Permanent Size Changes...

[GAZZA]

Hi all! I'm new to these boards, but not new to Hero - I've been playing for years, and even know what "BBB" stands for.

 

I got the new 5th edition rulebook about 18 months ago. Ran a couple of sessions of a Champions game, and then resumed the D&D game that I'd been running before. (Yeah, sorry. I don't like it, but sometimes you gotta run what your players ask for).

 

Recently while reading some of my back issues of Knights of the Dinner Table, I was inspired to create a "Biggest Damn Dungeon Ever" based on all the monsters in the Monster Manual - but using Hero rules. So I picked up a copy of Fantasy Hero for 5th ed, and I've been mulling through it.

 

Back in the bad old days of 4th edition, if you were always bigger or smaller than a normal human, you bought Growth or Shrinking as 0 END Persistent Always On. Now, the preference seems to be to just have an appropriate Physical Limitation.

 

I have some issues with this. Mostly, it doesn't seem worthwhile to be big anymore. Let's say you're twice human size; according to the chart in FH, that means you get a -5 Physical Limitation. Yet the DCV modifier alone is worth more than that; you're effectively buying -2 Combat Levels with DCV. And that's not taking into account the perception penalty you suffer as well.

 

What was so terribly wrong with buying it as Growth? Certainly it had the disadvantage that you could technically have it dispelled or suppressed, but doesn't the new Inherent advantage cover that? I'm not totally opposed to "the new regime", but can someone sell me on it?

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

I actually think the new method works better. However, the DCV penalty for size (or bonus for small size) is a big issue, and is even addressed in a side bar in Bestiary. If you feel it is warranted (I do), you can add 5 pts per DCV mod to the template. Most smaller creatures actually pay for this. That pretty much solves the problem right there.

 

In theory, Growth, 0 END +1/2, Persistent +1/2, Inherent +1/4, Always On -1/4 would be a fair way to do it, costing 9 points per level of Growth. When you get to 3 levels, you then tack on 16 points worth of penalties (DCV & PER), plus 4 points of bonus (stretching).

 

Buying them separately, at 3 levels of growth, you get 31 points of good stuff, a 5 point disad, and arguably -16 points of negative levels (DCV & PER). Plus, to reflect permanent size change you have do things like increase ED and Running proportionately. That's a net of 15 points, which is cheaper than Growth + stuff (always on), and you still tack on the 5 point disad.

 

Just reverse that for smaller.

 

I also use as a PRE attack modifier size. Bigger is worth +1d6, and then every 3 levels of growth is another +1d6. This costs the character no points as it is purely relative and also does not affect their ability to so, act or converse.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

The DCV modifier is not in effect at all times. It only affects attackers that are smaller than the giant (or whatever other monster you're building), and IIRC, only if they're using ranged weapons...in melee, the monster has the advantage because of its reach.

[GAZZA]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

The DCV modifier is not in effect at all times. It only affects attackers that are smaller than the giant (or whatever other monster you're building)' date=' and IIRC, only if they're using ranged weapons...in melee, the monster has the advantage because of its reach.[/quote']

Err... technically, it does apply at all times. And you don't get range unless you buy it (typically as Stretching).

 

I don't disagree that it is a reasonable house rule to say that DCV mods are based on relative size (otherwise tiny creatures can't hit each other, and giants can't miss each other) - but technically Hero doesn't have that.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

Err... technically, it does apply at all times. And you don't get range unless you buy it (typically as Stretching).

 

I don't disagree that it is a reasonable house rule to say that DCV mods are based on relative size (otherwise tiny creatures can't hit each other, and giants can't miss each other) - but technically Hero doesn't have that.

 

Egads! One hates to suggest d20 got something better! However, they give smaller than man-size creatues a +1 bonus to both AC and To Hit for each size category down, and a -1 to each for each size category larger. As a result, equal sized creatures are at no advantage or disadvantage.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

I agree, Hugh, and that's how I run it. They also get an OCV penalty to match, and small creatures get an OCV bonus and it does apply at all times.

 

Regardless of whether you agree that it should or should not be part of a size modifier, IF you pay for it then it is fair.

