Falling Prone

[Crimson King]

I did a search, and didn't find an answer to my question.

But what benefit is falling prone? FRED-Revised says you lose half your DCV, but you may gain bonuses due to concealment.

In a game I ran recently, a pc dropped prone and fired on an NPC 8" away (who was standing). The PC did not drop behind anything - there was no wall or other opportunities for concealment. So does the PC just simply lose half their DCV with no other benefit? Or, because just their 'head and shoulders' are showing, they get a bonus of +4? How does this work in a campaign that uses Hit Locations?

[Supreme Serpent]

If it's still included, you could count them as "Braced" for their own shooting purposes.

[Sean Waters]

I THINK the rule used to be that dropping prone halved your DCV for attacks launched from adjacent hexes, but not against ranged attacks at greater distance, when you got cover bonuses instead. Something like that. Not a bad rule.

I Like MitchellS's analysis of the perils of flying attackers: I suppose most flying blasters rarely attack from diretly above, but the above rule could deal with that, I suppose: if a prone target is in an adjacent hex, IGNORING THE HEIGHT COMPONENT, then they get half DCV, otherise cover bonuses apply.

[Dust Raven]

I kinda use a funky combination of what the others have suggested.

If you are prone, you lose mobility, so your DCV is halved versus all attacks. If you want to attack while prone using a ranged attack, you can count yourself as being Braced unless the GM feels this is innappropriate.

If attacked while prone, the attacker may have an OCV penalty based on how far away he is and how much elevation he his. Generaly I give a -1 put hex away from the target up to a max of -4, starting with -0 for the Adjacent hex. These penalties may be modified based on the attacker's height.

I'll to the same for attacker striking from above on a target that is standing. They'll receive an OCV penalty as above, but only at half value (unless the target is flush against something blocking some angles of fire). The target still get's his full DCV against such attacks though and is not considered prone.

[prestidigitator]

If the character is doing it on purpose to get cover, I give them 1/2 DCV, but limited cover against ranged attacks from attackers that are at least 4" away (where the Range Penalty starts to kick in). I believe I usually call it half covered. I increase this if there is clutter about (furniture, varying elevations, vegetation, etc.). I don't give a cover bonus (or give a lesser one based upon terrain only) if the character did not go prone on purpose (was Knocked Down/Back, suffered a Move Through, executed a Dive for Cover, etc.).

Otherwise, I consider being prone to be a serious disadvantage, and impose major penalties. If you make a HTH attack against someone, you get the same penalty as if you are using a much smaller weapon than them (-1 to -3). PSLs that apply to using a smaller weapon (which I tend to give to martial artists) apply. You are 1/2 DCV against all attacks. That's not to say that a clever character can't take advantage of the situation to make a surprise attack, use Acrobatics, etc., but it is the way I handle it in general.

For flying characters, I tend to ignore effects of elevation on target profile, except in extreme circumstances. I figure a flying character has enough maneuverability and space to move that any such bonus can be negated. I would probably negate any ranged cover bonus based only on being prone against flying attackers as well, but I don't think I've ever had the situation arise.

Just the way I do it, and pretty much for Heroic games; for Superheroic ones, I tend to just go with the explicit, simple rules.

[RDU Neil]

Prone is one of the faults in the game system that will need to be address at some point. The problem is that in a game where you have 180 degrees of fighting perspective there is no way to decide what type of advantage you gain from prone. In the real world a soldier falls flat and becomes harder to hit because he does not need to worry about dealing with attackers flying above him. If you use real logic then flyers would always take minuses to hit standing people because they would appear prone to them. This is like smaller people being hard to hit and larger being easier, but shrinking gives no plusses to OCV against normals and growth gives no minuses to OCV against normals. For some things in the game you must just err on the side of simplicity.

And to continue on this point... not have read 5th Cover to Cover... I'm assuming there is still no "relative modifiers" in Hero?

i.e. Smaller character gets relative OCV bonuses against a larger target? Smaller target gets increased difficults vs. range? Range should be "relative size to relative size" in fact. Smaller attacker has increased range dificulty modifiers because distance is now "farther" for them in a relative state.

