G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

(1) Powerful Charge Feat

With a goliath's power build class feature if he takes the powerful charge
feat (miniatures handbook) does he deal +2d6 damage or +d8 damage.

Within the powerful build feautre description it doesn't mention anything
regarding feats. However in the feats section it constantly says Goliaths
act as Large creatures when it comes to feats.

Rich
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Eyebyte" <rbrouwer@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:39gd3mF61dkviU1@individual.net...
> (1) Powerful Charge Feat
>
> With a goliath's power build class feature if he takes the powerful charge
> feat (miniatures handbook) does he deal +2d6 damage or +d8 damage.

I would treat them as large for the purposes of that feat.

> Within the powerful build feautre description it doesn't mention anything
> regarding feats. However in the feats section it constantly says Goliaths
> act as Large creatures when it comes to feats.

Agreed. Then again, I allow Goliath monks to do damage as if they are large
monks.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Eyebyte wrote:
> (1) Powerful Charge Feat
>
> With a goliath's power build class feature if he takes the powerful charge
> feat (miniatures handbook) does he deal +2d6 damage or +d8 damage.
>
> Within the powerful build feautre description it doesn't mention anything
> regarding feats. However in the feats section it constantly says Goliaths
> act as Large creatures when it comes to feats.

Here's an idea. Just make Goliaths Large creatures and give them a +1
LA or something. For the love of God. I hate those stupid
"Large/NotLarge" things.

- Ron ^*^
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news:DcEYd.62344$7z6.12395@lakeread04...
>
>
> Eyebyte wrote:
>> (1) Powerful Charge Feat
>>
>> With a goliath's power build class feature if he takes the powerful
>> charge
>> feat (miniatures handbook) does he deal +2d6 damage or +d8 damage.
>>
>> Within the powerful build feautre description it doesn't mention anything
>> regarding feats. However in the feats section it constantly says
>> Goliaths
>> act as Large creatures when it comes to feats.
>
> Here's an idea. Just make Goliaths Large creatures and give them a +1 LA
> or something.

They are already +1 LA.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:

> "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:DcEYd.62344$7z6.12395@lakeread04...
>
>>
>>Eyebyte wrote:
>>
>>>(1) Powerful Charge Feat
>>>
>>>With a goliath's power build class feature if he takes the powerful
>>>charge
>>>feat (miniatures handbook) does he deal +2d6 damage or +d8 damage.
>>>
>>>Within the powerful build feautre description it doesn't mention anything
>>>regarding feats. However in the feats section it constantly says
>>>Goliaths
>>>act as Large creatures when it comes to feats.
>>
>>Here's an idea. Just make Goliaths Large creatures and give them a +1 LA
>>or something.
>
>
> They are already +1 LA.

Then give 'em another +1.

Seriously, the whole thing sounds like some player trying to weasel his
way aroung getting another +1 to his character's LA by dropping the
parts of Large size that he isn't likely to use. It's a headache for
the DM, and it opens the door for many other moronic "halfsies" like the
"Construct/NotaConstruct" nonsense with the Warforged.

Fie! I say, fie upon them all!

- Ron ^*^
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news:DcEYd.62344$7z6.12395@lakeread04...
>
>
> Eyebyte wrote:
>> (1) Powerful Charge Feat
>>
>> With a goliath's power build class feature if he takes the powerful
>> charge
>> feat (miniatures handbook) does he deal +2d6 damage or +d8 damage.
>>
>> Within the powerful build feautre description it doesn't mention anything
>> regarding feats. However in the feats section it constantly says
>> Goliaths
>> act as Large creatures when it comes to feats.
>
> Here's an idea. Just make Goliaths Large creatures and give them a +1 LA
> or something. For the love of God. I hate those stupid "Large/NotLarge"
> things.

I agree. They are already +1, so +2 wouldn't be too big a stretch. I
forsee too many complications with the Large / not large thing as so many
spells etc. afftect Large differently. This player hasn't started yet and
it's the third question regarding size raised.



