for rules-stupidity with weapon properties (current and future) the way that Oversized does. I also think that the example you posted clearly illustrates why a flat bonus is more balanced than Oversized, but again, I suppose that could be a matter of interpretation. |
| #26awesome_dudeNov 13, 2008 13:17:58 | This is what I'd like to see. Another race that doesn't have any powers (like the dwarf). Of course, since the goliath is already done by now, there's probably no chance of the above coming true for me. Dwarves have a racial encounter power. It can be summarized as the following: |
| #27That_Blasted_SomoflangeNov 13, 2008 13:31:37 | Awesome_Dude, I don't consider it a power - if you look at say dragonborn, eladrin, elves, halfling and tiefling, they get a power that is specific to their race. Humans and half-elves get another power, but dwarves just get something that modify a power that every character has. While a really nice ability, it doesn't merit a power in and of itself. A footnote on the second wind power at best. The true calling of a power is something that has a unique, more or less, effect. Modifying from a standard to a minor action is not the same as breathing lightning or forcing an opponent to re-roll an attack. But that's just me. |
| #28doctorhookNov 13, 2008 13:52:03 | Awesome_Dude, I don't consider it a power - if you look at say dragonborn, eladrin, elves, halfling and tiefling, they get a power that is specific to their race. Humans and half-elves get another power, but dwarves just get something that modify a power that every character has. While a really nice ability, it doesn't merit a power in and of itself. A footnote on the second wind power at best. I guess it could go both ways, and I definitely see you point. Perhaps for Dwarven Resilience to truly be a power unto itself, it would have to grant a second (racial) use of Second Wind per encounter, the racial use being a Minor, rather than Standard, action. Then again, we're really splitting hairs here. Dwarves already rock (:P); they certainly don't need to be even tougher. |
| #29Tharag_BoccNov 13, 2008 13:56:12 | Like I said, I prefer a flat damage bonus, because it's more consistent. It doesn't open the door for rules-stupidity with weapon properties (current and future) the way that Oversized does. I also think that the example you posted clearly illustrates why a flat bonus is more balanced than Oversized, but again, I suppose that could be a matter of interpretation. A flat damage bonus might be more "balanced" but it's also incredibly bland. Few things hammer home the image of the "hulking brute" like a giant hammer. |
| #30doctorhookNov 13, 2008 14:08:47 | A flat damage bonus might be more "balanced" but it's also incredibly bland. Few things hammer home the image of the "hulking brute" like a giant hammer. I can understand that. However, the damage bonus is an abstraction; it represents that the character is wielding a larger-than-normal weapon, without the rules complications of actually doing so. How much "larger-than-normal" the weapon actually is is up for debate. |
| #31Tharag_BoccNov 13, 2008 14:45:00 | I can understand that. However, the damage bonus is an abstraction; it represents that the character is wielding a larger-than-normal weapon, without the rules complications of actually doing so. How much "larger-than-normal" the weapon actually is is up for debate. A racial quality that enlarges weapon? How does that even come close to making sense? So some how "giant guy's" weapon is big when he holds it but not when "normal guy" holds it? Plus if it's just a racial trait "giant guy" doesn't actually need a big weapon to get bigger damage. A racial damage bonus isn't big weapons, it's just a more limited version of a strength (or other relevant ability) boost. |
| #32GrazelNov 13, 2008 15:43:50 | I didn't intend to state a preference when explaining the differences between flat damage and oversized. Personally I support a 'flat damage' bonus instead of Oversized for a PC. The MM entries aren't technically a pc race writeup though a PC could be made using the information. A monster being oversized is fine since they've got a limited (and fairly static) set of powers so the fact that they can use a larger than normal weapon doesn't unbalance them while PC powers can often be overpowering with Oversize. It also would push those races towards melee classes due to the way it makes the weapon-based powers stronger while doing nothing for non-weapon powers. Also the minotaur and bugbear are size medium so no they can't use normal sized 2-handed weapons 1-handed, that's why they were given oversized in the MM since they are on the upper limits of the medium size category. Halflings barely fall into the small category at this point. Also with the Dragon article minotaurs the racial power does more damage and one of their other class features has a damage increase. Overall this plus the feature that replaces Oversized makes up for the Oversized feature being removed from PC minotaurs. |
| #33doctorhookNov 13, 2008 22:03:22 | A racial quality that enlarges weapon? How does that even come close to making sense? So some how "giant guy's" weapon is big when he holds it but not when "normal guy" holds it? Plus if it's just a racial trait "giant guy" doesn't actually need a big weapon to get bigger damage. A racial damage bonus isn't big weapons, it's just a more limited version of a strength (or other relevant ability) boost. Uh, I think you're getting a little worked up over this. Beyond that, I think also completely misunderstood the suggestion. What I suggested was that instead of the Oversized ability, PC races should receive a flat bonus to damage. It doesn't really matter how you explain it, because damage (and therefore the damage bonus) is an abstraction. You can say, "Weapons grow larger in the Goliath's hands!" or, "Billy the Bugbear always chooses to wield a club too heavy for his fellows," or anything else; it's superficial. The "more limited Strength bonus" point is moot, because all of these races already get a Strength bonus, (AFAIK), the damage bonus from which will stack will the flat damage bonus I'm suggesting. As far as "making sense" goes, a flat damage bonus is simply good design; making sense in-game comes afterwards. |