These things are NOT a part of Hero... correct?

Just checking.

[prestidigitator]

And to continue on this point... not have read 5th Cover to Cover... I'm assuming there is still no "relative modifiers" in Hero?

i.e. Smaller character gets relative OCV bonuses against a larger target? Smaller target gets increased difficults vs. range? Range should be "relative size to relative size" in fact. Smaller attacker has increased range dificulty modifiers because distance is now "farther" for them in a relative state.

These things are NOT a part of Hero... correct?

Just checking.
Correct...except that the DCV bonuses or penalties due to a character's Growth or Shrinking (respectively) are canceled by similar levels an opponent has.

For example: if Arkaba has -6 DCV due to Growth and Beornewit has -2 DCV due to Growth, then Arkaba's DCV is only at -4 to Beornewit, and Beornewit's DCV is not penalized vs. Arkaba--though he has no bonus either.

If Cornwagon has +4 DCV due to Shrinking, and Dladidus has +2 DCV due to Shrinking, then Cornwagon has only a +2 DCV to Dladidus, and Dladidus gains no DCV bonus vs. Cornwagon--but suffers no penalty either.

Actually, I don't believe Range Penalties should be relative to your size. These are based on how much solid angle a target takes up, and that goes down with r^2 no matter your size (remember that a -1 is supposed to mean hitting a target is, "twice as difficult"). I guess you could argue that the first distance of 4" could change, but in the real world smaller creatures (except perhaps in very extreme cases or differences in anatomy--e.g. mammals vs. insects) tend to compensate with larger eye size (relative to body), etc. It is a little analogous to the fact that most creatures, regardless of size, can jump about the same height (total height, that is, not relative height); at least to an order or magnitude.

[RDU Neil]

Correct...except that the DCV bonuses or penalties due to a character's Growth or Shrinking (respectively) are canceled by similar levels an opponent has.

For example: if Arkaba has -6 DCV due to Growth and Beornewit has -2 DCV due to Growth, then Arkaba's DCV is only at -4 to Beornewit, and Beornewit's DCV is not penalized vs. Arkaba--though he has no bonus either.

If Cornwagon has +4 DCV due to Shrinking, and Dladidus has +2 DCV due to Shrinking, then Cornwagon has only a +2 DCV to Dladidus, and Dladidus gains no DCV bonus vs. Cornwagon--but suffers no penalty either.

Actually, I don't believe Range Penalties should be relative to your size. These are based on how much solid angle a target takes up, and that goes down with r^2 no matter your size (remember that a -1 is supposed to mean hitting a target is, "twice as difficult"). I guess you could argue that the first distance of 4" could change, but in the real world smaller creatures (except perhaps in very extreme cases or differences in anatomy--e.g. mammals vs. insects) tend to compensate with larger eye size (relative to body), etc. It is a little analogous to the fact that most creatures, regardless of size, can jump about the same height (total height, that is, not relative height); at least to an order or magnitude.

So you are saying that a Squirrel Badguy, with a squirrel gun, shoots his squirrel bullet, and is off a degree of aim against a squirrel target... and a Man badguy, standing in the same place, with a man gun, shooting a man bullet... with the same degree of bad aim... at a man sized target "the same distance away" and the squirrel won't miss by MORE than the man, if otherwise equal?

I'm not mathematician, but it seems to me that 10 feet separating two six foot oponents is much less an obstacle to accurate shots than 10 feet seperating two six INCH opponents. The actual distance is the same... the relative distance is almost a magnitude of 8. Assuming the same relative size change in the eyes, gun size, bullet size, etc.

Something non-intuitive about that.

[prestidigitator]

So you are saying that a Squirrel Badguy, with a squirrel gun, shoots his squirrel bullet, and is off a degree of aim against a squirrel target... and a Man badguy, standing in the same place, with a man gun, shooting a man bullet... with the same degree of bad aim... at a man sized target "the same distance away" and the squirrel won't miss by MORE than the man, if otherwise equal?

