PDA

View Full Version : Question about character size logistics



ZeroGear
2020-03-08, 05:45 AM
So... I've had this kinda odd thought in my head, and I'm not sure exactly how it would work...
Long story short, I want to build a timeline for a setting I'm going to create, one where I can just select a point and flesh out any given era with it's own empires, villages, towns, and adventures.
Normally this wouldn't be that much of a problem, as I'd either create breakpoints that are far enough removed from the colossal events with earth-shattering consequences, or would start at the very beginning and just make campaigns later in the timeline.
The problem I'm running into is that due to this being a world where magic is a very real thing, and monsters roam the world, I thought I'd include an era where the younger races were just scavenger living in the shadow of giant civilizations. At this point, I thought that while being a culture-less creature that scurries around massive stone structures in search of scraps would have it's own charm, it would be more likely that the characters would be playing as different kinds of giants instead.
How would I reasonably implements this?
See, I'm confident enough with creating custom races to reasonably turn the different kinds of giants into playable races (mind you, this is in pathfinder), do dealing with racial traits and abilities would not be a problem. The issue is size.
If every PC is a giant, and the giants rule the world, would it make more sense to just run all the characters as large, or say that they are all large, but effectively use the stats of medium creatures and just scale down the rest of the world by one size category?
I mean, a Dire Bear is to a Giant what a regular Bear is to a human, and I'd imagine a lynx would be the equivalent of a house cat.
Any ideas how to figure this out?

EggKookoo
2020-03-08, 08:51 AM
I would think it's less problematic to treat giants as Medium and basically reskin the existing PC races. Then from a narrative flavor perspective, describe other Medium NPCs/monsters as giants.

I mean I haven't tried this, but I suspect you'll run into less trouble with the crunch this way. Just imagine weapon/spell range distances are likewise scaled up. So something with a RAW range of 30 feet still has a range of 30 feet relative to the size of the PCs, but in "reality" that's more like 60 feet. If you need justification, keep in mind that a giant race would use its own units of measurement that would likely as not be rough equivalents of existing units. A giant wouldn't say "I'm 12 feet tall" but more like "I'm 6 [whatever] tall," and [whatever] is his culture's unit that measures to be about two feet. Then really all you're doing is translating [whatever] and saying "feet" for easy comprehension.

I ran into this myself writing a story with third-size creatures. I ultimately came up with a unit that was their equivalent of a foot (called a "bone") and my main character was five-and-a-half bones tall, which meant he was the equivalent of someone five-and-a-half feet tall relative to most everyone else. It ended up reading more intuitively right than saying "I'm 22 inches tall."

ZeroGear
2020-03-08, 09:09 PM
So here's the follow-up to this:
If I simply create "medium" sized race equivalents for the different giant tribes (Say, Wood Giant, Fire Giant, Stone Giant, Frost Giant, Storm Giant, Cyclops, Cliff Giant, Cloud Giant, and Hill Giant) how would I go about scaling down all other monsters?
I know elementals are not a problem, I'd just drop them down one category, and most other monsters I could just adjust their stats by dropping them down one size category and maybe reduce their HP to compensate, the problem would be creatures such as dragons.
How would adjusting those work?

EggKookoo
2020-03-09, 05:36 AM
Wouldn't dragons work like any other creature? So an adult red dragon is Large. Hit point reduction might be more of an art. Reducing an adult red dragon's hit die to d10 from d12 only knocks about 19 hp off its average (256 to 237) so you might need to massage that further. But that would be true with any creature.

Do you have a specific issue you imagine running into?

Remember that some things like lifting capacity scale with size.

Jay R
2020-03-09, 01:17 PM
I would use the rules as written, rather than trying to modify them. The current rules handle large creatures just fine.

EggKookoo
2020-03-09, 01:45 PM
I would use the rules as written, rather than trying to modify them. The current rules handle large creatures just fine.

My concern would be one of range and reach and such. Does a large ranged weapon's range increase? Maybe that's in the rules somewhere...

ZeroGear
2020-03-09, 04:13 PM
I would use the rules as written, rather than trying to modify them. The current rules handle large creatures just fine.

I get where you're coming from, though there is a very minor flaw in your logic:
Yes, the rules handle large creatures well when the world is scaled to the PCs, which are either medium or small size. The world and the characters of this particular setting are all large. The whole reason I'm asking this question is because I actually ran a game where one character was pretty much permanently large size at 5th level and it broke a lot of encounters. Now imagine the entire party as large creatures. It's honestly easier to re-skin creatures and describe them as larger variants than to mess with the math inherent in size calculations.