Rich


>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Eyebyte wrote:
> "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:DcEYd.62344$7z6.12395@lakeread04...
>
>>
>>Eyebyte wrote:
>>
>>>(1) Powerful Charge Feat
>>>
>>>With a goliath's power build class feature if he takes the powerful
>>>charge
>>>feat (miniatures handbook) does he deal +2d6 damage or +d8 damage.
>>>
>>>Within the powerful build feautre description it doesn't mention anything
>>>regarding feats. However in the feats section it constantly says
>>>Goliaths
>>>act as Large creatures when it comes to feats.
>>
>>Here's an idea. Just make Goliaths Large creatures and give them a +1 LA
>>or something. For the love of God. I hate those stupid "Large/NotLarge"
>>things.
>
>
> I agree. They are already +1, so +2 wouldn't be too big a stretch. I
> forsee too many complications with the Large / not large thing as so many
> spells etc. afftect Large differently. This player hasn't started yet and
> it's the third question regarding size raised.

Allow the player to buy back his LA as per Unearthed Arcana and it won't
be too bad for him.

- Ron ^*^
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Seriously, the whole thing sounds like some player trying to
> weasel his way aroung getting another +1 to his character's
> LA by dropping the parts of Large size that he isn't likely
> to use. <snip>

"some player...dropping the parts of Large size that he isn't likely to
use."

Ron, I'm getting tired of your constant sexual innuendos. I'll remind
you that this is a family newsgroup, and your titillating double
entendres are completely unnecessary!

I mean, that's what we have Hong for...


Arivne
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

arivne@cox.net wrote:
> Werebat wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Seriously, the whole thing sounds like some player trying to
>>weasel his way aroung getting another +1 to his character's
>>LA by dropping the parts of Large size that he isn't likely
>>to use. <snip>
>
>
> "some player...dropping the parts of Large size that he isn't likely to
> use."
>
> Ron, I'm getting tired of your constant sexual innuendos. I'll remind
> you that this is a family newsgroup, and your titillating double
> entendres are completely unnecessary!
>
> I mean, that's what we have Hong for...

Back in high school there was a kid named Hong le Dong. I kid you not.

In the high school I work in, there is currently a female student from
Africa named Baby Wansouleh (pronounced something disturbingly similar
to "Baby Wants a Lay").

Um... Carry on...

- Ron ^*^
 

Spinner

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2002
140
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

>> (1) Powerful Charge Feat
>>
>> With a goliath's power build class feature if he takes the powerful
>> charge
>> feat (miniatures handbook) does he deal +2d6 damage or +d8 damage.
>
> I would treat them as large for the purposes of that feat.
>
>> Within the powerful build feautre description it doesn't mention anything
>> regarding feats. However in the feats section it constantly says
>> Goliaths
>> act as Large creatures when it comes to feats.
>
> Agreed. Then again, I allow Goliath monks to do damage as if they are
> large monks.
>
See, now both of these are just judgment calls that have no basis in the
Goliath's Powerful Build ability. Aren't they?

The PB description in Races of Stone takes pains to mention some pretty
specific areas where the Goliath should be considered to be Large -- weapon
use, for example. Anything not mentioned there ought to be off limits --
otherwise, you're giving away some free abilities, are you not?

IMO, the mention of Goliath-ish exceptions in the Races of Stone feat
descriptions is, if anything, *more evidence* against allowing Large for
Powerful Charge. IOW, they could've saved a fair bit of ink by just saying
in the PB description, "Goliaths are considered Large for purposes of any
feats ..." or "Goliaths are considered to be whatever size is more
advantageous to them for purposes of feats ..." or something like that.
Instead, they wrote specifically in certain feat descriptions that it worked
that way for Goliaths. Why would they bother if they intended it to work
for all feats?