I'm not mathematician, but it seems to me that 10 feet separating two six foot oponents is much less an obstacle to accurate shots than 10 feet seperating two six INCH opponents. The actual distance is the same... the relative distance is almost a magnitude of 8. Assuming the same relative size change in the eyes, gun size, bullet size, etc.

Something non-intuitive about that.
Actually, the man shooter would be more likely to hit because his target is bigger (and thus occupies a larger solid angle: 35 degrees by whatever width, vs. about 3 degrees by whatever width for the squirrel target). But the squirrel shooter, if shooting at the man target from the same distance, would have the same chance to hit as the man shooter.

[Dust Raven]

And to continue on this point... not have read 5th Cover to Cover... I'm assuming there is still no "relative modifiers" in Hero?

i.e. Smaller character gets relative OCV bonuses against a larger target? Smaller target gets increased difficults vs. range? Range should be "relative size to relative size" in fact. Smaller attacker has increased range dificulty modifiers because distance is now "farther" for them in a relative state.

These things are NOT a part of Hero... correct?

Just checking.
The whole relative size thing was done best by GURPS of all games. Certainly not the most flexible game, but it did have some good rules. The Range/Speed/Size modifiers were good. it basically combined the range, speed and size of a target into a single modifier. The logic behind it was that a target X tall moving at Y speed at a range of Z would be just as easy (or difficult) to hit as a target 2X tall moving at a speed of 2Y at a range of 2Z. And it didn't matter how big the attacker was. I haven't found a way to convert this rule to Hero yet though while keeping the same feel as the current rules.

[RDU Neil]

Actually, the man shooter would be more likely to hit because his target is bigger (and thus occupies a larger solid angle: 35 degrees by whatever width, vs. about 3 degrees by whatever width for the squirrel target). But the squirrel shooter, if shooting at the man target from the same distance, would have the same chance to hit as the man shooter.

So the size of the "target" does matter... not the size of the "shooter."

That makes sense. I must have misread you earlier.

[RDU Neil]

The whole relative size thing was done best by GURPS of all games. Certainly not the most flexible game, but it did have some good rules. The Range/Speed/Size modifiers were good. it basically combined the range, speed and size of a target into a single modifier. The logic behind it was that a target X tall moving at Y speed at a range of Z would be just as easy (or difficult) to hit as a target X/2 tall moving at a speed of 2Y at a range of 2Z. And it didn't matter how big the attacker was. I haven't found a way to convert this rule to Hero yet though while keeping the same feel as the current rules.

Ok... now I'm really confused.

A target that is half the size, moving twice as fast and twice as far away... is just as easy to hit?

I must be reading that wrong. What am I missing?

[Dust Raven]

Ok... now I'm really confused.

A target that is half the size, moving twice as fast and twice as far away... is just as easy to hit?

I must be reading that wrong. What am I missing?

Sorry, massive type. Target twice as fast, twice as far away and twice as large. I'll edit my previous post.

[prestidigitator]

The whole relative size thing was done best by GURPS of all games. Certainly not the most flexible game, but it did have some good rules. The Range/Speed/Size modifiers were good. it basically combined the range, speed and size of a target into a single modifier. The logic behind it was that a target X tall moving at Y speed at a range of Z would be just as easy (or difficult) to hit as a target 2X tall moving at a speed of 2Y at a range of 2Z. And it didn't matter how big the attacker was. I haven't found a way to convert this rule to Hero yet though while keeping the same feel as the current rules.
Interesting. Hero does cover this in a way, since a target that is twice the height has a -2 DCV, but a target twice as far away imposes a -2 OCV. The two balance. The things that aren't handled well by the rules are:
The relative size thing is stupid; if a target is twice as big, it is four times easier to hit, no matter the size of the attacker (and vice versa for small targets).
Penalties due to movement, and how they are affected by distance and the direction of movement. A target moving toward or away from you is easier to hit than a target moving perpendicular to the line between you (though it may depend a bit on the trajectory of the attack--one with greater initial velocity and thus less curviture in its path makes a change in distance less of a factor, so an attacker with a gun cares less than an attacker with a bow). Also, targets with the same velocity have smaller angular velocity if farther away, making them easier to hit (since the attacker has to account for the target's movement with less/slower change in aim).

