26 réponses à ce sujet

[MagicalMaster]

As some people are aware, I've been working on a module for the Adventure Building Challenge.  It's specifically focused on strength based characters with full BAB classes -- aka fighters, barbarians, paladins, and rangers.  It takes you from level 1 to 6 in about 90-120 minutes so you'd think it would be pretty easy to balance given that characters are still pretty simple and everyone is the same archetype (medium/heavy armor with high HP, high AB, and high damage per hit).

Sadly, no.

There are two major problems I'm having.  The first is feats and the second are small PCs.

Feat-wise, there is a massive difference between a level 4 fighter who's taken Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Cleave, Toughness, and Weapon Specialization compared to a level 4 fighter with Luck of Heroes, Knockdown, Blind Fight, Dodge, and Mobility.  Or between a level 3 Barbarian with Power Attack and Cleave compared to Heavy Armor Proficiency and Toughness.

What do people think is fair to tune around for a low level warrior type, feat-wise?

Small PCs are another huge problem.  I developed a system to give an appropriate amount of damage to a weapon based on its size.  As an example...

Dagger: 1
Short Sword: 2
Longsword: 1d4 (2.5)
Bastard Sword: 3
Greatsword: 1d6 (3.5)

Or a more powerful enchant...

Dagger: 1d4 (2.5)
Short Sword: 1d6 (3.5)
Longsword: 1d8 (4.5)
Bastard Sword: 1d10 (5.5)
Greatsword: 1d12 (6.5)

This means a 2H weapon actually deals the damage a 2H should, there's a reason to use exotic weapons if you can spare the feats, a human fighter has a definite reason to use a longsword over a short sword, etc.  There are a lot of advantages to this system that I really like.

Then small PCs come in and screw it all up.

They get 1 more AB from being small so that counteracts the 1 AB loss from 1 less strength modifier and their small size AC bonus is typically cancelled out by not being able to use tower shields...but they have to use smaller weapons.

For comparison's sake, let's look at a human with a longsword versus halfling with a shortsword, assume 6 strength modifier for human, and both the weak and medium enchant from the above.

Human
1d8 (longsword) + 6 (strength) + 1d4 (weak) + 1d8 (medium) = 4.5 + 6 + 2.5 + 4.5 = 17.5 damage per hit

Halfling
1d6 (longsword) + 5 (strength) + 2 (weak) + 1d6 (medium) = 3.5 + 5 + 2 + 3.5 = 14 damage per hit.

So that's an extra 25% damage from the human on top of an extra feat.

This has made it rather difficult to try to tune things, especially when the human can pick up a bastard sword and do 20 damage per hit (43% more damage).

 

Even if the Halfling goes Longsword as a 2H that's (1d8 + 7 + 1d4 + 1d8) = 18.5 damage per hit compared to a greatsword human of (2d6 + 9 + 1d6 + 1d12) = 26 damage or a 40% bonus for the human...though the halfling grabbing a bastard sword could shrink that to a 24% difference.

 

So I'm left in a quandary.  If I make it very challenging but doable for the halfling it's often easy for the human simply because he's killing enemies a lot faster -- and this is doubly beneficial with (Great) Cleave since the bonus attack means more.  But if I make it even reasonably challenging for the human it may be exceeding difficult or even impossible for the halfling.

 

So should I just tune things for medium size creatures and too bad for the gnomes/halflings, if they want to try a warrior mod then that's their call but it'll be much harder than intended?  Obviously they don't have these massive disadvantages for a rogue or spellcaster oriented module.

[Elhanan]

Rather than try adjusting anything in mechanics, perhaps it might be easier to simply note the increased difficulty on the Mod Description. Some players accept these as challenges; others may prefer to take the safer or easier route. Leaving it up to the Player for choice seems to be a positive thing, IMO.

[Gruftlord]

halfling with a longsword has +1 AC though compared to Greatsword Human. also has an easier chance to get dodge/free dex AC because of higher dex (which is also a calculating factor when looking at what the str loss gives).

