It doesn't even seem like a straight MM translation could be a +6 (but that's being said from memory...without an MM infront of me). Could someone tell me what the stats are for the Centaur in the DLCS? I am very curious.
It worries me that it is +6...I don't know how well the ECL actually works...and I don't know how fun a +6 ECL character would actually be to play.
Shoot...practically at 2,000 XP and above it'll be useless. What fun will that be?
Edit: At least according to 3e rules it would be.
Originally posted by Brimstone
It worries me that it is +6...I don't know how well the ECL actually works...and I don't know how fun a +6 ECL character would actually be to play.
Basically, it means a centaur with 1 level in a class starts as a 7th level character. He's considered balanced to a 7th level human fighter for example. Thus ECL usually defines at which party level that race can start playing.
Originally posted by Brimstone
Yeah...but...surely that doesn't change the fact that a Centaur Sorcerer at 5,000 XP or above with a party of characters with similar amounts of XP is utterly useless.
Shoot...practically at 2,000 XP and above it'll be useless. What fun will that be?
Edit: At least according to 3e rules it would be.
Indeed, however that problem arose from the fact that almost all ECL races had no "monster HD". So even though you could have a race with spell-like abilities, big ability bonuses, lots of natural armour and cool damage had a high ECL, since it only had the hit points of a first level character the character could be killed rather easily. In 3.5 the designers themselves understand ECL and LA (Level Adjustment) a lot better and now monsters receive feats & skills just like characters (FINALLY) so now a "monster HD" is roughly equivalent to a "class HD" so don't worry. ;)
Originally posted by themeecer
Been out of the loop for a long time. What does ECL stand for angain?
Effective Character Level
Large (carry 3x normal weight) _1 to hit, -1 AC -4 hide
monsterious humanoid
space 10, reach 5
base speed: 50'
darkvision 60'
4d8 racial hit dice Max 8 for first HD and rolls rest normal. Doesn't get max HP for 1st level of character class. Also +4 base attack
+1 Fort, +4 Ref, +4 will (this is all before adding anything for class levels)
Skills 7 x (2 + Int modifier -1) these are before class skills
Listen, move, Spot and survival. They don;'t get the x4 for 1st class level for skills.
Feats: he starts with 2 feats, when figuring in new feats add his 4 HD to class level so a 1st level ranger gets feats as if he just reached 5th (no feat for 1st level that means)
Simple weapon, Martial weaposn (longsword & bow, composite longbow, shortow and composite short bow)
+3 to AC because of thick hide
natural attacks: 2 attacks with hooves for 1d6. These can be made after attacking with a weapon at -5 and adding only .5 str bonus.
Armor costs 4x and weights 2x
Languages: Human & Sylvan
Favored class: Ranger
Level Adjustment: +2 (ECL 6) 4 for centaur HD 2 for LA)
Originally posted by Slapstick_80
Plus 8 to strength? For some reason that seems a little strange to me....the minotaur only got plus 4 to strength....seems that a minotaur should be stronger than a centaur. I understand they wanted to make it ECL 0 for minotaur, but still....
The centaur has the size and the sheer bulk of its body for Strength, being Large creatures, whereas the minotaurs are not Large creatures, hence the Strength adjustments. If you boost a minotaur to Large, you'd get an additional +4 to Strength.
Christopher
I am curious which version the designers chose for the future.
Kilamar
Originally posted by Kilamar
One should note that the krynnish Centaur was always smaller, more like a Bariaur, than the standard Centaur.
I am curious which version the designers chose for the future.
Some of them were. Wendle centaurs, for example, had the bodies of ponies (and bony plates around their ribs). The other centaurs were all standard-sized for the most part.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Richard Connery
Indeed, however that problem arose from the fact that almost all ECL races had no "monster HD". So even though you could have a race with spell-like abilities, big ability bonuses, lots of natural armour and cool damage had a high ECL, since it only had the hit points of a first level character the character could be killed rather easily. In 3.5 the designers themselves understand ECL and LA (Level Adjustment) a lot better and now monsters receive feats & skills just like characters (FINALLY) so now a "monster HD" is roughly equivalent to a "class HD" so don't worry. ;)
But there's still no really effective way to have any character with an ECL of higher than +0 work well in any of the magic using classes, is there? Well...except maybe Irda. ;)
Originally posted by Americancyco
+8 Str, +4 Con, -2 Int, +2 Wis
Large (carry 3x normal weight) _1 to hit, -1 AC -4 hide
Wow...yeah...okay...that sounds like a +6 to me. LOL! Adding the monster starting HD etc. helps alot...and makes more sense.