Cool combo otherwise! House rule it if you like it. But IMO, the ruleset
does not support the combo. I don't even think it's ambivalent enough for a
judgment call.

Spinner
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Spinner" <bprentic@uwo.ca> wrote in message
news:39lrifF62ju6fU1@individual.net...
>>> (1) Powerful Charge Feat
>>>
>>> With a goliath's power build class feature if he takes the powerful
>>> charge
>>> feat (miniatures handbook) does he deal +2d6 damage or +d8 damage.
>>
>> I would treat them as large for the purposes of that feat.
>>
>>> Within the powerful build feautre description it doesn't mention
>>> anything
>>> regarding feats. However in the feats section it constantly says
>>> Goliaths
>>> act as Large creatures when it comes to feats.
>>
>> Agreed. Then again, I allow Goliath monks to do damage as if they are
>> large monks.
>>
> See, now both of these are just judgment calls that have no basis in the
> Goliath's Powerful Build ability. Aren't they?

As far as feats go, there are several that require size large that are
listed in Races of Stone. They *all* say "Goliaths qualify by virtue of
their powerful build racial trait". Therefore, it is reasonable to assume
that they are meant to be treated as large for the purposes of feats.

> The PB description in Races of Stone takes pains to mention some pretty
> specific areas where the Goliath should be considered to be Large --
> weapon use, for example. Anything not mentioned there ought to be off
> limits -- otherwise, you're giving away some free abilities, are you not?

Perhaps. The reason we treat them as large for the purposes of Monk attacks
is to have parity with weapon users, who can use size large weapons.

> IMO, the mention of Goliath-ish exceptions in the Races of Stone feat
> descriptions is, if anything, *more evidence* against allowing Large for
> Powerful Charge.
>
> IOW, they could've saved a fair bit of ink by just saying in the PB
> description, "Goliaths are considered Large for purposes of any feats ..."
> or "Goliaths are considered to be whatever size is more advantageous to
> them for purposes of feats ..." or something like that. Instead, they
> wrote specifically in certain feat descriptions that it worked that way
> for Goliaths. Why would they bother if they intended it to work for all
> feats?

Yes, but it is *every* feat. I think they may have just made a mistake.

> Cool combo otherwise! House rule it if you like it. But IMO, the ruleset
> does not support the combo. I don't even think it's ambivalent enough for
> a judgment call.

I disagree on that.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 

Spinner

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2002
140
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> As far as feats go, there are several that require size large that are
> listed in Races of Stone. They *all* say "Goliaths qualify by virtue of
> their powerful build racial trait". Therefore, it is reasonable to assume
> that they are meant to be treated as large for the purposes of feats.
>
It is reasonable, I guess. Would've been darn easy for them to spell it out
in the ability descr.

>> The PB description in Races of Stone takes pains to mention some pretty
>> specific areas where the Goliath should be considered to be Large --
>> weapon use, for example. Anything not mentioned there ought to be off
>> limits -- otherwise, you're giving away some free abilities, are you
>> not?
>
> Perhaps. The reason we treat them as large for the purposes of Monk
> attacks is to have parity with weapon users, who can use size large
> weapons.
>
Yeah -- very sensible (if technically expansive to rules as given -- not
that there's anything wrong with that but our current group is in that kind
of a place where we allow somewhat nonsensical results as long as it follows
legally from the ruleset).

>> IMO, the mention of Goliath-ish exceptions in the Races of Stone feat
>> descriptions is, if anything, *more evidence* against allowing Large for
>> Powerful Charge.
>>
>> IOW, they could've saved a fair bit of ink by just saying in the PB
>> description, "Goliaths are considered Large for purposes of any feats
>> ..." or "Goliaths are considered to be whatever size is more advantageous
>> to them for purposes of feats ..." or something like that. Instead, they
>> wrote specifically in certain feat descriptions that it worked that way
>> for Goliaths. Why would they bother if they intended it to work for all
>> feats?
>
> Yes, but it is *every* feat. I think they may have just made a mistake.
>
They probably have. An overly legalistic group should wait for errata.