[RDU Neil]

Interesting. Hero does cover this in a way, since a target that is twice the height has a -2 DCV, but a target twice as far away imposes a -2 OCV. The two balance. The things that aren't handled well by the rules are:
The relative size thing is stupid; if a target is twice as big, it is four times easier to hit, no matter the size of the attacker (and vice versa for small targets).

But what is "bigger" if it isn't relative? That is my question. Four times "Bigger" is relative to SOMETHING. (Not trying to be a smart ass, I just don't get this.)


Penalties due to movement, and how they are affected by distance and the direction of movement. A target moving toward or away from you is easier to hit than a target moving perpendicular to the line between you (though it may depend a bit on the trajectory of the attack--one with greater initial velocity and thus less curviture in its path makes a change in distance less of a factor, so an attacker with a gun cares less than an attacker with a bow). Also, targets with the same velocity have smaller angular velocity if farther away, making them easier to hit (since the attacker has to account for the target's movement with less/slower change in aim).

So why can't Hero just say,
Relative movement:
1. GM should factor in the following: Moving toward or away from shooter is easier to hit than moving perpendicular. Plusses or minuses as the GM sees fit.
2. Range combat with an "arc" or curviture to it's path should suffer greater penalties at range than attacks without an "arc." Minuses for "arc" attacks as the GM sees fit.

These are guidelines. They don't have to have a bunch of math or hard numbers attached to them, they just help the GM who wants to throw out the occasional "You've got a +2 'cause the idiot is charging right at you!" or "You've got a -3, because they are moving at perpendicular, and you are using a bow."

Done.

I do this all the time. What I see as the beauty of Hero is that it says, "GM adds plusses and minuses as needed due to difficulty." NOT some kind of perfect mathematical formula to calculate all this stuff. Just that all the "real world physics" stuff can be reduced to a simple "+1" or "-2" when and if the GM feels it is appropriate. Handwave it and call it "close enough."

(Granted this is role playing... not war gaming. It is flavor affecting combat, rather than hard mechanics which a player can use to calculate the utmost efficient attack at any one point in the game. It could very well be a play style issue here... but this, IMO, is the perfect example of what I mean by "role playing combat" vs. "war gaming combat.")

[prestidigitator]

But what is "bigger" if it isn't relative? That is my question. Four times "Bigger" is relative to SOMETHING. (Not trying to be a smart ass, I just don't get this.)
Why, relative to the ease with which you can hit a man-sized opponent, of course.

Of course, I guess there are other aspects of size that might figure in: clumsiness, eyes that are farther from hands, a longer path for the nerve impulses to travel, greater divergence if error is relative to body size rather than angle (HTH attacks, where motor control is as important as perception?), etc., but it seems like it should be a different mechanic, such as reduced Dex if appropriate for the character concept. If you really want to include those factors into the combat system itself, I would say it is best just to impose the same modifier to OCV as DCV (:gasp: like D&D 3.5, I am shocked to say), instead of doing the whole comparison of Growth levels or Shrinking levels. I guess you could also figure in the attacker's height to determine how far away a target is; someone who is one hex away on a map to a 4-hex-tall attacker is really more like 3-4 hexes away from the attacker's sensory organs, though you can argue that the attacker could easily bend over. Eh.


So why can't Hero just say,
Relative movement:
1. GM should factor in the following: Moving toward or away from shooter is easier to hit than moving perpendicular. Plusses or minuses as the GM sees fit.
2. Range combat with an "arc" or curviture to it's path should suffer greater penalties at range than attacks without an "arc." Minuses for "arc" attacks as the GM sees fit.

