Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re-Inventing Size

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re-Inventing Size

    This topic is a continuation of a discussion from another thread. It has been redirected here since it is off-topic there, and because it is gaining a life of its own. To see the beginning of the conversation, please go here.

    Originally posted by IlzmerZolond
    There would be inherent Size progression.

    That inherent Size progression is structured and labelled around making it easy to use Size for the thing it would be used for in play: determining to-hit bonuses and penalties from relative Size.
    You are conflating and confusing things again. The "Size progression" I was referring to was specifically about Toughness. That was very apparent in my comment.

    Right now, the inherent Size progression is structured around Toughness, which is not the thing that the mechanic named Size is there to measure...
    :/
    It's precisely the thing Size measures. Ohh, you mean it's not the thing you think Size should measure... because "words".

    ...and which is not derived during game play outside of the specific growth or shrink powers. This is bad. This should not be done.
    Why?!
    Because you can't get past the name? Why is this hanging you up?

    This results in very clunky rules for size that are harder to remember (when you aren't being pedantic and saying "Size rules have nothing at all to do with the thing that is the literal definition of the word size!").
    That's not pedantic... it's not accurate either. Size denotes an object's mass, which often affects its physical size too. What is pedantic is wanting to change an entire game mechanic over the questionable use of a word.

    Right now, when you know "My opponent is Size +3", there is not ever a single thing that you do or that your opponent does that is +3 to something, even though rules for Size should and do cover "the size of my opponent causes certain actions to be harder or easier".
    Why does Size need an interactive quality to it? Why can't it just be a Trapping on Toughness that has other implicit---and explicit---functions?

    Size gives a general idea of how big or bulky something is, given on a logarithmic scale. Each +1 to Size generally doubles the mass of an object. You can use Size as a modifier to grapple rolls, or to determine which creature can be "swallowed whole" by a larger creature, or for any number of other subjective cases.

    Yeah, it's main function is a boost to Toughness, but that's not it's only function. It also makes it much easier to gauge a creature's abilities by a simple comparison that Toughness alone can't easily achieve.

    All it does is increase the Toughness written on his stat block, which is already written, and which could have been increased or lowered by any number of other effects. You need to remember the arbitrary threshold that 4 points of Size difference means +2/-2 to hit.
    Not all Size +4 creatures have Large, so there's nothing to remember... because "Large" would be written directly onto their statblock. That is literally the same argument you've just given for Size/Toughness, except that it's actually valid in this case.

    If your opponent is Size +3, and you are Size +0, that means you are +3 to hit them, and they are -3 to hit you. If your opponent is Size +5 and you are Size +3, you are +2 to hit them, and they are -2 to hit you.
    Okay, I'm assuming you are using your "let's pretend" scale, where "Size +1" is actually Size +2, "Size +2" is actually Size +4, and so on. Otherwise those bonuses would be wildly over powered.

    Why don't you put this into a chart for us; what would it look like if it were printed?

    Because so far I heard from you:
    1) Get rid of the current Size progression chart and just give creatures "bonus Toughness."
    2) Rename Small/Large/Huge as "Size", with a number corresponding to every two levels of the "old" chart.
    3) Assign an automatic Toughness bonus to each "Size category".
    4) Provide bonus Toughness to creatures on the upper end of their "Size category".

    Aside from the fact that 3 and 4 seem to directly contradict 1, what amount of bonus Toughness is appropriate for each category?

    Also, #2 creates issues because you are designing the new chart based off of the design philosophy of the old, while simultaneously calling it a bad design... ... ...

    By doing that you create "Size categories" that encompass a HUGE range of differently sized creatures, since each +1 of (real) Size scales logarithmically. Making it "every two Sizes", you've put gorillas and rhinos into the same category; dragons and blue whales in the same category...
    [edit] - the example above should have paired gorillas with kodiac bears. To add another example, rhinos would be in the same category as elephants. - [end edit]

    How is this more helpful than the current Size chart, which groups creatures closer to the same size/weight together?

    Deriving Toughness from Size is not done during play <snip>
    Except when it is, such as with growth/shrink.

    You could say "bulky things in a size class get +1 Toughness". You could completely throw that rule out, too, and just say "if you want to explain one of the numerous sources of bonus Toughness as being due to being bulky for your Size class, that's fine."
    So, you take issue with the to-hit bonuses being "arbitrarily" assigned (when they're really not), and your solution is to completely dismantle the Size mechanic and make it so Toughness bonuses are literally arbitrarily assigned?