>> Cool combo otherwise! House rule it if you like it. But IMO, the
>> ruleset does not support the combo. I don't even think it's ambivalent
>> enough for a judgment call.
>
> I disagree on that.
>
Yeah, you're right. <backpedal> <flip> It's certainly ambivalent enough for
a judgment call. <flop>

:)

Spinner
 

Dan

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,208
0
19,780
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:10:26 -0500, "Spinner" <bprentic@uwo.ca>
gibbered into the void:

>> As far as feats go, there are several that require size large that are
>> listed in Races of Stone. They *all* say "Goliaths qualify by virtue of
>> their powerful build racial trait". Therefore, it is reasonable to assume
>> that they are meant to be treated as large for the purposes of feats.
>>
>It is reasonable, I guess. Would've been darn easy for them to spell it out
>in the ability descr.
>
>>> The PB description in Races of Stone takes pains to mention some pretty
>>> specific areas where the Goliath should be considered to be Large --
>>> weapon use, for example. Anything not mentioned there ought to be off
>>> limits -- otherwise, you're giving away some free abilities, are you
>>> not?
>>
>> Perhaps. The reason we treat them as large for the purposes of Monk
>> attacks is to have parity with weapon users, who can use size large
>> weapons.
>>
>Yeah -- very sensible (if technically expansive to rules as given -- not
>that there's anything wrong with that but our current group is in that kind
>of a place where we allow somewhat nonsensical results as long as it follows
>legally from the ruleset).
>
>>> IMO, the mention of Goliath-ish exceptions in the Races of Stone feat
>>> descriptions is, if anything, *more evidence* against allowing Large for
>>> Powerful Charge.
>>>
>>> IOW, they could've saved a fair bit of ink by just saying in the PB
>>> description, "Goliaths are considered Large for purposes of any feats
>>> ..." or "Goliaths are considered to be whatever size is more advantageous
>>> to them for purposes of feats ..." or something like that. Instead, they
>>> wrote specifically in certain feat descriptions that it worked that way
>>> for Goliaths. Why would they bother if they intended it to work for all
>>> feats?
>>
>> Yes, but it is *every* feat. I think they may have just made a mistake.
>>
>They probably have. An overly legalistic group should wait for errata.
>
>>> Cool combo otherwise! House rule it if you like it. But IMO, the
>>> ruleset does not support the combo. I don't even think it's ambivalent
>>> enough for a judgment call.
>>
>> I disagree on that.
>>
>Yeah, you're right. <backpedal> <flip> It's certainly ambivalent enough for
>a judgment call. <flop>
>
>:)
>
>Spinner
>
[gag] A civil disagreement on Usenet? What the heck is happening??
MSB! Jeffie! Help!!!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:

> As far as feats go, there are several that require size large that are
> listed in Races of Stone. They *all* say "Goliaths qualify by virtue of
> their powerful build racial trait". Therefore, it is reasonable to assume
> that they are meant to be treated as large for the purposes of feats.

It would have been a whole hell of a lot easier to say they're a
large creature that has the face, reach, attack and AC mods, armour use,
and carrying capacity of a medium one.

Or do what I did and double the number of size categories; then
they'd fit in neatly with Bugbears at +1 size, or would if I were to use
something so pointlessly stupid as a Goliath.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"tussock" <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:4236d892@clear.net.nz...
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>
>> As far as feats go, there are several that require size large that are
>> listed in Races of Stone. They *all* say "Goliaths qualify by virtue of
>> their powerful build racial trait". Therefore, it is reasonable to
>> assume that they are meant to be treated as large for the purposes of
>> feats.
>
> It would have been a whole hell of a lot easier to say they're a large
> creature that has the face, reach, attack and AC mods, armour use, and
> carrying capacity of a medium one.