My concern would be one of range and reach and such. Does a large ranged weapon's range increase? Maybe that's in the rules somewhere...

It is in the rules, and it does increase the reach.

Jay R
2020-03-10, 01:13 PM
I get where you're coming from, though there is a very minor flaw in your logic:
Yes, the rules handle large creatures well when the world is scaled to the PCs, which are either medium or small size. The world and the characters of this particular setting are all large. The whole reason I'm asking this question is because I actually ran a game where one character was pretty much permanently large size at 5th level and it broke a lot of encounters. Now imagine the entire party as large creatures. It's honestly easier to re-skin creatures and describe them as larger variants than to mess with the math inherent in size calculations.

Your point about the advantages of a Large character vs. ordinary-sized 5th-level encounters is quite true. I'm not convinced it's relevant, though, since this would be Large PCs against Large or bigger encounters.

I'm also not convinced that it would be easier to run by modifying all the rules; the rules already work for large vs. large, or large vs. huge, etc.

But I left out my primary purpose in using the rules as written. My reaction is purely aesthetic. Doing what you're planning seems too close to running a game in which all the monsters have shrunk. Will it feel like the PCs are giants fighting real dinosaurs, or will it feel like they're humans against shrunken dinosaurs?

If they are playing giants, don't change the rules to make the giants feel ordinary. Let them be giants, and send them worthy challenges for giants.

EggKookoo
2020-03-10, 02:39 PM
I think I'd still lean toward keeping everything based around Medium and just describing the "giantness" in the narrative. I'm just thinking about mini scales (do you use ~56mm figures?), spell ranges, etc. I mean, magic missile has a range of 120 feet. That distance -- and the ranges of many spells and effects -- are balanced around the assumption that the PCs exist at Medium. Would it make sense to scale those appropriately? I get that weapon reach scales and maybe ranged weapons do too?

Also, it's perhaps a little more immersive to describe things from the giant PCs' point of view. They wouldn't consider themselves giants. They'd think everyone else was small. What does "that guy's huge!" mean to a Huge creature?

Jay R
2020-03-10, 03:14 PM
I think I'd still lean toward keeping everything based around Medium and just describing the "giantness" in the narrative.

That's fine. You make your recommendation; I'll make mine. We'll each critique the other's approach, and ZeroGear will get a far better answer than either you or I could give alone.

I think your way will work; I think my way will work. But they will have some different effects, and examining those may provide a good way to decide.


I'm just thinking about mini scales (do you use ~56mm figures?), spell ranges, etc. I mean, magic missile has a range of 120 feet. That distance -- and the ranges of many spells and effects -- are balanced around the assumption that the PCs exist at Medium. Would it make sense to scale those appropriately? I get that weapon reach scales and maybe ranged weapons do too?

I would not rescale the spells. This is intended as part of a timeline, which means he will also run games in the "modern" era. Giants in pre-history shouldn't get larger spell ranges and effects unless giants in the modern era get them too.

Besides, you are specifically trying to remove the actual effects that would make this game unique. Giant spells against dinosaurs need to be used differently than the same spells used by humans against bears or rhinos. If you rule all that away, you're throwing out what makes this game different.


Also, it's perhaps a little more immersive to describe things from the giant PCs' point of view. They wouldn't consider themselves giants. They'd think everyone else was small. What does "that guy's huge!" mean to a Huge creature?

Oh, I agree. In a game last year, the party found a goblin skeleton, and my gnome described it as "normal-sized". When we found a human skeleton later, he described it as larger than normal. [But he also made it clear what he meant. [It was a large skeleton -- as big as an elf or a human,"] I agree that players should stay in character. But I wouldn't re-define game terms that way, or it could cause far more confusions, since you won't manage to find every reference to size in the rulebooks.

I repeat: I think your way will work; I think my way will work.

But they will make different games. ZeroGear should consider the differences and choose the approach that he thinks he could run most effectively, and that would provide the most fun for his players.

I believe that trying to change the size rules by re-defining the size categories would make it harder to run the game efficiently, and that changing spells so the feel the same as they do at normal size would reduce the unique challenges and fun of the game.

Please feel free to keep pushing your approach, and explain what kinds of fun you're trying to create.

EggKookoo
2020-03-10, 04:02 PM
Besides, you are specifically trying to remove the actual effects that would make this game unique. Giant spells against dinosaurs need to be used differently than the same spells used by humans against bears or rhinos. If you rule all that away, you're throwing out what makes this game different.