    If this would alter an edge case of the Growth or Shrink powers, then change the Growth or Shrink powers, because you're writing a whole new book.
    Yeah. Go ahead and give us an example of what the power would look like under this change.

    Saying we need to hang on to the system of giving out odd numbers of Toughness due to physical size, even though there are already mechanics that model this without having to ensure Size is linked 1:1 to Toughness, is just cruft.
    Not sure what you mean by "odd numbers" when you admit there's a 1-to-1 ratio between Size and Toughness. And you seem to be confused... Size is the only mechanic in the SWD that handles Toughness increases/decreases outside of Edges and Hindrances.

    If you are referring to the SFC Race creation rules, then the only thing I would say is that Tough and Size +1 could be consolidated into a single entry, but Size itself has a legitimate reason to exist.

    I want to change a rule in order to accomplish a goal that I have explained multiple times.
    I understand your goal... I'm just trying to tell you your solution won't work.
    Last edited by Deskepticon; 06-15-2018, 04:36 AM. Reason: Grammer fixes and clarifications

  • #2
    As a quick point, you mentioned early on in that thread that Size –4 has odd implications with regards to Toughness... as it happens, the SFC has Size –4 creatures: the Psi Blocker and the Puppet Master (though their description implies sizes closer to Size –3 than –4 but I digress). A Toughness 0 character doesn’t really break anything though... a 4 on damage causes a wound, while a 1–3 doesn’t—a 50% chance with a d6 Strength character.
    My thoughts, musings, and general character adaptations on Savage Everything. Now featuring Suppressive Fire that actually works!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by DoctorBoson View Post
      As a quick point, you mentioned early on in that thread that Size –4 has odd implications with regards to Toughness... as it happens, the SFC has Size –4 creatures: the Psi Blocker and the Puppet Master (though their description implies sizes closer to Size –3 than –4 but I digress). A Toughness 0 character doesn’t really break anything though... a 4 on damage causes a wound, while a 1–3 doesn’t—a 50% chance with a d6 Strength character.
      Yeah, I thought about this later when I was compiling the mock "nu-Size" chart, with Tiny included. Thank you so much for bringing it up.

      There was one sentence from the SWD, found on page 155, that stuck out: "Normal creatures have a minimum Toughness of 2 regardless of modifiers." (emphasis mine). Basically, unless the creature has some special reason to have an exceedingly low Toughness, no amount of penalties would drop it lower than 2.

      That means that any Size -4 critter would always have Toughness 2 unless they had a Vigor of d10 or higher. Although it does seem a tad bit "cheaty", it also means that any successful attack against it is a guaranteed Shaken (unless the attacker suffers a Strength penalty and rolls snake-eyes on the damage ). Honestly, that seems like more than enough drawback to offset the "minimum Toughness" cap.

      But seeing as how the Psi Blocker has Toughness 1, I think I'm actually fine with the minimum cap being lowered to 1. The only creatures that would end up with a Toughness 1 score are those of Size -3 with a d4 Vigor, and Size -4 with a d6 or lower Vigor... and those Sizes are likely beyond the scope of most playable characters anyway.
      ___________

      As for Toughness 0, I hold some reservations as to whether it should be a thing. Suppose a character with a Strength penalty of -2 rolls double-1s... is the creature still Shaken?

      I don't know what the right answer should be. I'd rather avoid the question and put an absolute minimum Toughness cap of 1. That leaves some room for the critter to naturally shrug off the damage, however situational and statistically minute it might be.

      Comment


      • #4
        Okay, I'm assuming you are using your "let's pretend" scale, where "Size +1" is actually Size +2, "Size +2" is actually Size +4, and so on. Otherwise those bonuses would be wildly over powered.
        So I said I wanted to change the Size scale. I said that multiple times. You acknowledged I had said those words, and those words had that semantic content. The quotation you pull from is literally about changing the scale.

        And you still had to throw out "Uh, this would be totally broken with the scale we have now" as a snide, denigrating comment.

