Re: Combat Thread

ChickenSpider Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:48 pm

There's a feat for that in Complete Warrior. Perhaps if the creature is large enough, it may have to test Perception to even notice the tiny creature upon it's back.

Naryzhud Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:06 am

@Sasha, yeah that sounds good although i imagine you were meaning they don't retain their movement abilities while latched on? Also with the +X vs being brushed off, would X be the level of Bite (Latch On) that you have? Also for scorpions and crabs in future we could add Claw (Latch On).

@Chickenspider That perception thing sounds interesting, what sort of size difference were you thinking? I do think it makes sense that if you're doing damage and whatnot, it should give them a better chance to notice you though.

ChickenSpider Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:29 pm

@Narzyhud I;m thinking that a Perception test would be in order if said creature s at least two size catagories larger than yourself.

Sasha Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:52 pm

Naryzhud wrote:@Sasha, yeah that sounds good although i imagine you were meaning they don't retain their movement abilities while latched on? Also with the +X vs being brushed off, would X be the level of Bite (Latch On) that you have? Also for scorpions and crabs in future we could add Claw (Latch On).

@Chickenspider That perception thing sounds interesting, what sort of size difference were you thinking? I do think it makes sense that if you're doing damage and whatnot, it should give them a better chance to notice you though.

Actually, I was thinking that they should retain some kind of movement or dodge ability - something like a colossus climb, given that they're fighting something too big for them to actively grapple.

However, if they decide to use their mandibles to bite down, or some other method that actively anchors them, they should lose movement abilities.

Naryzhud Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:18 am

Ah ok, i see what you mean, that makes more sense. Personally i think perhaps have that as an advanced latch on move with basic latch on just being grab hold and dont let go, then uber leveled insects can run about like that going nuts on the larger creature.

Sasha Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:00 am

Naryzhud wrote:Ah ok, i see what you mean, that makes more sense. Personally i think perhaps have that as an advanced latch on move with basic latch on just being grab hold and dont let go, then uber leveled insects can run about like that going nuts on the larger creature.

That sounds good! It also gives room for two separate specializations in that fighting style - a bug could attempt to become as tough and well-armored as possible and just hang on and bite, or could climb all over and try to dodge any attacks like the twitchy little thing it is.

Naryzhud Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:15 am

I've made a separate thread for traits and abilities, think it's best to keep it separate from this so we can concentrate on mechanics here...

Naryzhud Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:27 am

What about size then folks? The more i think about it the more i'm convinced we should have it as a separate type of stat. Rather than running from 1-100 we should have it be a much wider range as

A) we dont ever need to roll against size that i can think of, and

B) We need to be able to accomodate for a really big range of sizes, especially if we're talking about having things like birds or even humans as high level enemies.

Do we start at where we are now for "normal sized" insects and just let it keep increasing for larger creatures and then go into the minuses for really small crap?

Do we just have a size chart similar to the dnd one ranging from miniscule to humongous or whatever it is?

Do we even have variable sizes between the same insect? Will it improve the game at all to say my honey bee is bigger than your honey bee? Should we just say a honey bee is size x and a japanese hornet is size y?

What do you folks think?

Grawflemaul Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:03 pm

Naryzhud wrote:What about size then folks? The more i think about it the more i'm convinced we should have it as a separate type of stat. Rather than running from 1-100 we should have it be a much wider range as

A) we dont ever need to roll against size that i can think of, and

B) We need to be able to accomodate for a really big range of sizes, especially if we're talking about having things like birds or even humans as high level enemies.

The question in my mind is why we need a numerical size stat at all then. Working with one system for everything else, then suddenly introducing humans with Size "Over 9000" is just silly, I reckon the dnd size idea is probably the better one. We can probably identify different scales of insects (with a fair degree of abstraction of course) from aphids up to goliath spiders, then larger scale Threats from bird up to human.

Naryzhud wrote:Do we even have variable sizes between the same insect? Will it improve the game at all to say my honey bee is bigger than your honey bee? Should we just say a honey bee is size x and a japanese hornet is size y?

I'd say no, It's just not necessary. Maybe there could be a gigantism trait that could be bought that could move you up one scale, but it'd be fairly rare.

Naryzhud Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:10 am

I quite like the gigantism idea...

And yeah i'll throw my vote in with having certain scales of insect rather than a numerical stat. Unless anyone has a better idea of course...

Sasha Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:41 pm

Naryzhud wrote:I quite like the gigantism idea...

And yeah i'll throw my vote in with having certain scales of insect rather than a numerical stat. Unless anyone has a better idea of course...

I think that we could probably do all right with a category-based system...after all, I don't think we'll ever have to deal with a character bigger than a foot long, and anything larger than that will be enemy-only.

**Quest Lord** Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:07 pm

So then, what are the categories? Clearly differences in size matter more the smaller you are. 2mm is twice as big as 1mm.

I'm thinking:
Microscopic: (Is this worth having?)

Miniscule: Under 1mm in length
Tiny: 1-3mm
Dimmutive: 3-5mm
Small: 5-10mm

Average: 1-3 cm
Large: 3-5cm
Huge: 5-10cm

Mighty:10-20cm
Huge: 20-30cm
Massive: 30-50cm
Giant: 50-100cm

Beast (Enemy only): 1m+
???? (Enemy only): From this size upwards, it don't make any difference.