I think this is a point worth looking at. To a giant, a dinosaur is basically the equivalent of a bear. Or at least in the abstract, other big creatures occupy the space that normal-sized creatures do for normal-sized characters. So it's a subjective thing, but to me the fun in playing a giant is that you can take on a dinosaur the way a human takes on a bear. I mean in the end it's all variations in flavor, since to the giant, the dinosaur is just a big wild animal and not a a rampaging near-Kaiju thing.

But to the question of ranges, I don't know the specifics behind the game design, but I think that, say, magic missile having a range of 120 feet was decided because it was a sensible distance based on other things, such as movement speed, other weapon ranges, melee reach, and so forth. The giant that produces a magic missile is a much larger creature than a human that does the same, and arguably would channel more power in the act. That added power would result in greater range at least, and possibly greater damage output. I mean, the giant would need to be able to channel that level of power if the spell is going to be useful. Similar situation for things that affect hit points. Is cure wounds enough to be useful for a Huge creature?

Also, I do notice in the MM that while giants do tend toward somewhat higher movement rates, they're not scaled proportionately. And some, like the fire giant, are still at 30 feet despite being in the Huge category. Giants were designed to work as NPCs and/or monsters, and the mechanics supporting them weren't built to make them play well, but to be challenging and interesting encounters for Medium-sized PCs. They're meant to invoke a sense of hugeness, but not necessarily be too realistic in that sense. I just feel like, were it me, I'd find that system more frustrating in the long term, versus using the existing mechanics and relying on narrative flavor to convey being a giant.

While I haven't played as a giant, I have run a campaign that ported over oWoD Garou into a 5e-like setting. Garou are Large at 9+ feet. Frankly it was a pain, as it became clear the game wasn't designed for PCs of that scale. But that could also be because I was mix-and-matching with other Medium PCs and NPCs. But I think if I did it again, I would try to avoid letting them function as Large, even if narratively they are.

Anyway, just a viewpoint...

King of Nowhere
2020-03-10, 09:34 PM
I would think it's less problematic to treat giants as Medium and basically reskin the existing PC races. Then from a narrative flavor perspective, describe other Medium NPCs/monsters as giants.

I ran into this myself writing a story with third-size creatures. I ultimately came up with a unit that was their equivalent of a foot (called a "bone") and my main character was five-and-a-half bones tall, which meant he was the equivalent of someone five-and-a-half feet tall relative to most everyone else. It ended up reading more intuitively right than saying "I'm 22 inches tall."

Yes! So much this!
I'm sure the giants do not call each other giants. the giants call each other regular people. and they probably call humanoids "the weenies" or something similar.
And elves would not say "we have long lives". they'd say instead "those other people have such short lives"

Embrace cultural perspective.

ZeroGear
2020-03-12, 05:14 PM
EggKookoo, Jay R, I’ve been learning a lot from your discussion, and it’s making me wonder if I should actually keep the giants as they appear in the monster manual in later parts of the timeline.
Don’t get me wrong, they are a really useful reference when I’m building the races of past eras, though you’re kinda making me wonder if the world would stay as consistent if I used those entries.
Since I’m planning on using the Spheres of Power and Spheres of Might systems anyway, would it be better for me to create my Giant Era races, then convert them into their own form of monster as time moves forward?
The gist of this is that the civilization of giants I’d going to fall, but scattered groups are going to survive and diversify, though mostly in isolated areas or as lesser species going forward. I’m also toying with the idea of creations a few giant-descended races as it would make narrative sense, and I could easily fit the custom “giant” races to this roll as well.
Just some thoughts that might help the discussion.

Jay R
2020-03-12, 06:04 PM
My first recommendation is to start with a single type -- say Hill Giants -- and assume that they will eventually evolve into various species over time.

But you might look at it in the other direction. What kind(s) of giants will work best for your scenario? Once you answer that. you can adjust your history to provide those types when they are needed.

Devils_Advocate
2020-03-12, 08:50 PM
Also, I do notice in the MM that while giants do tend toward somewhat higher movement rates, they're not scaled proportionately. And some, like the fire giant, are still at 30 feet despite being in the Huge category. Giants were designed to work as NPCs and/or monsters, and the mechanics supporting them weren't built to make them play well, but to be challenging and interesting encounters for Medium-sized PCs. They're meant to invoke a sense of hugeness, but not necessarily be too realistic in that sense.
I have to wonder whether you're coming at this from the naive perspective that says "Well, a horse should be damaged much less than an ant by falling the same distance, because that distance is much shorter relative to the horse's size". That may be intuitive, but it's also factually wrong. Quantities do not in fact all scale up in proportion to each other such that the relative increases to them all cancel each other out. There are physical reasons for things being the sizes they are, rendering various fantastic fauna immensely implausible (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2002/05/29/episode-154-it-was-a-nice-try-as-usual/).