Now...what I don't understand is...why do they get a -1 to hit...when a human sitting on a horse gets a Mounted Attack bonus?
Originally posted by Brimstone
Wow...yeah...okay...that sounds like a +6 to me. LOL! Adding the monster starting HD etc. helps alot...and makes more sense.
Now...what I don't understand is...why do they get a -1 to hit...when a human sitting on a horse gets a Mounted Attack bonus?
Because they're Large creatures, and the human on the horse is a Medium creature.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Brimstone
But there's still no really effective way to have any character with an ECL of higher than +0 work well in any of the magic using classes, is there? Well...except maybe Irda. ;)
Sure there is. If you want to play a 6th level sorcerer, you'll still be a 6th-level sorcerer even if your effective character level is 12 due to 4 racial hit dice and a +2 level adjustment. It does mean a human sorcerer with the same effective level will be a 12th level sorcerer, but if you're talking about the difference between a 6th level human sorcerer and a 6th level centaur sorcerer, the centaur's going to kick the human's magical hindquarters.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Because they're Large creatures, and the human on the horse is a Medium creature.
Cheers,
Cam
I understand their reasoning...but...doesn't it just seem odd? Now, I understand why they get the -1 AC because of size (I can even understand an attack from the horse part being a -1 to hit). But it just seems funny to me that an attack from the "human" portion (who spends his whole life "on horseback") gets a -1 to hit...while the human/elf/whatever gets a bonus to their attacks when they are sitting upon horses.
It just seems counter intuitive to me.
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Sure there is. If you want to play a 6th level sorcerer, you'll still be a 6th-level sorcerer even if your effective character level is 12 due to 4 racial hit dice and a +2 level adjustment. It does mean a human sorcerer with the same effective level will be a 12th level sorcerer, but if you're talking about the difference between a 6th level human sorcerer and a 6th level centaur sorcerer, the centaur's going to kick the human's magical hindquarters.
I'll have to take your word for it. It doesn't seem to me that the 6th Level Sorcerer would be able to hold its own against a 12th level human Sorcerer.
Maybe I should test that out with someone.
Originally posted by Brimstone
I'll have to take your word for it. It doesn't seem to me that the 6th Level Sorcerer would be able to hold its own against a 12th level human Sorcerer.
Maybe I should test that out with someone.
Do you think a Sorcerer 6/Ranger 6 can handle a Sorcerer 12? How about a Sorcerer 6/Rogue 6? This is much the same thing.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Brimstone
But it just seems funny to me that an attack from the "human" portion (who spends his whole life "on horseback") gets a -1 to hit...while the human/elf/whatever gets a bonus to their attacks when they are sitting upon horses.
Here's a question for you. Do you think a centaur's more like a human with no legs stuck permanently in the saddle of a headless horse, or do you think it's one whole creature whose brain has to handle not only the human torso and arms, but the horse's muscles, speed, and power?
Centaurs must have enormous amounts of physical strength and endurance as a whole being in order for them to be considered such. If it was more a case of somebody else doing the work of the horse, I can see why you think only the human side would need to worry about things like scale and finesse.
Cheers,
Cam
The Centaur...the part with the battle axe...is going to attack a human standing infront of him. In order to hit him...he gets a -1 to his attack because he is "Large."
The human who is sitting on a horse, making an attack from the exact same spot as the Centaur does not have that penalty when attacking a human standing infront of him. In fact, he gets bonuses.
The attack is made from the same spot...the same height...against the same sized creature...from essentially the same sized being (talking about the human torso here...since it's those arms that make the attack).
To me it seems like exactly the same attack...location wise. And on top of that...to me, it seems that the centaur should be able to make the attack more easily than the human on horseback because the centaur is controlling both equine and human parts...better control.
Correct me if I'm wrong...but doesn't the MM Centaur's attack treated like a Mounted Attack?
On the other hand, a mounted rider gets a number of benefits because he doesn't have to worry about anything but his attacks and keeping his seat. For the same reason that you don't give a hill giant a bonus to hit a human, you don't give a large creature like a centaur a bonus to hit one. Both get a penalty because they're bigger overall than the human.
So, there's an upside and a downside. Bottom line is, centaurs aren't the same as mounted riders. They're much, much tougher and meaner and hurt a lot more, even if they have to suffer a mild penalty based on size.