Interesting.

> Or do what I did and double the number of size categories; then they'd
> fit in neatly with Bugbears at +1 size, or would if I were to use
> something so pointlessly stupid as a Goliath.

Why pointlessly stupid? I like the race. They remind me of the Earthdawn
Obsidimen.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 

Matthias

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2003
137
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:19:34 -0500, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:

>Seriously, the whole thing sounds like some player trying to weasel his
>way aroung getting another +1 to his character's LA by dropping the
>parts of Large size that he isn't likely to use. It's a headache for
>the DM, and it opens the door for many other moronic "halfsies" like the
>"Construct/NotaConstruct" nonsense with the Warforged.

It could be the size differential is meant to avoid the penalties to attack, AC,
Hide, etc. that Large creatures get. The +4 to Strength would cancel out the
attack penalty though.

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3jfk3112k36hngia089hk115nahdat6em7@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:19:34 -0500, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Seriously, the whole thing sounds like some player trying to weasel his
>>way aroung getting another +1 to his character's LA by dropping the
>>parts of Large size that he isn't likely to use. It's a headache for
>>the DM, and it opens the door for many other moronic "halfsies" like the
>>"Construct/NotaConstruct" nonsense with the Warforged.
>
> It could be the size differential is meant to avoid the penalties to
> attack, AC,
> Hide, etc. that Large creatures get.

Don't forget Reach.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
> Seriously, the whole [Large/Notlarge] thing sounds like some player
> trying to weasel his way aroung getting another +1 to his character's
> LA by dropping the parts of Large size that he isn't likely to use.
> It's a headache for the DM, and it opens the door for many other
> moronic "halfsies" like the "Construct/NotaConstruct" nonsense with
> the Warforged.

I especially dislike the Large/Notlarge idea because it gives up most of
the disadvantages of being Large. The only real benefit you give up is
reach (which is admittedly a big deal). Overall, I think the differences
are a wash. Since the ability is a nuisance, I favor just calling them
Large and keeping LA the same.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 

Matthias

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2003
137
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:20:13 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com>
wrote:

>Werebat wrote:
>> Seriously, the whole [Large/Notlarge] thing sounds like some player
>> trying to weasel his way aroung getting another +1 to his character's
>> LA by dropping the parts of Large size that he isn't likely to use.
>> It's a headache for the DM, and it opens the door for many other
>> moronic "halfsies" like the "Construct/NotaConstruct" nonsense with
>> the Warforged.
>
>I especially dislike the Large/Notlarge idea because it gives up most of
>the disadvantages of being Large. The only real benefit you give up is
>reach (which is admittedly a big deal). Overall, I think the differences
>are a wash. Since the ability is a nuisance, I favor just calling them
>Large and keeping LA the same.

However, if they were formally Large rather than "Medium-Large", they would have
those disadvantages, as well as the disadvantage of having to deal with armor
sized for medium characters (I'm unsure whether they would have penalties while
wearing, or would simply be unable to wear it ATM). So they might be able to get
away with an LA+0 at that point, and maybe if they lost a few more goodies or
took an additional penalty/s? (Maybe a -2 Dexterity racial modifier?)

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>>I especially dislike the Large/Notlarge idea because it gives up most of
>>the disadvantages of being Large. The only real benefit you give up is
>>reach (which is admittedly a big deal). Overall, I think the differences
>>are a wash. Since the ability is a nuisance, I favor just calling them
>>Large and keeping LA the same.

Matthias wrote:
> However, if they were formally Large rather than "Medium-Large", they
> would have those disadvantages, as well as the disadvantage of having
> to deal with armor sized for medium characters ....