These are guidelines. They don't have to have a bunch of math or hard numbers attached to them, they just help the GM who wants to throw out the occasional "You've got a +2 'cause the idiot is charging right at you!" or "You've got a -3, because they are moving at perpendicular, and you are using a bow."

Done.

I do this all the time. What I see as the beauty of Hero is that it says, "GM adds plusses and minuses as needed due to difficulty." NOT some kind of perfect mathematical formula to calculate all this stuff. Just that all the "real world physics" stuff can be reduced to a simple "+1" or "-2" when and if the GM feels it is appropriate. Handwave it and call it "close enough."

(Granted this is role playing... not war gaming. It is flavor affecting combat, rather than hard mechanics which a player can use to calculate the utmost efficient attack at any one point in the game. It could very well be a play style issue here... but this, IMO, is the perfect example of what I mean by "role playing combat" vs. "war gaming combat.")
Oh, you can, and I do. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this at all. I'm certainly not saying we should try to turn it into a wargame! What I am saying is that Hero does try to do some modification of the hit roll based on movement (at least in extreme cases), and in comparison to the simple system Dust Raven mentioned (at least the aspect of it he described), it does fall a little short. It could probably be remidied decently well by a simple subtraction of the Range Penalty from Movement-Based DCV. I don't think this is a necessary modification, but it might be a nice optional rule.

EDIT: Of course, sutracting the Range Penalty from Velocity-Based DCV and then from OCV as well feels a little like treading water, but it can matter in some cases (like for Missile Deflection).

[Dust Raven]

Just a wandering thought here, but...

What if we changed all of the size related DCV modifiers into OCV modifiers, make it the same way PER Rolls work. It would immediately solve the problem of a 30 foot giant with a 10 DEX and a 60 foot giant with a 10 DEX having the same DCV (which can't drop below 0), and make the smaller target harder to hit (if only by a little).

[Dust Raven]

Another random thought...

About the equivilant size thing... The concept of the target and the attacker are the same size there is no special bonus or penalty thing. I can see where D&D got it, but wouldn't it only apply in HTH combat, and not in ranged combat at all? I mean, if you took two humans and shrunk them to a fourth their size and they tried to punch each other, they shouldn't suddenly find each other more difficult to hit. Same thing with suddenly becoming larger; they should find each other easier to hit. But when range comes into play, everything is scaled. If the two humans were 4 hexes away from each other when they were shrunk, they'd seem to be 16 hexes apart (a -4 penalty, which probably not coincedentally is the same DCV bonus to being a fouth human size). The reverse happens when they get larger. It's only in HTH combat that these penalties or bonuses probably should't apply... so why do they?

[prestidigitator]

Just a wandering thought here, but...

What if we changed all of the size related DCV modifiers into OCV modifiers, make it the same way PER Rolls work. It would immediately solve the problem of a 30 foot giant with a 10 DEX and a 60 foot giant with a 10 DEX having the same DCV (which can't drop below 0), and make the smaller target harder to hit (if only by a little).
I like that! One modifier for opponents' Pers and OCVs. Why not?

[prestidigitator]

Another random thought...