Cheers,
Cam
Also...I do not beleive that a centaur should be allowed to use Large Weapons like the Hill giant. The weapons a centaur is allowed to choose from freely should be exactly the same as a humans. Because the part handling the weapons is no bigger than a human.
A hill giant can use a Bastard sword with one hand. Technically...since a centaur is "Large" so can he. But I don't think he should be allowed to. He should have to take the Exoctic Weapons proficiency for Bastard Sword just like a human if he is able to do this. His hands are no bigger...his torso is no bigger...his head is no bigger than a humans...so his weaponry and attacks (made from the human half) should be no different than a humans. In my opinion.
Firstly if you have any close up experiences with even an 'average' horse these things are big creatures. Simply shaving off the top of the horse and attaching a 'normal proportioned' human body alone from the waist up would add another what, lets say two feet to something that you already have to stand ontop of an object to mount and ride the back of. This isn't even mentioning how kinda silly and unimpressive centaurs would look if the human body was proportioned 'normal'. I'd think it'd look rather silly if the torso of a guy that weighed 150 lbs normally was attached to the lower half of a horse that weighs in excess of a 1000 lbs.. They have to be proprotioned to fit the tauric half otherwise it'd just be kinda odd looking.
Secondly from a pure rules perspective, large size covers from 8' to 16' but for simplicities sake the 'weapons' themselves probably vary in appearences but are still considered 'huge sized'. (Assuming we're talking about a Hill giant's Huge Great Sword ) Consider even the difference between the 12' tall Firegiant and the 8' to 9' tall Ogre? Both are capable of using the same category of weapons even if the 12' tall Firegiant's sword can simply be Roleplayed as being 'bigger'.
Otherwise I think it'd just get to confusing with a lot of different weapon variations within the same size field no?
In most fantasy worlds and mythos, centaurs have always been portrayed as great physical specimens and majestically large beings. I don't see why folk think the Dragonlance ones are any different.
Finally DL is at it's a core a D&D world right? Being that it is, you have to probably expect some consistency with the standard rules otherwise things get a little wonky. Minotaurs only have a +4 to strength because they are medium sized creatures per the novels and game world and the rules systems for medium sized creatures. Centaurs have a +8 to strength because of the way the rules for tauric creatures work and a large size because of those same rules. (A horse is a large size creature. Again per the D20 rules)
Finally if you want a Dragonlance reference itself, forgive me as I don't know all the ins and outs but if I"m not mistkaen weren't the centaurs that they encountered in Chronicles described as being very massive creatures and furthermore didn't they ride on them? Even 'giant' humans like Caramon? There was no indication that the creatures in that appearence were anything less then massive and impressive.
Sorry for the spam but I dunno. Why nitpick on them being big? It's just being consistent with the rule systems right? Don't flame
Originally posted by Brimstone
The Centaur...the part with the battle axe...is going to attack a human standing infront of him. In order to hit him...he gets a -1 to his attack because he is "Large."
Not exactly. He gets a penalty because his target is smaller than he is. So a centaur battling another centaur (or another Large creature for that matter) wouldn't suffer any penalty because both opponents receive -1 to attacks and AC making the net zero. The same applies to humans fighting kender. Kender are a small target in the point of view of the human so they are harder to it. From the viewpoint of the kender, the human is a big target so he finds it easier to hit the human than, say, a gnome or another Small character.
The human who is sitting on a horse, making an attack from the exact same spot as the Centaur does not have that penalty when attacking a human standing infront of him. In fact, he gets bonuses.
Because the human doesn't change size just because he's elevated (in fact, as you mention he gains a bonus for being mounted). Also, to the human, the target remains the same size whether the human is mounted or on foot.
I completely understand the mechanics behind why a Large Creature gets a -1. I understand all that completely.
I was just pointing out the fact that it is weird that a human on a horse gets bonuses...when a centaur gets a penalty. Because I don't see the centaur as being some monstrous great beast. I see them as a horse without a head...and a human sized torso and arms and head in it's place. Exactly the same thing as a human on a horse in my mind.
I just thought it was strange/funny...that's all.
Christopher
Originally posted by Brimstone
I was just pointing out the fact that it is weird that a human on a horse gets bonuses...when a centaur gets a penalty. Because I don't see the centaur as being some monstrous great beast. I see them as a horse without a head...and a human sized torso and arms and head in it's place. Exactly the same thing as a human on a horse in my mind.
A regular horse also gets the penalty to attacks and AC (because it's Large) would it then make more sense for the centaur to have the same penalties?
Anyone understand mounted combat (real) well enough to explain?