Which just about offsets the advantages of reach. What part of that did
you not understand the first time I said it? If you disagree, explain
why. More likely, you're just being your usual bonehead self.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 

Matthias

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2003
137
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:52:14 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com>
wrote:

>Bradd wrote:
>>>I especially dislike the Large/Notlarge idea because it gives up most of
>>>the disadvantages of being Large. The only real benefit you give up is
>>>reach (which is admittedly a big deal). Overall, I think the differences
>>>are a wash. Since the ability is a nuisance, I favor just calling them
>>>Large and keeping LA the same.
>
>Matthias wrote:
>> However, if they were formally Large rather than "Medium-Large", they
>> would have those disadvantages, as well as the disadvantage of having
>> to deal with armor sized for medium characters ....
>
>Which just about offsets the advantages of reach. What part of that did
>you not understand the first time I said it? If you disagree, explain
>why. More likely, you're just being your usual bonehead self.

Are you trying deliberately to pick a fight?

My entire quote: However, if they were formally Large rather than
"Medium-Large", they would have those disadvantages, as well as the disadvantage
of having to deal with armor sized for medium characters (I'm unsure whether
they would have penalties while wearing, or would simply be unable to wear it
ATM). So they might be able to get away with an LA+0 at that point, and maybe if
they lost a few more goodies or took an additional penalty/s? (Maybe a -2
Dexterity racial modifier?)

I think they ought to be treated as size Large, but I think that the size change
wouldn't justify an LA of +1. But if it did, then it would be a good idea to
adjust the race down a bit so it becomes LA +0.

I'm not trying to argue with you, just putting my own two cents in.

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matthias wrote:
>>> However, if they were formally Large rather than "Medium-Large",
>>> they would have those disadvantages, as well as the disadvantage of
>>> having to deal with armor sized for medium characters ....

Bradd wrote:
>> Which just about offsets the advantages of reach. What part of that
>> did you not understand the first time I said it? If you disagree,
>> explain why. More likely, you're just being your usual bonehead self.

> Are you trying deliberately to pick a fight?
>
> My entire quote: ....

It's just as stupid this time around as it was last time. Making them
fully Large would give more disadvantages, but that doesn't justify a
drop to LA +0, because they'd also get the big advantage of reach. If
you disagree, explain why, rather than repeating the same stupid,
unsupported claim.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd3mhgd.49i.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Werebat wrote:
>> Seriously, the whole [Large/Notlarge] thing sounds like some player
>> trying to weasel his way aroung getting another +1 to his character's
>> LA by dropping the parts of Large size that he isn't likely to use.
>> It's a headache for the DM, and it opens the door for many other
>> moronic "halfsies" like the "Construct/NotaConstruct" nonsense with
>> the Warforged.
>
> I especially dislike the Large/Notlarge idea because it gives up most of
> the disadvantages of being Large. The only real benefit you give up is
> reach (which is admittedly a big deal). Overall, I think the differences
> are a wash. Since the ability is a nuisance, I favor just calling them
> Large and keeping LA the same.

Personally, I think Reach *way* outbalances any disadvantages for increasing
size.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "tussock" <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:4236d892@clear.net.nz...
>
>> Or do what I did and double the number of size categories; then they'd
>>fit in neatly with Bugbears at +1 size, or would if I were to use
>>something so pointlessly stupid as a Goliath.
>
> Why pointlessly stupid? I like the race. They remind me of the Earthdawn
> Obsidimen.

Not that I've read it all that thoroughly (mechanics stink, whole
book's just too damn painful), I just feel that with all the humanoids
and giants out there already they don't need to be making up new ones
just to give us another race with the +1/2 size special (probably purely
to justify the existance of Half-Giants in the Psi book).

It's code-bloat, and it stinks up the game.

Haven't read Earthdawn; can't get into scripted fiction ever since
I found RPGs. Worldbooks OTOH ... juicy.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock wrote:
>
> Haven't read Earthdawn; can't get into scripted fiction ever since
> I found RPGs. Worldbooks OTOH ... juicy.

Earthdawn *is* an RPG.

-Bluto