 

The way we deal with it is by buying DEX in 3 point chunks, no figured chars, and no DEX roll/initiative. That's about 4.5 per +/-1 OCV/DCV. Tack on a PER mod of +/-1 for about 3-4 points and you get to about 8 points for a "Visibility Modifier". Since this can only be purchased as part of a racial package or creature build, it's not something players can abuse (only the GM).

[prestidigitator]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

It should be relative, but only in a limited sense. It isn't only about size but about distance. At the same distance, a target is equally easy to hit no matter the size of the attacker. It is the target's size and the distance from the perception point/control point that matters. The attacker's size should actually not be a direct factor at all.

 

What this means is that an attacker shouldn't get any Ranged bonuses or penalties to hit due to size. In HTH, size should influence things indirectly. Why? Because the ideal distance from attacker to target is going to depend upon size. At the time you actually launch an attack, the target is going to be roughly arm's reach from you (plus or minus a little for the limb you use, body position, weapons, etc.). If they are much farther, you won't be able to attack at all. If they are much closer, attacking is going to be more difficult due to awkwardness (it actually takes some training to be effective at, "infighting"--I would call this PSLs or CSLs). So larger attackers are really going to be farther from their targets, and smaller attackers are really going to be closer to their targets (remember I said above that target size and distance are the primary factors).

 

This makes D&D's size modifiers for attacks make some sense, but they should NOT apply to ranged attacks. Hero's method makes more sense for ranged combat. Where Hero does not make sense is in not applying the Range Modifier to uses of Stretching (and the reach inherent to Growth), and in not allowing for a reverse Range Modifier, if you will, for small characters who move in close (synonymous with a normal sized character at a, "normal," distance--i.e. one hex--from a large one). The relative levels of Growth and Stretching are an attempt to make up for this, but I don't think they work as well as allowing small attackers to get in close and applying Range Modifiers to HTH combat would.

 

To be even more realistic, it should also impose some kind of infighting penalty if the target is within your normal reach, like a target closer than the extent of an attacker's Growth reach (and maybe Stretching with Always On) or a small target closer than a normal character's reach (one hex), but I can live without this as it could make Growth and Stretching less attractive for their costs and I think they are decently balanced where they are.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

The modifiers for being inside someone's reach already exist.

 

As for Size & Range, I absolutely disagree. The profile presented by a target is a result of the amount of light reflected from the target - the visable image. For each doubling of distance, the amount of light is halved (roughly for game purposes see: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html), which is where the penalties per doubling of range come from (or my guess anyway). If a target is x2 the profile of another target, the size modifier should absolutely be handled just like a range penalty or, inversely, a bonus.

 

Which then begs the question, why not treat size as a range modifier since it fundamentally is impacting an attack in the same way as range. Brace would then be effective against it, as would other RMod bonus weapons.

 

Arguably, one's perception is based on their size as well. So a large creature would have a harder time hitting a smaller creature than two smaller creatures would. However, larger creaturs often have the ability to make AE attacks, which essentially ignores size penalties.

 

I can tell you from experience that playing this way makes big creatures seem big and the play balance is good.

 

What you then need is some way of fending off someone from getting inside your reach. The cover maneuver seems perfect for this, and even taking the -2 penalty can be justified by thinking that the target is technically out of range when you make the fend maneuver, and you have to judge where the target is. You can't abort to this maneuver, so you have to be ready to perform it before your opponent gets in. I would also not roll the actual attack, for dramatic purposes, until someone tries to enter. When an enemy comes in, I would suggest you allow them the option of stopping (requiring a DEX roll) and taking normal damage if they are hit, or pushing on, taking +v/3 from the hit as if they were moving through the weapon. It is possible for the weapon to break if too much damage is caused. A target which stops or suffers knockdown/knockback cannot approach. A person could sweep fend as well, trying to keep multiple targets at bay.

[GAZZA]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

OK, reasoning this through a bit. Compare and contrast.

 

Double size. The "old-but-updated" way would be to buy 15 points Growth, 0 END Persistent (+1), Inherent (+1/4), Always On (-1/2) for 22 points. That gives you +15 STR, +3 BODY, +3 STUN, -3" KB resistance, +1" Reach, and the associated -2 DCV and +2 PER rolls against.

