Hi Celebrim mate!
Celebrim said:
Upper Krust: Throwing around numbers is probably meaningless but...
Probably, I was just rambling out loud.
Celebrim said:
Hit points are in general proportional to the cross sectional area of a creature or object.
Absolutely.
But I think you are going to have problems utilising cross-sections to determine an overall hit point total though. Hence my adoption of the square root of the mass.
Celebrim said:
Let's make some assumptions about proportional size. A big dragon snout to tail is about 120' long (about the size of the longest dinosaurs).
Let's assume that they are no more heavily built than average sauropods of that length (since they have the same genaral body plan), so a body weight of about 50 tons. Note that at 100,000 lb., my colossal dragon is only half the weight of your gargantuan one.
Well, looking at various dragon illustrations they do seem stockier than similar length sauropods. Not to mention wings; and thicker scaling.
Incidently my gargantuan dragon was 48ft. (rather than a 32ft. 'entry level' example). However, according to the Monster Manual (pg.5)
Gargantuan Creature 32,000lbs-250,000lbs
Colossal Creature 250,000+lbs
Celebrim said:
However, how do the h.p. play out? Well, lets assume for the sake of arguement that a dragon with a 40' body is as heavily built as a 50 ton scaled up human (which they wouldn't be). This implies a cross sectional area about 60 times that of a regular human. An average human takes about 14 h.p. to kill (you got to drop them to -10 remember?), so 14x62=868 h.p.
Of course a 50 ton dragon won't be as heavily built as a 50 ton human. However a 64ft. dragon will be heavier built than a 64ft. humanoid.
Remember size doesn't incorporate the tail for dragons.
Celebrim said:
That is of course a suspicious arguement because h.p. do not equal ability to absorb damage, but also the ability to avoid it.
I would argue that they shouldn't though.
Celebrim said:
Perhaps a dragons ability to avoid damage is even higher than an average humans, but for now I'll just assume that a 50 ton critter isn't dodging anything.
Okay.
Celebrim said:
Armor on the other hand scales to depth, NOT cross sectional area and certainly NOT mass.
True. Though I was factoring that heavier (and by association stronger) creatures could wear thicker armour.
Celebrim said:
(Armor scaled up to mass would quickly weigh more than the creature it protected, needing to become 8 times thicker everytime the creatures dimensions doubled). Let's assume that dragon armor is a substance like medium armor scaled up to its size and that medium armor provides a DR of about 7, then dragon hide scales up to about DR 55. In reality, it would probably have to get thinner to allow the dragon to keep moving.
You mean the gargantuan dragon right? The colossal dragon could have armour up to DR 75 (64ft. dragon)...under those rules.
Celebrim said:
A couple of other things. Bullet damage would scale directly with mass.
Provided velocity was a constant.
Celebrim said:
A bullet that is eight times heavier (all things being equal) does eight times as much damage. A 20 mm shell would riddle the above dragon, and because its massive it wouldn't even be protected (if you can call it that) by 'blow through'. A dozen 30 mm shells (a fractional burst) would probably kill it outright.
Generally the velocity of shells is reduced the larger they are.
Celebrim said:
Strength is proportional to cross sectional area, not mass.
Yes, but as I mentioned before the cross section idea doesn't translate well to RPG mechanics.
Celebrim said:
Strength doubles for every 10 points.
Actually it doubles every 5 points in 3rd Ed. if we go by lifting capacity.
Celebrim said:
So a colossal dragon in theory has about 80 STR, not 300.
Actually a Colossal Dragon should have about STR 5120 (x512 normal human strength) using the cross-sectional method. If we apply this to the current (flawed) strength table then it works out at STR 55.
Celebrim said:
Base damage for a colossal 100,000 lb. dragons attack should be around 25d6+35, with an average of about 122 damage.
Actually if we assume a constant velocity (though there would be some reduction) then the energy (base damage) is going to be proportional to the mass (not the strength).
This represents a x8 dice multiplier/x8 mass increase. That means you are looking at a 100,000lb dragon dealing x250 base medium size damage.
To sum up:
Realistically.
- Base Damage x8/Mass x8 (given constant velocity)
- Strength x4/Mass x8
- Armour x2/Mass x8 (given relative thickness of same material)
Celebrim said:
So, how do you kill a 100,000 lb. dragon? Easily! With primitive weapons? Not so easily but it still probably can be done albeit at extraordinary cost. You wouldn't use anything as clumsy as a 48' balista even if it were possible to construct such a thing (which I don't think it is personally). You see, the above dragon scaled up has eyes the size of footballs. A good archer can hit a football sized target at say, 60' yards, fairly consistantly and regularly even further out. A troop of brave men could first blind the creature, as eyes have no DR. These arrows should be poisoned. It's wings are probably equally vunerable, and could be riddled next, causing it much pain and disorientation (being blind) and ultimately tearing them enough that flight was impossible. At that point it becomes a matter of time. Of course, I'm sure it would toast archers by the scores or hundreds, but human armies can number in the thousands.
A tricky shot on a moving dragon though. Someone could always get lucky though! Of course dragons also have Blindsight...
I do like the idea of grounding it though, by attacking the wings.
If the rules were logical you could probably write an entire book on how to best fight dragons and such-like.