        The way that you are engaging with this subject is fundamentally dishonest and concerned entirely with springing "gotchas". I am completely uninterested in continuing this conversation with you.
        Last edited by IlzmerZolond; 06-15-2018, 01:44 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Deskepticon A line-by-line breakdown isn't helpful. It removes sentences from the context of their paragraphs, so intended meanings can be lost. You're also coming across as snarky and confrontational. That's a great way to shut down civil discourse. And it appears you're already on your way to doing so. I won't accuse you of playing the "Gotcha!" game, but you're definitely not doing yourself any favors.

          IlzmerZolond Wanting to change a mechanic you don't like is fine. I don't think anyone runs the game 100% RAW. But I do think you've bitten off more than you can chew here. Whether you meant to or not, you don't want to just change Size. There are other parts of the game which are balanced around how it works now. Your proposal means rewriting entire sections of the rules. No matter how you slice it, that's a tall order. And we're in no position to make orders of the staff. This status quo over Size has been maintained ever since...I want to say 2003 is when the first edition came out. So 15 years, give or take.

          I think there's a great deal of tension over the nomenclature being employed by the developers and what their intent actually was when the rules were written. If you'll indulge me, I'd like to quote from the original discussion.

          Originally posted by IlzmerZolond View Post
          Right now, the inherent Size progression is structured around Toughness, which is not the thing that the mechanic named Size is there to measure, and which is not derived during game play outside of the specific growth or shrink powers. This is bad. This should not be done. This results in very clunky rules for size that are harder to remember (when you aren't being pedantic and saying "Size rules have nothing at all to do with the thing that is the literal definition of the word size!").
          I took the liberty of adding emphasis because I feel this is worth addressing. The point attempting to be made here is patently false, as you can read below.

          Originally posted by Size, Savage Worlds Deluxe (Explorer's Edition) p. 154
          A creature’s size has a lot to do with how much damage it can take, so we add a modifier to its Toughness to reflect its tremendous mass. Note that a beast’s size has nothing to do with Vigor—even a mighty kraken can catch a cold or tire out.
          Size and Toughness are explicitly linked, so to say that Size isn't there to measure Toughness is an erroneous claim. It requires either fundamentally failing at reading comprehension or arrogantly claiming insight which contradicts the text as written. Regardless of whether or not anyone thinks these two mechanics ought to be linked, they are. And it's clearly intended to be that way. That being said, Size isn't just for measuring Toughness. Mass, meaning weight, also comes into consideration. This has roleplay opportunities. A person with a larger mass might have trouble fitting through certain doorways, or finding clothes which fit. This is explicitly stated in the Obese Hindrance; even though it doesn't explicitly affect Size in the core rules. Some settings do, but that's a change which isn't present in every setting. Not unlike the use of the Guts skill.

          The actual Size of a creature only comes into play under specific circumstances. The first which comes to mind is whether or not they qualify as an appropriate target for the Giant Killer Edge. And the growth/shrink power can also affect Size, as has already been stated. But by and large, Size can be ignored. It's only a statistic worth consulting because of special circumstances. Just like how characteristics like Small, Large, Huge, and even Gargantuan only come into play when relevant to what's happening at the table at that moment.

          If I had to take a stab at it, the big issue here is the disconnect with how Savage Worlds handles creature sized when compared to other games. For example, a grizzly bear and horse in D&D are both Large. Their SW equivalents are Size +2, so I can completely understand wanting to make them Large and re-scale the named abilities so as to apply a +1 modifier to hit. On the other hand, a Rhinoceros would still be both Large and Size +4. So when would Huge begin? Size +5? Size +6? Are some ranges going to become bigger than others? Or do we simply accept that the named abilities (Small/Large/Huge) operate mostly independently?

          Originally posted by IlzmerZolond
          What should happen is, when you know "My opponent is Size +3", then you know there are things that you or your opponent does that are +3. If your opponent is Size +3, and you are Size +0, that means you are +3 to hit them, and they are -3 to hit you. If your opponent is Size +5 and you are Size +3, you are +2 to hit them, and they are -2 to hit you. The math is easy to do and naturally derived instead of being an arbitrary, clunky threshold.
          Flat modifiers are incredibly powerful. If we were to adopt a strict 1:1 between Size and to-hit modifiers, then a Size +0 character will always have a +8 modifier to hit a dragon. Even at long range, that's a +4 to hit with a bow. And since they can't hide behind cover, there's no chance at missing unless there's a critical failure on the roll. in melee, you can make a called shot to ignore their armor and still have a bonus to hit. The claws and tail lash become useless, meaning the only viable weapon becomes their fire breath. That strips away a lot of the dramatic tension and makes any battle uninteresting.
          Last edited by Jounichi; 06-15-2018, 03:57 PM.