 

also: weapon finesse + two weapon fighting (or str based twf) might be an option even at lower levels. consider adding a level of rogue (or 3) and that little bugger could get a nice damage boost if played well. give a fair chance to knock down enemies as a small PC (especially casters), some daggers (or if you wan to be low level granade like items) that stun or do similar things, etc.

 

all in all, small PCs are well balanced against regulars.

 

what isn't balanced are your weapons. there is no incentive to use any smaller weapon in your system. consider giving free feats or other boni with small weapons (similar to the vanilla whips). the dual wielding feats might be a nice addition to a dagger or kurki, or small sneak attack boni, higher chance to krit.

i think you gain some flexibility as long as you stay lowlevel and low magic. say you can limit the keen property item feat to small weapons. or add +1 to AB for small weapons.

 

simply ask yourself this question: would any character use a dagger the way you balanced things? how can the dagger be changed to make it interesting? is weapon finess a viable option, can sneak attack keep up with the way your two handers scale?

 

edit: does the weapon specialization feat also scale, or is this more or less useless with your system (+2 damage seems utterly low compared what the exotic weapon feat might provide with even low amounts of bonus damage under your system.)? to be blunt: i think your system is not as well balanced as you think it is, and will require lots of patchwork to be usefull for anything but the intended classes and races. it might work well for a combat focussed module, but should probably ship with a custom character or two intended to play the module with

[BelowTheBelt]

My 2 cents:

 

Your example is still pretty 'balanced' between the two.  Yes, it's 25% difference, but it's only 2.5 points of dmg difference between the two.  Even fighting a boss with 1,000 hp, that only amounts to 10 more hits for the halfer than the human (based on your math).  That's not a significant amount IMO and far from discrimination.  To have every class and every option equate to be the same removes any reason for having anything but a single class or race.  You might as well have a default 'guy' who is classless and raceless, since it's all the same. 

 

Balance is so much more than just damage, or ac, or any single thing.  To counteract a damage 'weakness', you may want to consider adding elements to your game that only benefit the demihumans.  More treasure, perhaps, or faster xp gain, or artifacts only usable by them.  Or, you do nothing at all.  Some people will play halfers just because they love halfers.

 

The purpose of having options is to make players make choices.  Some choices have benefits in some areas with consequences in others.  As long as your module in totality (treasure, death, xp, fighting, etc...) is balanced, then it is actually better when you do) have differences in areas.

[MagicalMaster]

Rather than try adjusting anything in mechanics, perhaps it might be easier to simply note the increased difficulty on the Mod Description. Some players accept these as challenges; others may prefer to take the safer or easier route. Leaving it up to the Player for choice seems to be a positive thing, IMO.

 

Yeah, that's likely what I'll do and the mod is already set up so that you can die and "continue" -- so worst case Halflings/Gnomes might need to die a few times in the module to be able to beat it.

 

Your example is still pretty 'balanced' between the two.  Yes, it's 25% difference, but it's only 2.5 points of dmg difference between the two.

 

Balance is so much more than just damage, or ac, or any single thing.  To counteract a damage 'weakness', you may want to consider adding elements to your game that only benefit the demihumans.

 

3.5, actually.

 

But here's one of several examples: there's an ancient dire bear boss.  He has lots of HP, reasonable damage, and reasonable AB.  The catch is that he continuously gains AB while fighting so he goes from not hitting you that much to smashing your face in if you don't kill him quickly enough, which means you need to kill it before his damage becomes overwhelming (and obviously a sword and board character can last longer than a 2H/dual-wielder which compensates for less damage).

 

My goal was to effectively give a 10% margin of leeway -- meaning that you SHOULD be able to kill a (numbers made up) 100 HP bear but he only has 90 HP so you don't need to be perfect with using your resources.  But for a halfling dealing 20% less damage that bear effectively has 113 HP which now goes into the realm of the impossible.  And if I tuned it to give a 10% leeway for the halfling then the bear effectively only has 72 HP which becomes a cakewalk for the human.

 

Like you said, balance is more than one thing -- but comparing a halfling fighter to a human fighter in heavy armor the only difference is that the human gets an extra feat and has 25% more damage.  AC/AB are the same, dex bonus is irrelevant, other halfling bonuses don't matter in this context.  We're talking about a limited context here.