Originally posted by Brimstone
I guess then...my misunderstanding is not coming from the Centaur half of the equation...but the horse/human combo half. I guess what I don't really understand is what is it about being up on a horse allows for the human to get bonuses to their attacks...obviously it must not be a height advantage (which is what I always thought it was)...otherwise...the centaur would get it too.
Anyone understand mounted combat (real) well enough to explain?
The bonus you get from being mounted comes from the fact that you are on higher ground (PH 3.0 p138, 2nd col). But wait, you can't look at it in terms of "the human part of a centaur is at the same height of the human mounted on the horse so they both should get the bonus". Instead, like the -1 penalty to Attacks and AC due to Size, it's all relative:
For a human, being mounted on a horse is an advantage over "regular circunstances" so he gets the bonus. A Centaur has been born (sorta) into that height so it's natural for him thus no specific bonus is warranted. But I'll take a look at the D&D FAQ to see if there's any mention.
P.S. I don't know how that applies to real mounted combat. I've only ridden a horse once, while on vacation.
LOL!
Anyway...you know...personally I think it would be very difficult to fight on horseback...unless you're charging. But it seems to me that melee combat would be very difficult. It's hard enough to swing a war sword around when you're standing on your own two feet. heh heh Unfortunately...I haven't seen any ancient texts/manuals on fighting on horse back (European style)...so I don't know. At least they have them for normal melee combat. :D
So far we've seen such things as how to win with the axe, how to defeat the armored knight, how to win at the demolition derby (!) and many others. It's an interesting show, since he has a team who he hands weapons to and says "learn how to fight with this" and it'll be a bec de corbin or a falchion. Worth catching if you want some better scope of understanding the typical D&D fighter's range of talents.
Cheers,
Cam
No horseback fighting though...horseback charges, yes...but no melee from horseback.Actually though...I take classes on medieval weaponry from a group called ARMA (The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts). They're trying to help make medieval fighting styles a more widely accepted form of martial arts. We use old German texts mostly (although some Italian manuals as well for the Renaissance weaponry like the rapier, and the short sword and dagger).
Mostly what we train with the the standard war sword (or Hand-and-a-Half or Bastard Sword). But we do some Two-handed sword training...both normal and half swording techniques. We also do Short Sword and Buckler, and a little bit of Short Sword and Dagger (but not much...cause it is a little dangerous). No matter how blunted the sword is, or how much padding you put on the sparring blades...thrusts are always dangerous. Which is why we focus more on the War Sword.
But we also get some exposure to the Mace and to many types of polearms and spears. And everything we use to train from are authentic texts written at the time these weapons were used. Sort of a "manual for boot camp" sort of thing.
Unfortunately...the English didn't write much down (or if they did...it's been lost)...so most of what we learn from is in German (alot of them translated of course). But the Guard positions, and the move, and the cuts, and just about anything we do...all keeps the German names...so that was interesting trying to keep that all straight. I assume it would be the same sort of thing in a karate class...having to learn the Japanese terms for everything.
Anyway...there is a website www.thearma.com. If it sounds interesting...check it out. If anyone has any questions...I'd be more than happy to answer them.
:fight!:
Originally posted by Brimstone
I suppose I'm just going to have to conceed this point. Not that I meant it to become the debate that it did....
Just fueling your LOVE for the centaur!
Anyway...you know...personally I think it would be very difficult to fight on horseback...unless you're charging. But it seems to me that melee combat would be very difficult. It's hard enough to swing a war sword around when you're standing on your own two feet. heh heh Unfortunately...I haven't seen any ancient texts/manuals on fighting on horse back (European style)...so I don't know. At least they have them for normal melee combat. :D
This quote is from George Silver's Paradoxes of Defense published in 1599 (a little too modern for regular D&D settings but still useful I think):
Scholar: Who has the advantage in fight, of a tall man, or a man of mean stature?
Master: The tall man has the vantage, for these causes(23): his reach being longer, and weapon unto his stature accordingly, he has thereby a shorter course with his feet to win the true place, wherein by the swift motion of his hand, he may strike or thrust home, in which time a man of mean stature cannot reach him, & by his large pace, in his true pace in his regression further, sets himself out of danger, & these are the vantages that a tall man has against any man of shorter reach than himself.
Scholar: What vantage has a man of mean stature against a tall man?
Master: He has none: because the true times in fight, and actions accordingly, are to be observed and done, as well by a tall man, as by a man of mean stature.