          Comment


          • #6

            IlzmerZolond I owe you a public apology.

            Jounichi was right, I was being snarky and confrontational, and perhaps a bit overzealous with the quotations. The only defense I will give is that the sentences I removed from the original text were done because I felt they just extraneous attempts to reinforce a point; so I concentrated only on the point being made. Other sentences were removed because they were clearly designed to be jabs at either myself or the game developers, and there's no need to even entertain such comments (though they were what led to the snarkiness, so I guess I'm no better in that regard).

            I did provide a link back to the original comment so other readers can see the full context, and determine for themselves if I am being dishonest.

            With that said, I hope we can both move past our use of passive aggressions and have a calm, civil discussion.

            Comment


            • #7
              In the interest of expanding this conversation, I will admit, the sudden +2 bonus to attack larger creatures can be jarring, especially given how significant fixed bonuses are.

              This has been a houserule I've seen on several other sources, but I redesigned it here to accomodate a Size chart that goes down to Size -4. It expands the Small/Large/Huge monstrous ability by adding more increments.

              Tiny: Very small creatures the size of mice or insects are quite difficult to hit. Attacks against them are made at -2.
              Small: Creatures the size of house cats or small dogs have lowerer/narrower profiles and often move erratically when excited or frightened. Attacks are made at -1.
              Average: Size of a human. No bonus or penalty to hit.
              ​​​​​​​Big: Horses, bears and similar creatures often occupy more area than a human, and are therefore slightly easier to hit. Attacks gain +1.
              ​​​​​​​Large: as RAW
              ​​​​​​​Immense: Beasts the size of an African elephant are the metaphorical "broadside of a barn." Attacks made against them are +3.
              ​​​​​​​Huge: as RAW

              The descriptions intentionally do not list any Size since they are meant to be applied independantly as needed. However, the creature examples provide enough of a cross-reference to assume that, generally, every two Sizes provide either a +1 or -1 to attacks from Average creatures.
              Last edited by Deskepticon; 06-15-2018, 08:30 PM. Reason: Premature post :P

              Comment


              • IlzmerZolond
                IlzmerZolond commented
                Editing a comment
                This thing is what I wanted the rule to be, only with an official linkage between Size and the-thing-that-the-word-Size-means. "Every two Sizes provide either a -1 of +1 to hit" --> "Why don't we just call each +1 a unit of Size."

                Size means the quality of being small, or big, or huge. A rules system where there is a quality that is called Size, and there is the quality of being small / big / huge, and these qualities are not linked, is a bad system. What does Size represent, if increasing in Size does not result in becoming bigger? Why does that quality have to be called Size?

            • #8
              I'm increasingly of the opinion that the relative size modifiers to attack are just unnecessary, and should be a distinct ability, entirely unrelated to creature size, but shouldn't be a standard thing that's added automatically. A GM might decide that smaller, agile creatures might get Dodge or Improved Dodge for free, while larger creatures have an equivalent hindrances (or just have a low Fighting in general).

              As it's written now, a decently-competent knight (Fighting d10 with a shield gets Parry 8) is in almost no danger from a dragon's claws and bite (Fighting d10-4) which is just not a good system. The same knight is attacking the dragon at Fighting d10+4 vs Parry 7, so they'll hit almost every time, and usually with a raise. The dragon is basically required to Wild Attack or attempt to knock the knight prone, which makes fights against larger creatures feel very same-y when they all have to use the same tactics to get around the size modifiers that are built into the system.
              Last edited by SteelDraco; 06-15-2018, 08:38 PM.

              Comment


              • SteelDraco
                SteelDraco commented
                Editing a comment
                Sure, but that's sort of fixing a symptom (the dragon's tail attack should be like an opposed Str vs Agility AoE knockdown power or something) instead of fixing the issue (the size rules don't work that well and make large creatures miss almost all the time).

                I'm interested in trying a game where I just ignore the Small, Large, and Huge modifiers entirely. One thing I think you'd have to include is some kind of vulnerability or called shot target on bigger creatures; I think there's some fun to be had with requiring PCs to do certain things to expose weak spots, or making them visible only after the creature uses a particularly devastating attack or something. Take some inspiration from Zelda-like boss fights.

