Is It Fair to Discriminate Against Small PCs?

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

Your first post said the module was specifically for fighters and other strength-based characters.

 

Yes, this module is solo -- but many of the ideas are meant to be applied in a larger setting, so I was hoping to find a general solution to this problem.

 

Additionally, the scaling I'm thinking of has nothing to do with modifying the timing of the AB gain, but rather the amount of the AB gain.  Still 6 second rounds and 3 rounds per upgain if that's what you're using, but rather than increasing AB +5, the modifier reduces it to +4 AB gain or whatever.   You could certainly do an expanded timing approach, but it would extend out the timing of the gains (3 rounds moves to 3.8, so as to lengthen the time between upgains to make it easier for small-sized PCs), not shorten it.

 

Yeah, I was in a rush earlier, you're absolutely correct.  It would be something like going from every 3 rounds to every 3.2 rounds and not 3 rounds to 2.8 rounds.  In this case the AB gain is 1, though, so I can't give a percentage of that.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_rogueknight333]

               

One thing to note about the weapon modifications being discussed here is that they were made in an environment in which no enemies had immunity to crits or a particular immunity to slashing/piercing damage, which means that without them there would almost never have been any advantage in using any weapons other than the kukri, rapier or scimitar. Seems like that could be a significant factor is assessing its merits.

 

As far as the opening question, I do not think it is actually a major problem if halflings, etc. are at a bit of a disadvantage. The races are designed to be better suited for some classes than others, so it makes sense that a class-specific module would impose some limitations on the optimal race as well. E.g., in a module designed for DEX rogues, halflings and elves would have an advantage, in a module for mages Half-orcs would be at a disadvantage, etc. That is not meant to discourage you if you do find it practical to make balancing adjustments, but it does seem something that a short ABC module in particular could get by without, at least if appropriate warnings were included in the module documentation.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Gruftlord]

               

one final thought on the scaling: daggers per your last example deal half the damage of a greatsword. as a str based figher. without EWS the difference becomes larger. and a dexer would lack even more damage. on a crit/sneak immune enemy this is a massive difference.

 

if you are fine with this, go ahead.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_NWN_baba yaga]

               

I think it´s fair to kill of every stupid PC anyway. I support sadistic gameplay where PC´s are regularily meet with fatal destruction when they enter the first basement of an Inn and they thought they are clever and can rob some expensive wine... so yes to discriminate small PC´s... let them suffer your wrath of hatred! '>

 

Nah, i think you can do what you want as long as you tell us we should be at least this level to have a chance to survive with some tactics '>

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Dante2377]

               

Not to try to bring reality into a fantasy-based game, but historically, big strong well armored men have always crushed smaller, less armored men in melee combat.  It's just been a matter of physics.  Smaller, lighter warriors have adapted different tactics to be effective, but when it came down to a straight melee fight, the smaller warrior had to work very hard to not allow the larger warrior the simple ability to use his weight/leverage/strength to beat them (again, not a "real" example but the Game of Thrones Mountain vs Viper duel is prime example).

 

Historically, in addition to training, knights (or whatever equivalent of the time area) had a large advantage simply to having better armor, weapons, horses (which increased the overall mass and power of the "fighter"), and having enough food, which for much of history was a problem for most of the world (and still is in many ways).  

 

I guess what I'm saying is that larger and stronger has always been a clear advantage in melee, which I think is why you see the favored classes setup the way they are.  

 

So the question "is it fair" is a fairly loaded one.  based on historical precedent, the answer would be, no that's just how it goes.  

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

Dante, I and the Mongols disagree with your assessment of the historical record. '> If you want to debate this lets take the discussion elsewhere.

 

As far as that Game of Thrones matchup goes, I thought it was quite clear that the Viper pwned the Mountain before GRRM decided he didn't like the way the dice fell and so used the kill button in his DM Client.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

Nah, i think you can do what you want as long as you tell us we should be at least this level to have a chance to survive with some tactics '>

 

I literally mean small PCs, like gnomes and halflings '>  Not low level PCs.

 

One thing to note about the weapon modifications being discussed here is that they were made in an environment in which no enemies had immunity to crits or a particular immunity to slashing/piercing damage, which means that without them there would almost never have been any advantage in using any weapons other than the kukri, rapier or scimitar. Seems like that could be a significant factor is assessing its merits.

 

To some degree, though the point about a longsword being 15% better than longsword at levels 1-4 or something for a strength fighter and then possibly like 2% better at higher levels still stands everywhere.  Or that, if we're worried about dex characters on foes immune to sneak attacks, a rogue with 10 strength and a dagger versus a shortsword will see 2.5 vs 3.5 damage (short sword is 40% better).  Even assuming +2 weapons we'd get 5.5/4.5 = 22% bonus for shortsword.

 

On top of all of that, even with crit immune creatures in existence it's still effectively better to use a scimitar over a longsword since worst case you lose 1 damage and typical case you gain about 11.5% damage (without even being a weapon master).

 

But yes, dex characters will always be able to sneak attack and/or they'll have much higher defense (more AC/reflex) to make up for the lack of damage.

 

one final thought on the scaling: daggers per your last example deal half the damage of a greatsword. as a str based figher. without EWS the difference becomes larger. and a dexer would lack even more damage. on a crit/sneak immune enemy this is a massive difference.

 

As mentioned, no foes are crit/sneak immune.  Long story short (and happy to discuss this if you want) I don't see a reason to cripple primary class features versus foes.  I'd probably be able to live with rogues doing like 20-25% less damage versus sneak immune foes or something but not doing 80%+ less damage.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that larger and stronger has always been a clear advantage in melee, which I think is why you see the favored classes setup the way they are. 

 

We tend to ignore a lot of things like that to make better gameplay, though, and I'm wondering if this should be one of them.  Should race actually be a strong determination of what class you can pick or should it be a flavor/story/RP thing -- especially given that we're talking things like 10-15% combat bonuses on multiple fronts, not 1-2% or something?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Gruftlord]

               I'm looking forward to your module. For me, all arguments have been cast, and i'm eager to give it a try now. I can not say whether i will like the system or not, so by playing it i will make my decision. I think both pro and contra arguments sound valid to some degree.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

If you want to see it more thoroughly in action you can play Siege of the Heavens.

 

Need to retune this module (make it harder) to account for reasonable feat selection and not being a halfling (been tuning it assuming a halfling with 14 str, 12 dex, 14 con, 8 int, 8 wis, and 16 charisma who has completely useless feats that literally don't help at all), so it'll be a day or two at least.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Urk]

               

It is absolutely fair. 


They got little hands. They got little eyes. They walk around telling great big lies. 


Short fighters got no reason to live. 

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Grymlorde]

               

My design philosophy is:

• Assume the players are power gamers and play the best possible builds


• Test the module on the highest difficulty levels, i.e. Very Difficult or at least D&D Hardcore

Players can always reduce the difficulty setting.

 

But don't lock yourself into single solutions to challenges. In the bear example, no halfing in the right mind would go toe-to-toe with a bear. They would set down traps, use ranged attacks with poison, and take advantage of the terrain. Much the same way our ancestors took on tigers and mastodons. When you test your challenges, is there only a single solution or are there multiple?

 

Also, you could allow characters with a high Charisma to get henchmen. This makes a charisma-based warrior a viable option by being a strong leader.

 

Just my two farthings. . .

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

Given the module is focused on warrior types per the theme of the challenge, the solution is "go in and be tougher than the bear."  It was tuned specifically for strength based warriors (fighters/barbarians/rangers/paladins).

 

Nor would a henchmen work out very well with the target switching and positioning required.