Naryzhud Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:25 am

I'm down with those divisions for playtesting anyway.

Three things about the nomenclature though;

1)Diminutive was spelt wrong (yes i know, i'm a spelling nazi... Mad

)

2)You have Huge in there twice, maybe swap the second for Enormous?

3)???? how about Titanic instead?

**Quest Lord** Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:51 am

Naryzhud wrote:I'm down with those divisions for playtesting anyway.

Three things about the nomenclature though;

1)Diminutive was spelt wrong (yes i know, i'm a spelling nazi... )

2)You have Huge in there twice, maybe swap the second for Enormous?

3)???? how about Titanic instead?

Agreed x3

Sasha Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:56 am

For playtesting, I think those divisions certainly work! Microscopic may not be important for game terms; even at the smallest playable size, I don't think they'll be dealing with anything that small in any meaningful fashion.

Sorry I've not been posting around here, by the way, stuff's been crazy. Should be getting marginally less so after this month.

**Quest Lord** Mon Nov 14, 2011 5:05 am

@Sasha: We've all been busy with this, that and the other, which is why this has been on the backburner so long. Nothing to apologise for.

I figure microscopic will be a handy size category for anything that can't be directly interacted with. It might just be an abstraction for gameplay purposes, but we'll see if we need it.

Naryzhud Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:21 pm

It's there if we need it... Very Happy

Naryzhud Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:14 pm

Now that we have sizes, i think it might be important to incorporate size into damage, because while a person can completely obliterate an ant with a finger, the same amount of pressure might just slightly crush a beetle and wouldn't even hurt another human.

My thoughts are; to keep it from being ridiculous amounts of dice, just add an extra 1d10 for every two size categories larger than the target you are.

For larger targets they get to ignore 1d10 damage (minimum 0) for every two categories larger than you they are.

Particularly strong poisons and toxins would ignore size completely, but most things won't be able to hurt much larger creatures without swarming. (Possibly have swarm bonuses?)

Another thing, how are we going to do damage, do we want HP? And if so, what is this based off/how do we determine this?

Naryzhud Mon Oct 13, 2014 3:10 am

The other option would be to use different dice for the HD and damage of each size, so a standard sized insect would use D10s, a large would use D12s and so on... Perhaps with a few exceptions or upgrades to represent particularly nasty or weak for their size Arthros.

**Quest Lord** Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:03 pm

If big bugs use larger dice, and smaller ones use smaller dice, in order for the smallest bugs not to become super-fragile, they'll need some sort of bonus to dodging or some such that makes them hard to hit. Potentially with the smallest bugs, have the player control a small group of them so that swarming is an option?

Naryzhud Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:43 am

I think originally we wanted to stay away from swarming per the ant crunch thread, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense, especially for socials. Perhaps have it so at low power levels you can just be a leafcutter and have the normal social bonuses we were talking about, then as you level you can either evolve to a fire ant or get a couple leafcutter buddies to hive mind with?

Naryzhud Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:45 am

How about for now have every size category smaller mean -5 to hit and larger give a +5 bonus. Think that should be significant without being over the top.

**Quest Lord** Tue Oct 14, 2014 2:21 am

Naryzhud wrote:I think originally we wanted to stay away from swarming per the ant crunch thread, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense, especially for socials. Perhaps have it so at low power levels you can just be a leafcutter and have the normal social bonuses we were talking about, then as you level you can either evolve to a fire ant or get a couple leafcutter buddies to hive mind with?

Did rather want to keep each species separate. But I figure swarming would be an upgrade we'd be careful with, make the initial investment into it expensive and further upgrades to it small. Maybe the "Swarm" upgrade could be an amount of xp to start, with it doubling more each time you want a further ant. So if it was 250 for the first buddy, it'd be 500 for the next, 10000 for the third etc. Have the buddies have a very set stat-line and ability set so that you don't get exponential power upgrades. The species that get swarming at anything that's not super exxy would be very reliant on it, because they wouldn't have much power otherwise, so we don't get exponential ants.

Naryzhud wrote:How about for now have every size category smaller mean -5 to hit and larger give a +5 bonus. Think that should be significant without being over the top.

That makes sense.

Naryzhud Tue Oct 14, 2014 3:54 am

Also could have "swarm" rules for a handful of ants and "horde" for when there's hundreds...

Naryzhud Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:52 am

So dice sizes for bug sizes;

Miniscule: Under 1mm in length - 1d3 (1d2?)
Tiny: 1-3mm - 1d4
Dimmutive: 3-5mm - 1d6
Small: 5-10mm - 1d8

Average: 1-3 cm - 1d10
Large: 3-5cm - 1d12
Huge: 5-10cm - 2d8

Mighty:10-20cm - 1d20
Huge: 20-30cm - 2d12
Massive: 30-50cm - 3d10
Giant: 50-100cm - 4d10

Smaller and larger than this will probably be only very rare and handled on a case by case basis.

Sponsored content