              • Deskepticon
                Deskepticon commented
                Editing a comment
                Cinematic boss battles sounds awesome! Invulnerability coupled with a particular action that effectively suspends it until the creature recovers might be a good start.

                I'm also intrigued by the idea that the particular action might only open a vulnerability to another specific type of attack... similar to how combat in Final Fantasy XIII works.

                So a brute might deal a high physical damage attack to "create an opening" for the mage to unleash hell. But other physical attacks would be fleeting.

                This creates a challenge that encourages players to work together, playing to their characters' strengths.

              • Jounichi
                Jounichi commented
                Editing a comment
                Cinematic combat can already be simulated via the rules as written. It may take a while for me to find the link, but Clint gave an example of how the Fellowship fighting the Cave Troll in Balin's Tomb might play out. That being said, the idea currently being floated sounds like a modified Dramatic Task; or a Skill Challenge in D&D. Not necessarily a bad thing, just an observation.

            • #9
              I think we got this kind of topic lot of times, in the past...
              Actually, I like the standard Size scale, AND the +1 Toughness for every Size added.
              I don't like the +2 to be hit & -2 to hit that the bigger creatures get for every "Scale Tag" (ie. Large / Huge etc.)
              Even with the boosted Toughness, the big monsters are often less dangerous of the smaller ones, at my table. I tried (guided mostly by Zadman's calculations about the "value" of the various "SW pieces") to rebuild a table, for my games. Actually, it's working like a charm, and, even if it adds more detail that you maybe want to avoid when playing SW, in reality when you are GMing and fast-building something at your table, you can easily avoid the minor additions (skipping Intimidation bonuses, or bigger Pace etc.), and concentrate on important things, like to hit / to be hit.

              Here's the old post of mine:
              http://archive.pegforum.com/viewtopi...444627#p444627
              Last edited by Lord Lance; 07-14-2018, 04:52 AM.
              "Balance is the key, Trapping is the word." - - Lord Lance


              Proud reviser of the SAVAGE FREE BESTIARY

              Comment


              • #10
                Originally posted by IlzmerZolond View Post
                This thing is what I wanted the rule to be, only with an official linkage between Size and the-thing-that-the-word-Size-means. "Every two Sizes provide either a -1 of +1 to hit" --&amp;gt; "Why don't we just call each +1 a unit of Size."
                I understand where you're coming from. I really do. But eliminating the current Size chart creates more issues than it solves.

                First of all, Size scales logarithmically, with
                each positive point doubling mass
                ... until about Size 7, where it seems to triple mass per point. If the only chart is the one from my previous post, all this scale is thrown out the window. Determining scale becomes much more interpretive and arbitrary... and less comparative.

                There is also the legacy issue to consider. One of the things about Savage Worlds is that each new rules version is fully backwards compatable with older settings. The changes are usually minor and operate in a "plug&play" fashion (some players still use the SWEE Chase rules with everything else SWD, no problem).

                But since the Size progression chart is so instrumental to many other parts of the system, changing it affects a lot of other things. Examples include: determining a creature's/vehicle's base Toughness; limiting the number/type of mods a vehicle can have; what types of vehicles can fit in storage (i.e., garage/hangar mod); a requirement for certain Edges or abilties; and a ton of other subjective uses.
                ...Eliminating it means replacing/rewording all of these sections too. It's not something you could easily drop in or drop out like other aspects of the system.

                Size means the quality of being small, or big, or huge. A rules system where there is a quality that is called Size, and there is the quality of being small / big / huge, and these qualities are not linked, is a bad system. What does Size represent, if increasing in Size does not result in becoming bigger? Why does that quality have to be called Size?
                But that's the thing you're missing here... Size is, in fact, linked to physical size. The Size ability denotes an object's mass, and the more massive something is, the larger it tends to be. But whether or not a creature receives a bonus or penalty to attack (or to defense) is not always a product of their mass/size. That is the design philosphy behind separating the ability that provides physical size (Size) and the ability that provides a bonus/penalty to hit (S/L/H).

                Comment


                • IlzmerZolond
                  IlzmerZolond commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Why is the ability that provides a bonus/penalty to hit named after the physical quality that the word "size" denotes, if it is not related to size?