 

halfling with a longsword has +1 AC though compared to Greatsword Human. also has an easier chance to get dodge/free dex AC because of higher dex (which is also a calculating factor when looking at what the str loss gives).

 

True on the 2H halfling, a halfling with a bastard sword gains 1 AC while the human gains 24% damage in damage.  1 AC is typically not taking 10-15% more damage so that's still skewed, would be fairer if the damage difference was 10-15%.

 

13 dex is simple enough to get anyway for Dodge and both characters are wearing heavy armor so more dex is irrelevant in this case.  It would be very important if we were discussing rogues or something but in this case we're considering strength based fighters and whether I should just say "Tough luck, halflings/gnomes!  Play a character more suited to your face."

 

what isn't balanced are your weapons. there is no incentive to use any smaller weapon in your system. consider giving free feats or other boni with small weapons (similar to the vanilla whips). the dual wielding feats might be a nice addition to a dagger or kurki, or small sneak attack boni, higher chance to krit.

That is...the entire point of the system, yes.  Why SHOULD a human use a short sword if he can use a longsword?  By default dual-wielding short swords is a better idea than longsword/short sword because you only lose 1 damage per hit and only need to take feats for one weapon (and even going short sword plus shield in a pinch still only leaves you one damage behind longsword plus shield).

 

Unless there's some special property like weapon finesse or whip disarm, larger weapons are SUPPOSED to be better.  The problem is that the initial damage difference winds up becoming irrelevant by "default" rules.  At level 1 a 14 strength character using a longsword does 6.5 per hit while a sword short does 5.5, which is an 18% difference.  When you're high level and factoring in a ton of bonuses you can easily get something like 31.5 versus 30.5 damage per hit, which is a 3% difference.

 

Or, in other words, larger weapons lose their identity and benefits under the "default" rules which this system is designed to prevent.

 

simply ask yourself this question: would any character use a dagger the way you balanced things? is weapon finess a viable option, can sneak attack keep up with the way your two handers scale?

 

A halfling or gnome wanting to dual-wield would use daggers since a short sword/handaxe/mace/etc in the off-hand would give a 2 AB penalty.

Weapon Finesse is still absolutely viable, sneak attacks keep up quite handily (provided the weapon bonuses are reasonable, you shouldn't be giving 6d12 bonus damage on a level 4 character).  Look to Siege of the Heavens if you want an example, rogues are plenty powerful and shred things with sneak attacks.

 

edit: does the weapon specialization feat also scale, or is this more or less useless with your system (+2 damage seems utterly low compared what the exotic weapon feat might provide with even low amounts of bonus damage under your system.)?

 

Why would it scale?  At 20 damage per hit it's still a 10% bonus to damage.  Even if you were level 40 and doing 60 damage per hit then (Epic) Weapon Specialization is providing a 10% bonus to damage.

 

How much of a flat increase in damage (percent wise) should a fighter get, keeping in mind the sheer number of feats they get in general?

 

I'm not flat out opposed to the idea but I'm curious as to your arguments.

[Gruftlord]

Well the way you explained you system in your first post i was made to believe that the damage bonus you hand out keeps increasing with higher enchanted weapons. And what was once a +5 bonus is now +5 ab; but damage wise you get +5 on daggers, +15 on greatsword.
There is no reason what so ever to use a small weapon. They are just too weak. I see no realistic reason why there should be a huge damage difference between dagger, shortsword and longsword. Gameplay wise that is. Its just not fun and adds nothing.

Weapon specialization is worse than chosing exotic weapons with your system, while originally it is twice as good. In vanilla every weapon has its use, with yours many are just useless.

I think your system will be way imbalanced in epic levels and only caters to str based meleers. The calculations you outlined will only lead to a fun gameplay at preepic levels. They way it looks, killing blow will be dealt very frequently with such massive scaling even at high levels. I wouldn't want to face an enemy with a scythe without crit immunity. It sounds like a 1hit kill irregardless of level. The sad thing for your system here is: with a low level setting and low levels, vanilla actually is balanced fairly well.