About the equivilant size thing... The concept of the target and the attacker are the same size there is no special bonus or penalty thing. I can see where D&D got it, but wouldn't it only apply in HTH combat, and not in ranged combat at all? I mean, if you took two humans and shrunk them to a fourth their size and they tried to punch each other, they shouldn't suddenly find each other more difficult to hit. Same thing with suddenly becoming larger; they should find each other easier to hit. But when range comes into play, everything is scaled. If the two humans were 4 hexes away from each other when they were shrunk, they'd seem to be 16 hexes apart (a -4 penalty, which probably not coincedentally is the same DCV bonus to being a fouth human size). The reverse happens when they get larger. It's only in HTH combat that these penalties or bonuses probably should't apply... so why do they?
I think you hit it, in that size is all wrapped up with range, even in HTH combat. If two opponents are both four times taller than normal, they should each have a "-4 DCV", but in reality they will be fighting each other from four times the distance as well, even in HTH (you are still going to keep your opponent at arm's reach, right?). I think the solution might be to apply Range Penalties to HTH combat, but start with the first (non-penalty) distance at 1", rather than 4" (i.e. -0 OCV out to 1", -2 OCV out to 2", -4 OCV out to 4", etc.). This could apply to reach due to Growth, Stretching, and any other potential way you could make a HTH with reach. Of course, fighting an opponent that is significantly within your reach shouldn't really be easier than at your full reach, as in-fighting is more awkward unless you are really trained at it (which could be handled with CSLs, and I guess this doesn't apply to Stretching as you can just un-Stretch, right?). Hmm. With that in mind, I guess I am really in favor of giving larger creatures the same OCV penalty as their DCV penalty for HTH combat (or as an opponent's OCV bonus, if we go that way).

Unfortunately, we don't have a great way to do this with Shrinking, because opponents who are shrunk are assumed to still be fighting from 1" away. I guess you could assume that a small character is in fact within the same hex, and in fact within its own reach of an opponent as soon as it attacks. I suppose you could propose a HTH "bonus" when opponents are closer to you as well (as long as they aren't inside your reach, as I state above). Again, all of this could be approximated by applying the attacker's DCV bonus to OCV in HTH combat as well.

You are very right, though, that this should not apply to Ranged combat, as the Range Penalty takes care of it automatically.

[prestidigitator]

So here is the way I think it should be handled for Growth and naturally larger creatures (if they really must be bought without Persistent Growth :rolleyes: ):

Each 3 levels of Growth gives you:
x8 mass
x2 reach
+2 to opponents' Per rolls
+2 to opponents' OCVs
-2 OCV in HTH combat
... (all the cumulative stuff you get from three single levels of Growth/size)
For Shrinking and naturally smaller creatures (same comment about Persistent Shrinking):

Each level of Shrinking gives you:
x1/8 mass
-2 to opponents' Per rolls (can be simulated by 3-point SLs in Concealment, Stealth, and Shadowing, but this is the actual mechanic).
-2 to opponents' OCVs (can be simulated with DCV levels, but this is the actual mechanic).
+2 OCV in HTH combat

[Glupii]

I just had this happen to me last night in a game I was running. So I have been pondering it all day. Funny that I should find this tread for the first time, today. :)

Here is the house rule I think I am going to go with.

If a person is prone:

He is half OCV for using a Melee weapon while prone.

If he is using a ranged attack he gets the benefit of being braced.

For attacks against a prone person:

Against Melee Attacks he is 1/2 DCV

Against Ranged attacks from an adjacent hex, he is 1/2 dcv

Against Ranged attacks from greater range than adjacent, He is still at 1/2 dcv, but all range modifiers count at half their range. In addition, the penalties increase at a rate of 3 instead of 2. So instead of -2 at 4 hexes, -4 at 8 hexes and so on, it would be -2 at 2 hexes, -5 at 4, -8 at 8hexes, etc. I think this would simulate how much harder it is to target someone prone on the ground at range.

Obviously someone flying over them has normal range modifiers apply. And if they fall prone due to being below 0 Stun, well then all bets are off. :)

What do you guys think?

[RDU Neil]

The problem is, that while your method is logical and correct, it makes characters with growth useless in combat.

My character has 9 levels of growth for 45 points and takes -6 to hit and +6 to be hit by Joe Normal [the equivalent of -60 points of powers due to skills for 48 points of effect gained].

Your character has 4 levels of shrinking for 40 points and gets +8 to hit and +8 to dcv against Joe Normal [the equivalent of 80 points of levels for only a double knockback limitation].

Growth becomes nearly a disadvantage to a character and shrinking grants 20 point of effect for each 10 points spent.

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm not a math meister, but I was thinking this was the case.

I still don't quite get why being smaller makes you better at HtH combat. The smaller guy almost ALWAYS loses to the bigger guy in real life hand to hand... why should the game reflect something so different?