                  If every change must be fully backwards compatible, burn every single book and never look back.Any policy that says "Do not change flaws in the system if the flaws run too deep" is incontrovertibly a bad policy.

                • Deskepticon
                  Deskepticon commented
                  Editing a comment
                  IlzmerZolond Why isn't Frenzy called "Double Attack"? ...or why isn't Berserk called "Rage"?
                  ...Small/Large/Huge are those names because those are the names they are given. It's as simple as that. The names aren't important; only the mechanics matter.

                  That is the one pervasive truth about Savage Worlds: Trappings define everything. Names are just placeholders.

                  You keep claiming there is some great flaw, but every argument you've put forward stems from the choice of the name. You haven't demonstrated how Size is broken, or malfunctioning, or whatever.

                  Indeed, if there is any flaw, it's with the bonuses/penalties to hit, since Small critters end up being more dangerous than Large or Huge ones. Lord Lance linked to a thread that mostly addresses that issue. Even though I think the proposal in the thread's OP still has it's problems (for many of the same reasons I've given here), it might be something you'd be interested in.

                • IlzmerZolond
                  IlzmerZolond commented
                  Editing a comment
                  I figured I would start with "this mechanic is nonfunctional and nonsensical and the name is objectively wrong" because it was much less likely to be intentionally misread, because the mechanic is nonfunctional and nonsensical and it is self-evidently absurd to say that there is no problem with designing a game where Size and the quality of being that is denoted by the word Size have nothing to do with each other.

                  Thanks for reminding me again to never, ever, ever, ever hope for even the tiniest thing for even a second.

              • #11
                I threw together a chart that expands on Size progression. It's nothing fancy, but hopefully someone would find it helpful to their game.

                Size Chart

                I arrived at the figures based on a recent response from Clint, researching the examples provided in the SWD and SFC, and my own research into real world creatures and vehicles. Hence, some examples appear as different Sizes than they do in the official PEG products.

                Please... also use this opportunity to discuss ways the chart can be improved/corrected. I do not claim to be an authority on the matter.

                Comment


                • #12
                  It's a pretty good chart, but not quite consistent with what PEG has been putting out more recently. Two suggestions: for Mass, instead of putting an average, try simply including a range (so 25–125 lbs instead of "average 175 lbs"). It's more accurate and gives people a better idea of roughly what Size should represent. I also think it'd be a good idea to include a "humanoid height" column as well, in line with this document PEG published about Savage Rifts. The heights they've included are incredibly consistent, particularly with the SFC and SPC, so it's worth noting.

                  Another thing is that you broke the "Size doubles mass every +1 point" rule of thumb, presumably to allow the blue whale to fit into its Size +9 designation from the core rules. I think it's worth bending those a little bit, as PEG has already been doing as they've gotten a better grasp on the system—for example, Clint has pointed out that gorillas should be Size +1, NOT Size +2 as the book lists. With that in mind, Blue Whales fit quite comfortably at a Gargantuan Size +11 (average of 300,000 pounds, with Size +11 ranging from 250,000 to 500,000 pounds).

                  I have my research of Size values in a spreadsheet for personal use, but I suppose I can post it here.
                  My thoughts, musings, and general character adaptations on Savage Everything. Now featuring Suppressive Fire that actually works!

                  Comment


                  • #13
                    DoctorBoson Thank you for the suggestions. Listing the weights as an average was intentional as I anticipated/expected some overlap depending on the creature or vehicle. Although I do agree, a range would be far more accurate and far more helpful.

                    As you noted, certain creatures and vehicles have changed Sizes from the official classifications. Gorillas were placed at Size 1, orcas were demoted to Size 6, and city buses were bumped up to Size 7 to reflect their real-world masses.

                    And you certainly hit the nail on the head... I kept blue whales at Size 9 and "filled in the blank" for Size 8, which meant tripling mass per point. I wasn't happy about that decision, but it seemed neccessary. Keeping the scale consistant by doubling mass each point would have been preferrable. Your assessment of putting blue whales at Size 11 is reasonable.
                    Just a bit of an aside:
                    It's relatively safe to assume the Size 40 World Killer ship from the SFC is meant to emulate the size and mass of the Death Star. The official mass of the Death Star is 134 quadrillion tonnes. That's 134 with 15 'zeros' after it.

