Falling Prone

[Dust Raven]

Re: Falling Prone

 

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 ):

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...

[MitchellS]

Re: Falling Prone

 

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?

The reason why being smaller makes you better at combat in 5Er is that larger things are easier to hit. A 12' tall man is -3 DCV against anyone half the size of him. By the same logic a 6' tall man should be -3 DCV against a 3' tall man. So by inversion the smaller you shrink the bigger everyone else gets.

[MitchellS]

Re: Falling Prone

 

That looks pretty good. I'd be willing to say that instead of gaining OCV in HTH combat' date=' 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... [/quote']

I preferred the rules which had growth and shrinking DCV modifiers only really useful versus ranged attacks. That solved the entire bigger/smaller problem, IMO.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Falling Prone

 

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]

Re: Falling Prone

 

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]

Re: Falling Prone

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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.