It stands to reason that if a taller man has the advantage, a mounted man an even greater advantage has (ooookay, talking like Yoda now
). I can see your concerns though as it must feel a bit awkward to swing a sword trying not to hit your mount accidentally. I'd guess mounted swordsman would favour brute force over precision. This may seem paradoxal but if you just slash downwards you sacrifice percision but avoid hitting your mount. So while it may take more hits to down an opponent on foot it's still highly effective.Having said that, I think the best weapons for mounted fighters would be bludgeoning weapons or long reach piercing weapons perfect for thrusts while charging (as you mention). If a mounted person is only using downward slashes with his sword why not use a mace instead which is perfect such a brute force approach?
Originally posted by Richard Connery
I can see your concerns though as it must feel a bit awkward to swing a sword trying not to hit your mount accidentally.
Well, don't most mounted fighters always turn their horses sideways making them perpendicular to their oppenent? That's what I've always thought and seen. The mounted fighters have to turn their body to whatever side their sword-arm is. If I use my right hand to use a sword I have to turn my body to the right. It would seem to me this would put them in a disadvantage (by exposing themselves and limiting mobility) to a centaur that doesn't have to turn to either side. But I came late in this discussion....and I'll leave it in more capable hands
Originally posted by Richard Connery
It stands to reason that if a taller man has the advantage, a mounted man an even greater advantage has (ooookay, talking like Yoda now
Okay...here it comes:
Exactly! So why is it that a Large creature doesn't have an advantage over a smaller creature? If the taller man always has the advantage? You say the bigger you are the slower and vice versa maybe? Well...I think that should be taken care of with the DEX and STR ability scores. It doesn't make sense to penalize AC or Base Attack strictly on size alone. I've thought it was a bad idea from the get go. It should all be reflected in their Ability scores...and only there. (except maybe the Hide Penalty) An Ogre should never be allowed to have a Dex higher than 16 (shoot...maybe even 14). So right there...that takes care of his size difference with a -2 to his AC already than what he would normally have had.
I know...I way off on my own here...but that's just the way I see it.
P.S. And yes...I would tend to agree that a bludgeoning weapon would probably be the best from a horse....especially a Morningstar...or even better yet a...uh...what do you call a Morningstar with the spiked ball attached to a chain instead of the end of the handle?
Originally posted by Brimstone
What do you call a Morningstar with the spiked ball attached to a chain instead of the end of the handle?
The horseman's flail, or the mace and chain, or the holy water sprinkler.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Brimstone
Exactly! So why is it that a Large creature doesn't have an advantage over a smaller creature?
I know...I way off on my own here...but that's just the way I see it.
Your original argument (as I understood it) was that centaurs shouldn't have that penalty because they were human-like even though they were large. Now you're talking about the penalties to attacks & AC based on size categories (for all creatures, not just centaurs). In this respect you are not alone as I also think it's not as clear cut as the D&D rules stipulate. But I accept it as a game rule that doesn't try to simulate reality too closely and I can certainly see how the tallest man on earth would have difficult hiting the shortest man on earth (or women or whatever you put here to make your post politically correct).
P.S. And yes...I would tend to agree that a bludgeoning weapon would probably be the best from a horse....especially a Morningstar...or even better yet a...uh...what do you call a Morningstar with the spiked ball attached to a chain instead of the end of the handle?
The flail? Sure, I could see it, but again, I think the risk of hitting your mount increases as your moves now include swinging a chain; an activity I find dangerously random (but I'm not an expert so what do I know?
)Originally posted by Richard Connery
Your original argument (as I understood it) was that centaurs shouldn't have that penalty because they were human-like even though they were large. Now you're talking about the penalties to attacks & AC based on size categories (for all creatures, not just centaurs). In this respect you are not alone as I also think it's not as clear cut as the D&D rules stipulate. But I accept it as a game rule that doesn't try to simulate reality too closely and I can certainly see how the tallest man on earth would have difficult hiting the shortest man on earth (or women or whatever you put here to make your post politically correct).
Yes...well...my original statement was just about Centaurs.
This was just a second, new, observation.
I did forget to mention though that the info from that 16th Century book definately seems (to my interpretation anyway) to support the idea that a human on horseback...the only reason for a "bonus" is because of the height advantage. Meaning...the Centaur should get it too. Anyway...the other part (about Size classes in general) was just a new thing. Example: I don't have a hard time hitting a fly because it's smaller than me. I have ahard time hitting a fly because it is a shirtload faster than me.
Anyway...yeah...stupid example. 
But, you're probably right...it would most likely get way to complicated to make all the ability scores absolute. It makes things simpler to make them relative instead. Ah well...