You put massive amounts of work into designing a new balancing system, that will only work under conditions that are even more strict than the conditions under which the vanilla system is sound. I do not see this as an improvement at all.

It can be fun if a chalenging module is designed around it (which you do), but no patchworkery will open your system to less severe restrictions. The easiest option might be to change the weapon restrictions for halflings and gnomes actually. Or give them higher chance to crit or something.

Or as an alternative approach:
Weapon enchantment bonus damage is enhanced by 50% when a weapon is used in both hands. Lowered by 50% when in the off hand (maybe only for light weapons in the off hand). This would require some scripting sure. If you still think this would leave the higher weapons lacking, add another +1 damage to exotic and large weapons at lvl 10 and 20. This should give plenty a boost to them, without making the steps between different weapon types too large

[henesua]

I've just been following along reading, and noticed what I think is a misunderstanding:

 

I think your system will be way imbalanced in epic levels and only caters to str based meleers.

 

actually… he told us in the first post that he's working on a module for Str based characters levels 1-6.

[Gruftlord]

But then why do the massive overhaul? At lvl 6 with +1 equipment there is little reason for massive changes. Why have greatswords with 1d6 or 1d12 bonus damage? Especially if in the hands of npcs. These are potential one hit kills at lvl 6 on a lucky critical strike.

[MagicalMaster]

I've just been following along reading, and noticed what I think is a misunderstanding:

 

It's an extension of the concept used in Siege of the Heavens, which IS an epic level module.  However, people who have played SotH can testify that it hardly only caters to str based meleers.

 

Well the way you explained you system in your first post i was made to believe that the damage bonus you hand out keeps increasing with higher enchanted weapons. And what was once a +5 bonus is now +5 ab; but damage wise you get +5 on daggers, +15 on greatsword.

 

Generally correct (exact numbers are wrong, general principle is correct).

 

There is no reason what so ever to use a small weapon. They are just too weak. I see no realistic reason why there should be a huge damage difference between dagger, shortsword and longsword. Gameplay wise that is. Its just not fun and adds nothing.

 

You cannot finesse a medium weapon (except rapier which also has a smaller damage bonus due to increased threat range).  If you mean "a dex character doesn't get much higher AC, same AB, better defenses overall, AND near equivalent damage" then yes, that's kind of the point.  If you want to play a dex-based melee character then you need another source of damage (like sneak attack) or accept that you're trading offense for defense.

 

And I already gave a specific example of how it adds gameplay -- by default if you want to dual-wield as a human you can just pick feats for shortsword and you can swap to sword and board with effectively no penalty because it's only a one damage difference compared to longsword.  This change actually makes it more viable/important to do something like longsword/short sword dual-wielding and humans who actually focus in longsword have an advantage during sword and board over humans who focus in short sword who go sword and board.

 

And, strictly speaking, my system is not ADDING differences as much as PRESERVING the differences that exist initially.

 

Weapon specialization is worse than chosing exotic weapons with your system, while originally it is twice as good. In vanilla every weapon has its use, with yours many are just useless.

 

By default choosing exotic weapons to use a Scythe over a Greataxe can be over a 10 damage per hit upgrade without even going beyond medium magic at level 30 or so.  Using Kukris over short swords/daggers can easily be at least a 5 damage per hit upgrade.  And that's trying to be conservative on both accounts.  My system is merely applying that logic across the board (that exotics are supposed to be an upgrade to martials/simples).

 

Also, can you name a weapon that has a use in vanilla and is useless with my system?  If anything my system makes MORE weapons have uses.

 

It sounds like a 1hit kill irregardless of level. The sad thing for your system here is: with a low level setting and low levels, vanilla actually is balanced fairly well.

 

In Siege of the Heavens (a level 40 module), the starting weapons have four damage dice, I believe.  So a dagger would have 1d4 (base) + 4d4 (bonus) damage for 12.5 damage without any modifiers.  A longsword would be 1d8 (base) + 4d8 (bonus) = 22.5 damage without any modifiers.

