Smaller & Larger Creatures/Heroes

[Kirowan]

I have Sidekick right now and am going to get the corebook. Sidekick describes the default size of a character as being 2m and 100kg I think. Now, I know you don't use growth or shrinking to model creatures who are smaller and larger than normal, so how do you do it? Does FREd and/or the bestiary have guidelines for buidling creatures of various sizes?

 

Thanks,

 

Nick

[Derek Hiemforth]

FREd has some guidelines on the subject (more than Sidekick does, if I remember correctly), but the Bestiary goes into a lot more detail on it. If you're going to be building creatures, the Bestiary is definitely a book you want to pick up.

[Kirowan]

Cool. I have to get that then.

 

Thanks!

[Legendsmiths]

Is this for Fantasy or for other settings? as you may have guessed there are many ways to handle this depending on the genre.

[caris]

Originally posted by mudpyr8

Is this for Fantasy or for other settings? as you may have guessed there are many ways to handle this depending on the genre.

 

Well, genre can impact parts of it, but the Hero recommended method is pretty much consistent across genres. In addition to the Beastiary, both Fantasy Hero and Star Hero deal with the issue more extensively than the core rules.

[Legendsmiths]

Exactly. There are options in terms of cost. Is the DCV penalty (or bonus) associated with size something you pay for or a side effect of something else?

 

If a human has a penalty to hit a mouse, why doesn't a giant have a penalty to hit a human? This is how the default rules play, and mechanically they work, but rationally they don't.

 

Remember, rationality is relative. There is a note that creatures with the same size penalties should not assess them to each other, implying size penalty relativity, but this doesn't extend to the giant vs. the mouse, only mouse vs. mouse or giant vs. giant.

[devlin1]

Hm. I see your point. Mechanically, a way to make it work would be to say that for every 10 points of Growth purchased, a penalty to OCV is assessed only with regards to targets that don't also have an equal amount of Growth.

 

Or, if we're talking about a giant or something that's permanently huge, the increased difficulty to hit smaller creatures could be a Physical Limitation. For that matter, you could have a house rule that by default, Growth is purchased with Side Effects to accomplish the same thing.

[Legendsmiths]

We have all creatures pay for it, so it isn't part of a physical lim. If they are smaller, they have to buy DCV. If they are larger, it is a negative skill (-5 pts/-1).

 

However, if you do that, then you have to either invoke a rule whereby the net penalty is an OCV modifier OR you have to pay for an equivalent OCV modifer that only applies in size based situations (i.e. not vs. Area Affect attacks).

 

So, a dog (size DCV +2, OCV+2) and a giant (size DCV -2, OCV -2) attack each other.

 

The dog is a net +4 to hit the giant, and the giant is a net -4 to hit the dog (OCV & DCV mods). However, if the giant attacks another giant (for attacking his pet pooch), the net attack roll is +0. Same goes if another dog attacks the first.

 

Even a giant attacking a human would be -2 OCV because the human, relative to the giant, is about the size of a dog to the human.

 

The unfortunate point side effect is that a dog costs more points (+20 pts, assuming a 'size based attack' +1 OCV = 5 pts) and the giant is cheaper (-20 pts).

 

I suppose you could call the size OCV modifier a additional range penalty/bonus, although if that were the case, you wouldn't apply it until the targets were much larger. You could also add the height/size difference to range for calcualting a range mod, but then you couldn't have a static 'size mod' since you'd have to evaluate the relative sizes on a per attack basis.

 

This is driven by the doubling of range = -2, as doe s the doubling of size. Fundamentally, they are the same thing. You are talking about the silhouette of the target.

 

This means that CSL vs. Range can offset this penalty, meaning a large creature could buy Penalty Skill Levels to offset this penalty. 3pt/+1 would offset it with any attack, 2pts or 1 1/2 with limited attack groups.

 

But assessing a -5/-1 OCV and offsetting it with all attacks at +3/+1 OCV seems odd. Perhaps the initial size OCV should only be -3/-1 OCV, which you could make an argument that size relative attacks are a 'tight group', or that since -5 pts per -1 OCV is the standard value, that a -1/2 lim of 'size relative modifier' is appropriate, which makes it about 3 pts.

 

Whew! Lot's of brain vomit in there, and I hope I didn't get any on you.

[Legendsmiths]

Oh, growth is a different story since you don't use it to build large/small creatures (although it is a good reference).

[Legendsmiths]

I didn't finish, you could extend those same arguments to DCV, ultimately pricing it at 3pt per as well. Since players can't buy this, and it is set by creature type, this is okay (and not a cheap way to buy DCV).

 

The net result: a "Size Modifier" that costs 6 pts per +/- 1 as a bonus/penalty to OCV/DCV.

 

Giant (x2 size, 4m) = -2 Size Mod (OCV & DCV)

Dog (x1/2 size, 1m) = +2 Size Mod (OCV & DCV)

 

Any OCV penalties can then easily be bought off using Penalty Skill Levels (either by the creature, or by characters used to attacking smaller creatures).

[austenandrews]

I once posted a chart (in the FH forum?) with relative OCV/DCV modifiers for different sizes. Worked out to be a fairly easy system for resolving CV differences between characters with different Growth/Shrinking values. I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

-AA

[Legendsmiths]

We've worked up a chart as well that we use for our Narosia setting that has all of the modifiers for size (STR, reach, running, etc.) on it so we can easily say, "gimme a Huge creature... how many points is that?" and know exactly what we need.

[Lord Liaden]

I tend to disagree that a modified table for relative sizes is really necessary. When you think about it, relative difficulty in hitting larger or smaller targets is already accounted for in the DCV modifiers given to creatures that are larger or smaller than human sized, since they apply to all creatures who attack them, even if said creature is the same size as his target. A giant built with a DCV penalty due to size will have an easier time hitting another giant than a human or a dwarf, while two sprites will have more trouble connecting against each other than against a human.

 

It seems to me that some of the objection to the current situation comes from two creatures of the same size (non-human) having more or less difficulty hitting creatures of their own size, than two human-scaled creatures would have to hit each other. This is fairly easy to rationalize for a campaign centered on the human scale, which the vast majority of campaigns are: these other creatures have had more practice fighting beings of a different size than humans have, perhaps more than fighting others of their own scale. For exceptional members of a given race it's not hard to give them DEX or CV levels Limited "Only vs. opponents of their own size." Alternatively you could give all of them a default Physical Limitation, "No CV Bonus/Penalty vs. opponents of their own size."

 

YMMV, of course.

[Legendsmiths]

Yet everything else in Hero is accounted for except for size. I can see your point about saying in human-centric games all other creatures default to a human-based CV modifier. That just doesn't sit well with me. In the HB, size is presented in a number of ways, including costs for negative DCV.

 

That however leads to your example of giants having a harder time hitting each other, which makes no sense. So, if you balance that with an OCV modifier as well, all is good.

 

A human (size mod 0) attacks a giant (size 2). The human is a net +2 to hit the giant (since the giant has a -2 DCV due to size). The giant is at a -2 to hit the puny human (since the giant has a -2 due to size). Yet 2 giants attacking each other net to +0.

 

That is 100% objective and assesses the same penalty to a giant that humans have attacking a dog. Why shouldn't it be that way? Logically and objectively that makes sense. Now, really large creatures will have AE attacks (e.g. big stomp), so the CV of their targets are irrelevant. A rhino need only charge through your hex and he hits you... you don't "dodge" or "block" a rhino - you dive for cover.