Originally posted by Richard Connery
The flail? Sure, I could see it, but again, I think the risk of hitting your mount increases as your moves now include swinging a chain; an activity I find dangerously random (but I'm not an expert so what do I know?
The Flail! Right. Well...I too am not very skilled with it (we rarely ever use it)...but from what I understand...to someone who is skilled with it...it is fairly easy to controll. So...a flail combined with a horse's speed...whoa. That seems like a very damaging weapon.
Originally posted by Cam Banks
...or the holy water sprinkler.
I don't think I even want to know......
Originally posted by Slapstick_80
Well, don't most mounted fighters always turn their horses sideways making them perpendicular to their oppenent? That's what I've always thought and seen. The mounted fighters have to turn their body to whatever side their sword-arm is. If I use my right hand to use a sword I have to turn my body to the right. It would seem to me this would put them in a disadvantage (by exposing themselves and limiting mobility) to a centaur that doesn't have to turn to either side. But I came late in this discussion....and I'll leave it in more capable hands
There are two points I'd like to address here, firstly is that thrusting with a sword is pretty much negated when mounted on a horse. The sword (longsword at least) just doesn't have enough reach for you to use a thrust move (aside from charging). With this in mind the most effective slashing move is horizontal to your opponent (or slightly slanted in the case of sharp weapons such as the katana) so when you're mounted, slashing horizontally is very hard to do (again, unless you're charging - but then, timing becomes the problem) not to mention that you risk cutting off your horse's head or hind legs in the process thus slashing downward, while not very effective, prevents all but the most inept swordsman from hitting his mount.
The other point is perpendiculary facing your opponent. While this would simplify any horizontal slashing moves there's still the risk of hitting the mount and there is a (very) compelling reason not to do that: it makes you less protected from your opponent (at least your leg). However, that is an interesting move and I'm pretty sure it would be used at least sometimes, for instance, if you hide "behind" your mount, your opponent might be tempted to hit the horse pinning you down when the horse colapses and your foot is caught in the strappings. If you're sideways your opponent is more likely to target you instead, thereby keeping you on the elevated position thus ultimately benefiting you.
Originally posted by Brimstone
This was just a second, new, observation.
Hmm heh, true. Okay, I give up! :D
Anyway...the other part (about Size classes in general) was just a new thing. Example: I don't have a hard time hitting a fly because it's smaller than me. I have ahard time hitting a fly because it is a shirtload faster than me.
Good example, however, the fly is faster because it's smaller, thus lighter thus faster, so ultimately you have a hard time hitting it because the fly is much smaller than you. Another example would be trying to hit a bullseye (Small) and trying to hit the broad side of a barn (Huge). It's easier to hit the barn because it gets a AC penalty of -4 (or whatever) from Size while the bullseye gets a +1 bonus to AC (or whatever) from Size.
Originally posted by Richard Connery
Another example would be trying to hit a bullseye (Small) and trying to hit the broad side of a barn (Huge). It's easier to hit the barn because it gets a AC penalty of -4 (or whatever) from Size while the bullseye gets a +1 bonus to AC (or whatever) from Size.
D'oh!
Yep...I'll conceede that point.
Originally posted by Brimstone
Anyway...the other part (about Size classes in general) was just a new thing. Example: I don't have a hard time hitting a fly because it's smaller than me. I have ahard time hitting a fly because it is a shirtload faster than me.
Not at all. But it's still the size of the fly that matters. ;) The fly as a Fine-sized creature gets an AC modifier of +8. However, like your average fine-sized creature it likely has a speed of 20 feet, and we will make the conceit that it's pretty spry fast-moving fine creature, bumping its speed up to 30 feet. You as a Medium-sized DL Fan, have a speed of 30. Relative to the fly, you seem slower than it, even though your total average sped in a given round is the same as the fly's. It has the same movement potential as you, but the most significant varying factor in the equation is its size, which ultimately is what puts you at the disadvantage.
And yes, one could rule that the height advantage applies to centaurs and other creatures, but there's a certain point where we all need to take a deep breath and step back to say, "This is only a game that makes conceits to simulate reality in an easy-to-learn and approachable fashion." Having "height advantage charts" to apply strictly to creatures based upon their exact height would be tedious, especially since at a certain point that height advantage still becomes relative. A difference of one or tow feet could be significant for creatures that were around human size, but once you get up into numbers of about 50 feet tall or more, does three feet really matter? Ultimately this is exactly what the size bonuses/penalties represent in a more relaxed manner.