 

A scythe would have 2d4 (base) + 4d12 (bonus for large weapons) = 31 damage base.  Say we have a character with 18 str modifier (highest unless half-orc) and Epic Weapon Specialization.  That's 31 + 27 + 6 = 64 damage per hit.  Under default rules, you'd probably have something like +6 enhancement damage and 2d10 elemental damage for 17 damage bonus, being conservative and very much medium magic.  So going from 50 damage per hit (vanilla) to 64 damage per hit (my version) is suddenly a one hit kill?

 

And yes, at lower levels with low magic the damage on weapons is balanced fairly well.  The difference between a Kukri and Dagger at level 1 is smaller (4.5% bonus) whereas with Keen and Improved Critical it's an 11.5% damage increase.

 

Likewise, the 1 extra damage from a bastard sword makes a big difference when you're only doing 7.5 damage per hit with a longsword (13% increase).

 

So if you think that at low levels a bastard sword should be 13% better than a longsword and a longsword should be 15% better than a short sword, why shouldn't that apply to high levels as well?

 

You put massive amounts of work into designing a new balancing system, that will only work under conditions that are even more strict than the conditions under which the vanilla system is sound. I do not see this as an improvement at all.

 

It didn't take much work since the basis was already created for Siege and it'll work everywhere.  And people wanting to use 2Hs as viable weapons cried out in joy, be they halflings or half-orcs.  So did people that wanted it to be worthwhile to use all exotic weapons.  So did people who wanted something besides scimitars/rapiers to be the best weapons (they only receive d6 bonus compared to d8 for a longsword/warhammer/battleaxe/etc to compensate for the extra threat range).

 

Or as an alternative approach:
Weapon enchantment bonus damage is enhanced by 50% when a weapon is used in both hands. Lowered by 50% when in the off hand (maybe only for light weapons in the off hand). This would require some scripting sure. If you still think this would leave the higher weapons lacking, add another +1 damage to exotic and large weapons at lvl 10 and 20. This should give plenty a boost to them, without making the steps between different weapon types too large

 

What would this accomplish that my current system does not?  I only see two notable differences.

 

1, a fighter who deals 40 damage with a longsword will still deal 38 damage with a *dagger.*  Whereas my system would probably have the dagger deal 32-34 damage.

 

2, it "solves" the halfling/gnome probably by eliminating the weapon differences that exist at lower levels.

 

But then why do the massive overhaul? At lvl 6 with +1 equipment there is little reason for massive changes. Why have greatswords with 1d6 or 1d12 bonus damage? Especially if in the hands of npcs. These are potential one hit kills at lvl 6 on a lucky critical strike.

 

Two reasons.

 

1, it extends into higher levels.

 

2, due to the nature of the module you'll have better than +1 gear at level 6.

 

However, let's imagine it was effectively a low magic module with only +1 gear.

 

A halfling might have 15 strength with +1 from gear and he would thus do 1d6 (short sword) + 3 (strength) + 1 (enhancement bonus) = 7.5 damage per hit.

 

A human might have 17 strength with +1 from gear and he would thus do 1d8 (longsword) + 4 (strength) + 1 (enhancement bonus) = 9.5 damage per hit.

 

Huh.  Lookee at that, it's a 27% damage difference.  That's actually BIGGER than the 25% difference in my system.

Re: NPCs -- they get their own gear custom tailored to get the exact AB/damage/AC/HP/etc that I want anyway.

[Gruftlord]

Ok i was under a severe misconception. I thought for your system you were talking about replacing the enhancement bonus with tje scaling you outlined. But the explanation you gave now tells me that is not so. In fact enhancent and things like elemental damage on weapons remain static on all weapons, but on top of this, the bonus damage you outlined is added. I see now, that with this clarification the system seems balanced.

Str based dual wielding is a bit weak, at least unless one uses exotic dual weapons. In the latter case it will totally rock. Finesse weapons are left behind in damage much more than in vanilla, but i can see how this may not be a problem with propper use of sneak attacks.