| #34Tharag_BoccNov 13, 2008 22:40:24 | Uh, I think you're getting a little worked up over this. Beyond that, I think also completely misunderstood the suggestion. I'm all for abstraction, but it has its limits before it stretches credibility. To use your example; Despite Billy the Bugbear's club being supposedly to heavy for his fellows, they actually have no difficulty wielding it and Billy the Bugbear is just as effective when wielding a club he grabbed off a dead goblin (excluding magical qualities). I still hold that a flat damage bonus is boring. Not only is the image of a large weapon more exciting, but getting to roll bigger/more dice adds to the visceral thrill of that image in a way that no mere bonus among a myriad other such bonus could ever hope to. As for balance, if D&D was a completive tournament game I might agree with you, but it isn't. D&D is a game were a bunch of friends get to gather for some fun, and quite honestly oversized weapons are far from the most broken element of the currant edition. Am I getting a little worked up about the whole issue, maybe, but I'm starting to get tired of people touting some supposed concept of balance as the be all end all. That's not to say that I think balance is a bad thing (I was a strong supporter of bringing casters and non-casters in line with each other), but there still such a thing as taking it too far. |
| #35GrimcleaverNov 14, 2008 7:35:49 | I think I can see why larger creatures might do more damage with any given weapon. I mean longer fulcrum (big arms) leads to more force delivered (SPLATO!) That said, it's a slippery slope. Do we give halflings a minus on all damage done with any particular weapon? Do really long weapons like longspears give a similar bonus because they do are powerful for a similar reason? Do we have additional damage adds based on each size category bigger than a goliath something gets? It's just NOT good design. It's arbitrary and tries to solve a simple problem with a solution that just complicates things. The rule you apply in one place falls apart when you try to apply it to other problems. That's a dangerous hole to fall in. Other editions were full of patch rules to try and work around those sorts of odd design choices. Hence, not a great idea. Big guys can lift big weapons. Some races are strong enough that they can wield big weapons too. Simple. Elegant. Good design. Honestly the game has enough rules for crunch's sake that are done all for fun and to blazes with making sense. I think there's too much of that already. It's taken me a few good months of DMing to try and explain why a paladin chopping off a goblin's arm makes his dwarf buddy get back hitpoints. Ahh--enough is enough! My idea of good game design: As simple as possible yet explains as much as possible. |
| #36doctorhookNov 14, 2008 18:09:51 | I'm all for abstraction, but it has its limits before it stretches credibility. To use your example; Despite Billy the Bugbear's club being supposedly to heavy for his fellows, they actually have no difficulty wielding it and Billy the Bugbear is just as effective when wielding a club he grabbed off a dead goblin (excluding magical qualities). You're right; in certain situations, (particularly when Billy's weapon is wielded by someone else), it becomes a lot harder to explain logically. Lucky for us, logic is only valuable in fantasy insofar as the illusion of it is maintained. For the sake of an argument, I'm going to amend the flat-damage rule I suggested. Perhaps we'll find this mutually satisfying: Oversized Weapon: (Bugbears/Minotaurs/Goliaths) can wield either Medium or Large weapons. When the character wields a Large weapon, his weapon damage [W] is equal to that of a Medium version of that weapon +X*. Anyway, that's just an example of how it might be written, so please don't hold me to any particular wording. I still hold that a flat damage bonus is boring. Not only is the image of a large weapon more exciting, but getting to roll bigger/more dice adds to the visceral thrill of that image in a way that no mere bonus among a myriad other such bonus could ever hope to. That's fair. I can't help you balance your game, though if you're more interested in the fun of rolling dice than the fun of adventuring, but you're entitled to play your own game however you find most enjoyable. As for balance, if D&D was a completive tournament game I might agree with you, but it isn't. D&D is a game were a bunch of friends get to gather for some fun, and quite honestly oversized weapons are far from the most broken element of the currant edition. You're right, D&D isn't supposed to be a competition against your friends. Unfortunately, sometimes players take it that way. (We've all got some experience with those players who take it that way all of the time.) One of the advantages of balance is that the game itself becomes resistant to intra-party competition. I won't tell you that this is "The Reason" for the pursuit of balance, but it's a part of it. A cooperative game that keeps its players from worrying about whether or not they are effectual also encourages its players to keep focused on enjoying the action of the game; what's not fun about that? Am I getting a little worked up about the whole issue, maybe, but I'm starting to get tired of people touting some supposed concept of balance as the be all end all. That's not to say that I think balance is a bad thing (I was a strong supporter of bringing casters and non-casters in line with each other), but there still such a thing as taking it too far. It's possible that there is such a thing as taking it too far, but I disagree that this is it. Perhaps you've misunderstood the reason that we oppose Oversized for PCs: It's not because wielding a higher-damage weapon is currently unbalancing in and of itself, it's a combination of the particular mechanic for weapon damage by size and a couple of current mechanics that modify weapon damage dice rolls (not to mention the potential for additional such mechanics in the future). Specifically, I'm referring the Brutal property and Vorpal magic items, as well as the combination of abilities like Oversized with similar features granted by other sources. (For example, the Eternal Defender Epic Destiny, from Martial Power.) Really, what we're trying to do is head off any brokenness before it gets a chance to really start. Also, since you mention supporting balancing casters and non-casters, it's worth noting that there's no caster/implement-based equivalent to the Oversized ability. Consider that. |