                    Assuming my Size chart continued tripling mass each point after Size 10, then Size 40 would amount to 93.4 quadrillion tonnes.
                    ...that's fairly close to the Death Star mass (within less than a single Size point).

                    Of course, the World Killer could always be much smaller than the DS, in which case doubling mass is still a very reasonable endeavor.

                    I'll give the chart another go with a more consistant scale and a new column for "Human Height".

                    Thank you again for the insightful input.

                    Comment


                    • DoctorBoson
                      DoctorBoson commented
                      Editing a comment
                      "It's relatively safe to assume the Size 40 World Killer ship from the SFC is meant to emulate the size and mass of the Death Star. The official mass of the Death Star is 134 quadrillion tonnes. That's 134 with 15 'zeros' after it.

                      Assuming my Size chart continued tripling mass each point after Size 10, then Size 40 would amount to 93.4 quadrillion tonnes.
                      ...that's fairly close to the Death Star mass (within less than a single Size point).

                      Of course, the World Killer could always be much smaller than the DS, in which case doubling mass is still a very reasonable endeavor."

                      This is mildly off-topic Star Wars nerd-ery, so I'll leave it in a comment instead of a reply.

                      I'm struggling to find an official mass for either the DS1 or DS2—or any Star Wars ship for that matter—but I disagree. The scaling of the SFC ships don't really support that very well; something the Size of the Death Star would be in the ballpark of Size 50–54 and isn't really a ship anymore, instead serving as a location and plot device (large enough that the Rebels didn't fight the station in ship-to-ship combat—the fought around*the station and had to Dramatic Task fire a torpedo just right to blow it up).

                      Just going off of some relatively well-known ships, the TIE fighter sits at Size 6, Y-Wings (and possibly X-Wings) sit at Size 8—not quite double the size of TIEs but larger than almost any TIE model. The Aluminum Falcon, a small freighter at least able to haul a 100 ton cargo load, is at least a Size 12, and those big Rebel transport ships is a Size 16 supply ship. The big corvette captured at the beginning of A New Hope is Size 20, and Imperial Light Cruisers from Rebels are 24. Lastly, classic Star Destroyers are Size 28 (they ARE the Empire's primary capital ship and fleet carriers/invasion vessel). Super Star Destroyers, being around 10× a Star Destroyer's size, is almost certainly NOT only 4 Sizes larger (Leviathan Class), and is much more likely to be the kind of ship that World Killers are supposed to be referring to. (The*really*big dreadnought in Ep. VIII is about 3 times larger than a SSD, so around Size 44–45, but still in the range of a World Killer ship.)

                      If you double mass every point of Size, then exactly Size 40 weighs in at a bare minimum of 60 billion tons and a maximum of 125 billion tons. Of course, ships can still be larger than their base class size, but I'd personally cap off World Killers at Size 48—a maximum of 30 trillion tons.

                    • Deskepticon
                      Deskepticon commented
                      Editing a comment
                      DoctorBoson You're right. My source for the DS mass was not an "official" source, but just a nerdy estimation. Sorry for that.

                      But you make an excellent point that the DS is not really a ship but a plot device, especially in the way it was depicted in the films. Canonically, the station is between 120 and 160 km in diameter. Comparatively, that is 24-32 times bigger than the Vorlon planet killer from Babylon 5, which admittedly is probably a better representation of what the Size 40 World Killer is.

                      Incidentally, the VPK is much shorter (about a quarter in length) than the super-class Star Destroyer, which is 18 kilometers long. However, the former is more "oval" in shape compared to the SSD's sleeker design, so they might actually be compariable in mass.

                    • Deskepticon
                      Deskepticon commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Just going off of some relatively well-known ships, the TIE fighter sits at Size 6, Y-Wings (and possibly X-Wings) sit at Size 8—not quite double the size of TIEs but larger than almost any TIE model.
                      I'm not sure if you misspoke here, but Size 8 would be 4× the mass of Size 6, since mass doubles with each additional point.

                      Judging from the dimensions of a TIE, side-by-side comparisons with humans, and a visual estimate of the amount of metal in it's construction, I think Size 6 (4-8 tons) sounds about right. But this would also be the range for X- and Y-wings as well. All our comparisons from the films show they aren't much larger than a heavy-duty truck.
                  Working...
                  X