Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 backstabbist Feb 24, 2009 10:19:54	I hate scales that take big leaps. With a little common sense one can see the Sizes scale has some very hard steps that sit outside the curve of RAW sizes. In particular the leap from 63' Gargan-4 to 65' Col-8. I propose to put subsizes into the size categories that have multiple point leaps: +0 Medium +1 8' Large +2 16' Huge1 +3 24' Huge2 +4 32' Gargan1 +5 40' Gargan2 +6 48' Gargan3 +7 56' Gargan4 +8 64' Colossal1 +9 80' Colossal2 <16' incrments> +10 96' Colossal3 +11 112' Colossal4 +12 128' and above integrate with post colossal ShipSizes
#2 TheRealOrion Feb 24, 2009 10:45:24	What, no "ginormous"? Has Phoenix really had so little impact? Anyway, on a serious note, this is actually a great idea. I mean, I wouldn't want to toss around game terms like "Huge 2" during a battle, but having stats for creatures of more variable sizes would be great. You work this up into a full set of stats, and I'd use it!
#3 backstabbist Feb 24, 2009 11:26:15	uh, I'm not sure where else you wanted it to go? I intentionally didnt get into the Ginormous sizes, due to a divergence of opinions on how best to handle the big boys. I did make the assumption of the size bigger than Col-8 being -12, but that is a fringe of what I was going for here. I just wanted to promote the principle of between sizes for the existing leaps. As for application into gaming.... it really is all worked into places where Size matters, and most of that is prior to the actuall gaming: Def(AC), ToHits, Skill Totals, etc. Perhaps in something like a Grapple you might have to use Gargan2(-5) or Large(-1) when someone askes what Size you are, but how frequently are folks needing to know your Size Modifier rarther than some number that has alread included your size. How do you guys think this will integrate with Collosal Sword 2handed by Gargan dude? I came up with this to better fit 40/57/76/88/105mm canon to mechs/vehicles, a tank with a 90mm is bigger than a tank with a 57mm, but melee weapons can get a bit wonky. What are your opinions about melee weapon sizes like this, in regards to Light/1Hand/2Hand? A RAW Colloasal Sword is a nominal 2hand GreatSword for a RAW Gargan(-4) guy and a 1hand LongSword for a Col(-8) guy. What about the Gargan3(-6) guy? Sure the 76mm gun is Gargan1(-4) and the 88mm is Gargan2(-5), but what about swords?
#4 TheRealOrion Feb 24, 2009 14:06:54	Okay, sorry, my fault here, but what do the bonuses in the first column refer to, then? Is there a formula that I'm not aware of?
#5 backstabbist Feb 24, 2009 14:55:25	oh, I guess I made the mistake of stating the size Penalty as a plus. Such as the standard Col(-8) or Large(-1) I mistakenly put as +8. That is the number added to Def, Tohit, Pilot etc for big or little creatures/vehicle/Mech/ ships. Just adding more resolution to the Raw sizes scale So between Gargan(-4) and Col(-8) would be three more sizes to represent the missing steps going from -4 AC to -8AC as you get bigger. +8 - Fine +4 6"Diminutive1 +3 1' Tiny2 +2 2' Tiny1 +1 4' Small -0 Medium -1 8' Large -2 16' Huge1 -3 24' Huge2 -4 32' Gargan1 -5 40' Gargan2 -6 48' Gargan3 -7 56' Gargan4 -8 64' Colossal1 -9 80' Colossal2 <16' incrments> -10 96' Colossal3 -11 112' Colossal4 -12 128' and above integrate with post colossal ShipSizes
#6 narukagami Feb 24, 2009 15:45:05	Now, what would be the size mod for "Thats no moon..."?
#7 TheRealOrion Feb 24, 2009 17:59:12	Oh right! Duh. It's all the same modifier. Nice. I think I will steal that for Phoenix, if you don't mind...?
#8 rustam1 Feb 24, 2009 18:28:46
#9 backstabbist Feb 24, 2009 18:41:45	Yeah, I'm not committing to choosing any StarShip size method over any other method... that choice is upto the GM & Campaign. Lots of good methods out there, like the one above by Rustam. But I am still kinda wondering about the Gargantuan Sword and how we can fit it into the set of Huge(-2) Huge+(-3) Garg(-4) Garg+(-5) Garg++(-6) Garg+++(-7). Can we just assume that anything sized to the nominal Gargantuan is to be considered just the Garg(-4) size.... it is too small for something sized Garg+(-5)? Garg++(-6) dude swinging a Garg+++(-7) Sword takes 2 hands? But a Garg(-4) Sword is a "Light" weapon?
#10 skipsandwich Feb 28, 2009 13:42:22	well, it seems to me like the smallest and largets sub-sizes here are thematically the same as base size + Powerful/Runt Build, so maybe have all the middle sizes act as normal, in regards to how they relate to other sizes, but the smallest and largest sub catagories are able to function as being one size smaller or larger, respectively, when it would be favorable to them, which includes wielding larger weapons or squeezing through tight passages, and the like, but would not actually change thier size so all other size related effects would affect them as normal (grapple modifiers and so on)
#11 DwarfFighter Mar 01, 2009 16:21:00	What, no "ginormous"? Has Phoenix really had so little impact? Anyway, on a serious note, this is actually a great idea. I mean, I wouldn't want to toss around game terms like "Huge 2" during a battle, but having stats for creatures of more variable sizes would be great. You work this up into a full set of stats, and I'd use it! Large, huge, gargantuan, immense, tremendous, gigantic, vast... None of those actually cry out "-2" or "-8" to me. Why not describe things in comparison to something the players can relate to ("It's bigger than your MX4 by a factor of six!"). Then, once you've done with the mechanics you can tell them the modifier involved, or better yet give them a little stat sheet that lists its dimensions in one section and relevant stats in another. -DF
#12 TheRealOrion Mar 01, 2009 18:01:47	The words for the size categories only have meaning in relation to each other. "Collosal" really does seem biggert, to me, than "huge." It's a very fuzzy element of language, but to me it works as well as it needs to. Then you just do what RPGs always do: assign numbers to your narrative details (aka "fluff," aka "the fun part").
#13 backstabbist Mar 02, 2009 11:28:17	Unfortunately, those words only imply that it is as big as the object they are based on: gigantic is a big as a giant and colossal is as big as the Colossus. But is Stupifying bigger than Vast or Incredible? We cant use either of those in a metric like A the Colossus was as tall as 2 Giants, but how many Giants across is a Vast? 30? 16k? 16.7m? Vast tracts of land are a wee bit smaller than vast expanse of a nebulae The smallness of the distance between protrons & neutrons is Stupifying
#14 TheRealOrion Mar 03, 2009 0:51:46	I see your point, but you're mixing your metaphors and you're underestimating the precision of the English language. Words like large, huge, colossal, etc. actually do pertain to size. "Stupifying" does not; it describes being so amazed at something that you're "struck stupid." As I said, the actual scale of sizes is very fuzzy, but once you've assigned words, you just have to provide numbers to back them up. Ideally, you do as the D&D designers did: you choose words that at least have an fuzzy/intuitive accuracy to them. That way, the language and the numbers jive with each other. As for the words we use, I'm no fan of Imperial measurements, but they were using danged arbitrary words for units of measurement for a long time before the metric system came along, and even metric terminology is somewhat arbitrary, if you go far enough back. You are right about one thing, though, the actual words can be meaningless, but I would argue that if they're backed up by a rationalsystem, then they're still potentially useful.