| #37Tharag_BoccNov 15, 2008 4:52:39 | For the sake of an argument, I'm going to amend the flat-damage rule I suggested. Perhaps we'll find this mutually satisfying:Anyway, that's just an example of how it might be written, so please don't hold me to any particular wording.Oversized Weapon: (Bugbears/Minotaurs/Goliaths) can wield either Medium or Large weapons. When the character wields a Large weapon, his weapon damage [W] is equal to that of a Medium version of that weapon +X*. I could live with that. I still don't like it (bonuses boring vs. dice fun), but it passes my personal logic test. That's fair. I can't help you balance your game, though if you're more interested in the fun of rolling dice than the fun of adventuring, but you're entitled to play your own game however you find most enjoyable. Nor should you have to. Anyway, I don't see these two types of fun as being mutually exclusive. Adventuring tends to involve dice rolling after all (even if the extent of that involvement varies by adventure). You're right, D&D isn't supposed to be a competition against your friends. Unfortunately, sometimes players take it that way. (We've all got some experience with those players who take it that way all of the time.) True enough, thankfully I've never had the misfortune of playing with such a competitive individual. Regardless, I don't believe in punishing everyone just because such people exist. Players who are truly that completive will always find ways to try and get every advantage they can, and if we try too hard to stop them we'll eventually end up with a game that has no real options. It's possible that there is such a thing as taking it too far, but I disagree that this is it. All valid concerns. I just am more of the opinion that such concerns should be dealt with as they arise rather than rip a flavorful and exciting mechanic like Oversized from the game. For example the Eternal Defender issue could have been a non-issue if the destiny had been simply written as granting the oversized racial trait, thus making staking an impossibility. The fact that a similar ability exists on an epic destiny has me hopeful that WotC hasn't completely abandoned the concept of oversized. If they insist on pulling it as a racial trait I would at least like to see it return as a racial feat (possibly a multi-racial feat, available to anyone with a racial bonus to their strength score). Also, since you mention supporting balancing casters and non-casters, it's worth noting that there's no caster/implement-based equivalent to the Oversized ability. Consider that. True, and that's not a bad point in opposition to Oversized's blatant favoritism for weapon powers. I'm not inherently opposed to a race that gets some kind of damage boosting effect for implement powers. I'd be a bit of a hypocrit if I were, though I would require it to carry the same weight in flavor as I feel Oversized does. |
| #38stogoeNov 15, 2008 7:42:42 | Brutal isn't the problem; Oversized is. Besides, Brutal is a fun mechanic and Oversized, well, it's thematic but it's not any more exciting than always adding +X to damage. I say keep Brutal and give the Bugbear/Goliath something cool instead of Oversized. |
| #39wizardmonNov 17, 2008 15:50:31 | Brutal isn't the problem; Oversized is. Besides, Brutal is a fun mechanic and Oversized, well, it's thematic but it's not any more exciting than always adding +X to damage. I say keep Brutal and give the Bugbear/Goliath something cool instead of Oversized. What if they gave them something that made all their weapon attacks Brutal (+)1? So, if they were weilding a longsword, it would treat the weapon as Burtal 1, but if he had weapon that was already Brutal 1 or Brutal 2, they would become Brutal 2 and 3 respectively. |
| #40TectuktitlayNov 17, 2008 15:55:44 | Rather than all these complicated abilities, why not simply? "Brutal Grip: You gain a +1 racial bonus to damage with melee attacks. Increase this bonus to +2 if using wielding a two-handed weapon." No wonky interactions with brutal. No increased number of dice or sized dice. No other unforeseen interactions. Just a straight-up +1/+2 damage bonus with the racial tag, simulating what a bunch of these other abilities simulate, without the potential for abuse. +3 is definitely right out, it's way too good. |
| #41doctorhookNov 17, 2008 18:03:33 | Rather than all these complicated abilities, why not simply? I already mentioned that I like the flat damage bonus idea; as far as the +3 is concerned, it was just a random example in the appropriate ballpark. OTOH, +1 (as you suggest) is frankly too negligible to consistently matter. Assuming that we're still considering this ability as a replacement for Oversized (and thus a central feature of the race), I would recommend your Brutal Grip ability have a +2 1H/+3 2H racial bonus to damage (rather than +1 1H/+2 2H). This combined with a modest racial power and a skill bonus would probably be a reasonably balanced race to play. (FWIW, I think Brutal Grip hinges entirely upon the fact that it discards all discussion of Large weapons. It's a solid move, I believe.) |