Speculative fiction can explore the implications of a physically different universe where quantities do all scale in proportion to each other, but that seems like something pretty far removed from D&D's system and setting, and the real world. It's difficult to even begin to imagine all of the implications of things not having preferred sizes. If roughly human-like creatures could even exist in such a setting, think of the dangers posed to them by house-sized raindrops, for example!

EggKookoo
2020-03-12, 09:51 PM
I have to wonder whether you're coming at this from the naive perspective that says "Well, a horse should be damaged much less than an ant by falling the same distance, because that distance is much shorter relative to the horse's size". That may be intuitive, but it's also factually wrong. Quantities do not in fact all scale up in proportion to each other such that the relative increases to them all cancel each other out. There are physical reasons for things being the sizes they are, rendering various fantastic fauna immensely implausible (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2002/05/29/episode-154-it-was-a-nice-try-as-usual/).

Nah, well aware of the square-cube law. I'm coming at it from the perspective that some elements of 5e were designed to work well when used a player character, and some elements were designed to work well as non-player characters. PC races were designed to be balanced around various things, including having enough flexibility and growth to be interesting through 20 levels of play. NPC monster species are designed mainly around being interesting as obstacles to players, which includes making sure everything distinctive about them can be digested for the (typically) one encounter they exist.

What I mean is, the game mechanics are geared toward PCs being Medium sized creatures. Spell ranges and whatnot were all largely set with that scale in mind. Sure, a Large arrow fired from a Large bow might travel farther, but by RAW a spell with a range of 30 feet has that range regardless of creature size. A Large creature will also have more hp (logically and by RAW) yet to go with my example from before, cure wounds will still heal 1d8 + X hp. Given that a giant PC race will be working with more basic hp than the existing PC races, this makes cure wounds underpowered in relation. Which in that particular case might be fine and even interesting, but it has implications all down the spell repertoire. Disguise self has a limit that your illusion can only be one foot taller or shorter. For a 20 foot tall creature, that's much less flexibility. Spells that have a smallish area of effect (maybe like flame strike) become, effectively, single-target spells. Things that rely on your sight as a distance limit should logically have that range extended, since a giant is looking out from a much higher vantage point. So how do you determine that? And speaking of sight, do you extend the effects of darkvision? If not, why? Does a giant have some kind of advantage or bonus on Strength checks, similar to how their carrying capacity is multiplied due to their size? None of these things taken alone is a real problem, and running a game with these kinds of modifications could be interesting, but they are modifications that you would have to take into consideration. If you choose instead not to and just kind of wing it, then you might as well just use the rules as written and convey the increased scale solely through narrative/fluff. Which is what I would probably do. I mean the OP asked for recommendations, so...

None of my concern is motivated by a lack of physical realism. The mechanics are highly abstracted and based on a lot of assumptions, one of which is PC size.

LibraryOgre
2020-03-13, 12:51 PM
Easier would probably be to just say "Ok, you're actually giants, but we're going to scale you all at medium".

However, that does lose a few things. Unless PF changed it, size also imposed a hiding penalty. And, I don't have it handy, but when you scale down some of the other giants... don't some of them remain a lot taller than the others? Like, if hill giants are Medium, Storm giants are going to be large? I don't recall their precise heights, but it might be something to consider.

And, of course, there's also the fun aspect... it can be really nice to have the obscene Strength a giant would get, from time to time.

icefractal
2020-03-19, 06:57 PM
I would go with using existing giant sizes, potentially with the addition of a feat that boosts ranges, which is something that giants later could have access to, or could be lost knowledge after the fall of their civilization.

Mainly because I think the few mechanical quirks would be a lot easier to deal with than re-statting large numbers of monsters.

What I definitely wouldn't do is just scale all the monsters up (or leave them the same and scale the giants down) and say "things were bigger in that age". To me, that would negate any point to being giants - you might as well just say the ancient civilization was a human one.

In fact, I'd say that to convey the giant feel, many of the foes the PCs fight should be smaller than them. Some would be weak enough it's not even a fight (regular wolves would probably GTFO, for example), but others would still be dangerous. Instead of dragons that tower over the PCs, there'd be dragons which are more like super-tough fire-breathing eagles - which personally, I would not want to fight for any sum of money.