 

Instead, we could do it "the new way". That entails a 5 point Physical Limitation, for which you get the -2 DCV and +2 PER rolls against "for free". You have to buy the rest; strictly, that is +15 STR [No figured chars -1/2], +3 BODY, -3" KB resistance - for 22 points so far - and then Stretching 1", 0 END (+1/2), Always Direct (-1/4), No noncombat Stretching (-1/4), No Velocity Damage (-1/4), for 4 points (total of 26 points). That's only 1 point cheaper (factoring in the disadvantage).

 

Because Growth becomes a better deal than Stretching pretty quickly, it should be obvious that Growth is cheaper to simulate this than the limitation method. And that's doing it "correctly". I know more than one player that would decide that simply having the Growth 0 END was "good enough"; with a decent CON, you're not going to be stunned often enough that it will matter too much.

 

If we are a little less literal, and we take the +15 STR without the "no figured chars" limitation, it actually reduces the cost. +15 STR would cost 15 points rather than 10, but it gives +3 PD, +3 REC, and +7.5 STUN, so in effect it is 8.5 points cheaper. (This assumes of course that such a character would otherwise spend at least 3 points on PD & REC, and 7.5 on STUN - but that's not too unreasonable assumption).

 

Looking at it this way, and scaling up to 32 times human size:

 

"old" way: 75 points Growth, 0 END Persistent, Inherent, Always On: 169 Active/113 Real.

 

"new" way: +75 STR (75 points), +15 BODY (30 points), -15" KB Resistance (30 points), Stretching 16" 0 END Always Direct Non Noncombat Stretch No Velocity Damage (69 points). That costs 204 points, but you get 15 PD (15 points), 15 REC (30 points), and 37.5 STUN (37.5 points) for free, taking the cost down to 121.5 points. You also get a 15 point Physical Limitation for this (according to FH pp 53).

 

So the Growth method does eventually get cheaper here as well, but only at very high power levels (I doubt there are a lot of 85 STR characters out there - and even if there are, I doubt too many of them are 64m tall). That's a pretty compelling reason to use the limitation method - it's cheaper.

 

Sorry for rambling. Just trying to convince myself that this is the way to go. And unfortunately I still have my doubts.

 

Consider the above character. He gets a 15 point physical limitation, and this imposes a -10 DCV and +10 PRE rolls against. Unfortunately, according to Fantasy Hero, this is the same limitation value that someone merely 4 times human size (ie 30 points of Growth in the old method) gets - and he is only getting a -4 DCV/+4 PRE rolls against. Forgive me, but this means (to me) that the value of the limitation is entirely arbitrary. It seems that the player is, in essence, being punished for a character conception of "really really big" rather than merely "pretty big but really really strong". At least with the old method there was nothing arbitrary about it. You could build the character as either 32 times human size with base STR of 10, or as 4 times human size with base STR of 55.

 

In addition, the Physical Limitations for Growth and Shrinking seem pretty radically different.

 

If I'm reading things correctly, then a character who is (say) only 1/8 human size in the new system is treated purely as a special effect. He has to buy the DCV, he has to buy the PRE roll bonus. The physical limitation in that case is basically, "Well, he's small. Use your common sense. He's going to have trouble getting on carnival rides, for a start".

 

With Growth, the physical limitation imposes "free" penalties to DCV and PRE rolls (against). With Shrinking, there is no corresponding penalty. Yes, it is definitely inconvenient to be only 12.5cm tall - but it is also inconvenient to be 8m tall (above and beyond the "free" combat problems - you will have problems with low ceilings, you can't use public transport, and you will be constantly inundated with Jenny Craig advocates - probably even get on Oprah).

 

I am coming to the conclusion that the penalties to DCV and PER for large characters are not appropriate to simulate with an arbitrary inconsistent physical limitation. I do see the benefits of not building it with Growth and Shrinking, but in my opinion it would be preferable to separate out the specific from the arbitrary.