Indeed the problem that remains are the short folks. You could consider boosting their ab and ac by another 1 or 2, which stays true to their original bonuses and easily makes up for a loss in damage

[BelowTheBelt]

3.5, actually.

 

Yeah.  Meant that.  10 rounds difference is correct, though.

 

Rather than worrying about damage, approach it from another direction to achieve the same thing:

1)  Reduce the incremental ab/ac/whatever gain of the bosses if the PC is of small size to preserve whatever comparable difficulty ratio you're trying to achieve

2)  Increase xp gain for small-sized PCs so they are 2-3 levels higher than their taller counterparts (alternatively, start them at 2 levels higher and have standard xp gain)

[MagicalMaster]

Ok i was under a severe misconception. I thought for your system you were talking about replacing the enhancement bonus with tje scaling you outlined. But the explanation you gave now tells me that is not so.

 

Unfortunately, I believe your original conception was correct.  Let me give me a concrete example so you know what you're agreeing or disagreeing with.

Let's say we have an environment at level 40 with weapons that are +9 enhancement and offer 2d8 fire and 2d8 cold damage (fairly high magic).  Let's also look at this from the basis of a level 40 fighter with 18 strength modifier and Epic Weapon Specialization.

 

Vanilla

Dagger: 2.5 (base) + 6 (EWS) + 18 (Str) + 9 (enhancement) + 9 (fire) + 9 (cold) = 53.5 damage

Longsword: 4.5 (base) + 6 (EWS) + 18 (Str) + 9 (enhancement) + 9 (fire) + 9 (cold) = 55.5 damage

Greatsword: 7 (base) + 6 (EWS) + 27 (Str) + 9 (enhancement) + 9 (fire) + 9 (cold) = 67 damage

 

So a longsword deals 4% more damage than a dagger and a greatsword deals 21% more damage than a longsword.

 

Now in my model the 7 enhancement would become 9 attack bonus and the damage dice would be determined by the size of the weapon (in this case d4 for dagger, d8 for longsword, and d12 for greatsword).

 

My Model

Dagger: 2.5 (base) + 6 (EWS) + 18 (Str) + 5 (enhancement) + 5 (fire) + 5 (cold) = 41.5 damage

Longsword: 4.5 (base) + 6 (EWS) + 18 (Str) + 9 (enhancement) + 9 (fire) + 9 (cold) = 55.5 damage

Greatsword: 7 (base) + 6 (EWS) + 27 (Str) + 13 (enhancement) + 13 (fire) + 13 (cold) = 79 damage

 

So a longsword deals 34% more damage than a dagger and a greatsword deals 42% more damage than a longsword.

 

Str based dual wielding is a bit weak, at least unless one uses exotic dual weapons. In the latter case it will totally rock. Finesse weapons are left behind in damage much more than in vanilla, but i can see how this may not be a problem with propper use of sneak attacks.

 

Well, let's break down that str dual-wielding remark.  Let's assume short swords to start and how about we assume 58 AB and 60 enemy AC (which is what you'd get in Siege) given we're full BAB and all.

 

Greatsword: 0.95/0.7/0.45/0/2/0.95 = 3.25 hits per round for 79 damage each, or 257 damage per round.

Dual-wielding short swords would be 48.5 damage per hit main hand and 39.5 damage per hit offhand.

 

Dual-wield: 0.85/0.6/0.35/0.1/0.95 = 2.85 hpr main hand for 138 damage per round and off-hand is a further 0.85/0.6 = 1.45 hpr for another 57 damage per round giving us 195 total.  That is only an 8% bonus over sword and board.  On the flip side, using a double weapon would give us 226 damage per round which is a 26% improvement over sword and board.  The main problem here is really the AB penalty, if we compensated by adding 2 AB to dual-wielders we'd get 223 damage per round which is a 24% bonus with dual short swords and 257 for double weapon which is a 43% increase and identical to the 2H.  If we did something like each dual-wielding feat grants 1 AB while dual-wielding (3 AB total) then we'd get something quite nice (so overall gain of 1 AB if dual-wielding and light weapon in off-hand).