[Dust Raven]

So here is the way I think it should be handled for Growth and naturally larger creatures (if they really must be bought without Persistent Growth :rolleyes: ):
Each 3 levels of Growth gives you:


x8 mass
x2 reach
+2 to opponents' Per rolls
+2 to opponents' OCVs
-2 OCV in HTH combat
... (all the cumulative stuff you get from three single levels of Growth/size)

For Shrinking and naturally smaller creatures (same comment about Persistent Shrinking):
Each level of Shrinking gives you:


x1/8 mass
-2 to opponents' Per rolls (can be simulated by 3-point SLs in Concealment, Stealth, and Shadowing, but this is the actual mechanic).
-2 to opponents' OCVs (can be simulated with DCV levels, but this is the actual mechanic).
+2 OCV in HTH combat

That looks pretty good. I'd be willing to say that instead of gaining OCV in HTH combat, that the bonus to a opponent's OCV only applies at range. Only that doesn't account much for punching a large target that you can't miss. Must thing more on this... :think:

[prestidigitator]

The problem is, that while your method is logical and correct, it makes characters with growth useless in combat.

My character has 9 levels of growth for 45 points and takes -6 to hit and +6 to be hit by Joe Normal [the equivalent of -60 points of powers due to skills for 48 points of effect gained].
True, though if you have 45 points of Growth, I don't see why you can't also afford a few PSLs to counter the penalties from Growth...I get your point, though.


Your character has 4 levels of shrinking for 40 points and gets +8 to hit and +8 to dcv against Joe Normal [the equivalent of 80 points of levels for only a double knockback limitation].

Growth becomes nearly a disadvantage to a character and shrinking grants 20 point of effect for each 10 points spent.
This would be Dust Raven's, "...punching a large target that you can't miss." Imagine shrinking to 25cm tall. If you were still to attack someone from 2m away, you wouldn't be much more likely to hit, but if you were to approach to a distance that is on the order of magnitude of your reach, it would be like hitting a building (albeit a moving one).

But again I see your point from a game balance perspective. Perhaps Growth should be balanced by adding movement as well (come on! My reach and legs are twice as long, but I can't move any farther?!), and Shrinking should be even more expensive. I don't know. I agree it needs some careful thought.

[prestidigitator]

I still don't quite get why being smaller makes you better at HtH combat. The smaller guy almost ALWAYS loses to the bigger guy in real life hand to hand... why should the game reflect something so different?
See my previous post. Note also that, IRL those who are smaller tend to be less strong, but Shrinking does not reflect this (in this respect it is very much comic book, not "real life").

However, I don't agree with your assertion that the smaller guy usually loses in hand-to-hand. With skilled--and equally skilled--opponents, size tends to matter little; larger combatants learn to use their weight and reach, and smaller combatants learn to use other advantages such as speed, maneuverability, and shorter reach, believe it or not (getting in close is the short man's friend!). Think Bruce Lee was a big man? LOL. I bet he could hold his own against a taller man with the same kind of training and devotion to the Martial Arts (on a personal note, I am pretty short, but have had no problem learning ways to take advantage of it to counter-balance what advantages larger people might have). Now, between unskilleed opponents I would tend to agree that it makes a difference, as weight and reach can be utilized rather instinctually (without training).

[Dust Raven]

But again I see your point from a game balance perspective. Perhaps Growth should be balanced by adding movement as well (come on! My reach and legs are twice as long, but I can't move any farther?!), and Shrinking should be even more expensive. I don't know. I agree it needs some careful thought.

I'm steadfast against movement becoming a part of Size Powers. In nearly every bit of source material, when Bob the grocier got hit with the growth ray and became 60 ft tall, guys in the street didn't have much trouble keeping up with him, even on foot (though they did have to stay clear of where he stepped). When shrunk it seems to be a little different though, but only for standard (leap, run, swim) movements. Flight and others seem unaffected.

Given the variance (and the source material) I figure it's bets to keep movement seperate.