 

So yes, strength dual-wielders are worse off without improvements but they were never amazing anyway (very rough math because I'm short on time gives 218 damage per round with vanilla greatsword and 221 damage per round with vanilla short swords so it was barely keeping up with 2H for three extra feats).

 

/edit

 

I want to expand on this briefly now that I have some more time.  By default a longsword and shield under vanilla rules will deal 180 damage per round -- so a 2H only gives a 21% bonus and dual-wielding only gives a 23% bonus under vanilla rules.  And that requires giving up a shield which is a massive increase to defense (usually 60-120% bonus).  My system improves 2H to about a 40-45% improvement and as a side note I build my shields differently than most module so it's not such an obvious choice.  Adding in something like +1 AB per dual-wield talent brings it more in line with 2H -- though I'll admit I'm not fond of the idea that you have to dump three feats into dual-wielding in the first place.  Thematically I think a 2H should be roughly equal to dual-wield for strength or, worst case, slightly better.  But dual-wield does cost extra feats which makes me feel a little guilty about that.

 

I admit I like the model DA2 went with which is 1H + shield OR 2H = strength, dual-wield OR range = dex.

 

/endedit

 

Dual-wielding dexers with sneak attack will still wreck face, though, and really a level 40 rogue is going from 30.5 damage per hit in vanilla to 24.5 damage per hit in my system -- his 70+ damage per sneak attack is still what's needed to do decent damage.

 

Indeed the problem that remains are the short folks. You could consider boosting their ab and ac by another 1 or 2, which stays true to their original bonuses and easily makes up for a loss in damage

 

Yeah, 1 extra AB/AC should theoretically work but has the catch that it makes dex halflings even crazier (they're already 2 AB and 2 AC ahead) of a human.

 

1)  Reduce the incremental ab/ac/whatever gain of the bosses if the PC is of small size to preserve whatever comparable difficulty ratio you're trying to achieve

2)  Increase xp gain for small-sized PCs so they are 2-3 levels higher than their taller counterparts (alternatively, start them at 2 levels higher and have standard xp gain)

 

1 might work for a solo mod but would be nice to have a general solution.

 

2 wouldn't work.  Might work if this was a level 30 mod and small PCs started at 32 but 2 levels is a crazy power gain in the 1-6 range.  Having them exactly 1 level ahead starting at like level 3 (so human is 3, halfling is 4) might be possible, will need to think about it.

[BelowTheBelt]

1 might work for a solo mod but would be nice to have a general solution.

 

Could easily be worked for multiplayer as well:

1)  Determine the hp scaling of small size (e.g. 75% of the human rate)

2)  Count number of PCs in the party (e.g. 4)

3)  Determine % of the party is small size (e.g. 1 = 25%)

4)  Calculate the weighted average scaling for the boss

 

So, for example:

(1 small player @ 75% scaling) + (3 humans @ 100% scaling) = 93.8% scaling rate

(25% * 75%)+ (75% * 100%)= 18.8 + 75.0 = 93.8% hp scaling of a normal-sized boss.

[MagicalMaster]

Could easily be worked for multiplayer as well:

3)  Determine % of the party is small size (e.g. 1 = 25%)

 

Not quite that simple.  A gnome mage, for example, is at no disadvantage.  And a halfling rogue would at an advantage compared to a human rogue.

 

You'd have to go through for every race/class general combo and try to assign each a weight (for example, halfling rogue = 25% bonus, gnome/elf rogue = 10% bonus, human rogue = 5%, dwarf/half-orc/half-elf rogue = 0%).

 

That also creates the annoyance that the scaling wouldn't line up with 6 second rounds anymore -- instead of gaining an AB every 3 rounds it would be every 2.8 rounds or whatever.  Could deal with it but less than ideal.

[BelowTheBelt]

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

 

But anyway, I'll not belabor the point other than to say you don't have to look at every case and combination.  Only look for the cases that need a modifier.  First look for small size PCs.  When it finds one, look for whatever classes need a modifier.   One loop through the PCs and then a look at the class.  Keep a running tally of the modifiers.  Set it up as a function so you can call it from anywhere.

 

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.

 

Good luck.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.  

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.