 

For example: a DEX 20 character who is 8m tall could buy his +10 DEX with the -1/4 limitation "Not for DCV" (thus he would be DCV 3 instead of 7). Or maybe we could just dispense with the mucking about and have him buy 4 negative DCV levels (for -20 points) and -4 to Stealth rolls (for -8). Granted this would need special GM permission (it is a "Stop" sign situation) to avoid people buying "-100 Combat Levels when wielding small furry mammals from Alpha Centauri" and spending the 200 points thus released elsewhere, but it does seem the most appropriate way to build large characters.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

The modifiers for being inside someone's reach already exist.

I think they apply to people packed into the same hex, whether or not any of them have Shrinking (or are smaller size). I don't think there are built-in rules for penalties to characters with Growth (or larger size) when targets are within their extra reach. If a character is using 6 levels of Growth and thus has a reach of 4", attacking someone who is only 1" away should realistically be difficult. Like I said above, however, I am okay with dropping this one.

 

As for Size & Range, I absolutely disagree. The profile presented by a target is a result of the amount of light reflected from the target - the visable image. For each doubling of distance, the amount of light is halved (roughly for game purposes see: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html), which is where the penalties per doubling of range come from (or my guess anyway). If a target is x2 the profile of another target, the size modifier should absolutely be handled just like a range penalty or, inversely, a bonus.

 

Which then begs the question, why not treat size as a range modifier since it fundamentally is impacting an attack in the same way as range. Brace would then be effective against it, as would other RMod bonus weapons.

I don't think you are disagreeing here at all. My point was that size and distance of target are the primary factors for determining the relative difficulty of hitting them. It essentially comes down to the solid angle they circumscribe about the attacker. To take it to a ridiculous extreme, if the target completely surrounds the character (say the, "target," is a hollow spherical shell), hitting it should be guaranteed. This, "bonus," will be the same even if the shell is twice as far away (and thus twice the radius, four times the area, and eight times the volume). In general, the solid angle taken up by an object is going to be proportional to the square of its linear, "size," and the inverse square of the distance away. A character with 3 levels of Growth should be as easy to hit as a normal sized character who is half the distance away. (I even have a house rule that says any DCV penalties due to size that go beyond the target's Base DCV act essentially as Range PSLs for the attacker).

 

Not sure about Brace counteracting the effects of Shrinking. Why not? Whatever.

 

Arguably, one's perception is based on their size as well. So a large creature would have a harder time hitting a smaller creature than two smaller creatures would. However, larger creaturs often have the ability to make AE attacks, which essentially ignores size penalties.

Nope. Place an eye on a giant or an eye on a fly, and the amount of solid angle taken up by a target will be the same. The amount of angular control a large creature has will also not generally depend upon its size, so a giant could aim a rifle with the same accuracy as a hobbit (provided each has a suitably sized rifle). However, as I implied below the size of the creature may factor into how far away the target is. A giant is going to be attacking creatures in HTH that are farther away than the hobbit's HTH targets will be.

 

You may also wish to take into account the distance the giant is from targets on the ground; this could be one possible reason to ignore any penalties due to targets being within a creature's reach; it is probably easier for a giant to attack a hobbit on the ground than if the hobbit were hovering near the giant's shoulder. Since the giant should have a Range Penalty dictated by its reach, blending this Range Penalty into an infighting penalty (so the target is harder to hit due to awkwardness rather than due to distance) could be a suitable excuse to just give the giant a flat HTH (not ranged) penalty.

 

What you then need is some way of fending off someone from getting inside your reach. The cover maneuver seems perfect for this, and even taking the -2 penalty can be justified by thinking that the target is technically out of range when you make the fend maneuver, and you have to judge where the target is. You can't abort to this maneuver, so you have to be ready to perform it before your opponent gets in. I would also not roll the actual attack, for dramatic purposes, until someone tries to enter. When an enemy comes in, I would suggest you allow them the option of stopping (requiring a DEX roll) and taking normal damage if they are hit, or pushing on, taking +v/3 from the hit as if they were moving through the weapon. It is possible for the weapon to break if too much damage is caused. A target which stops or suffers knockdown/knockback cannot approach. A person could sweep fend as well, trying to keep multiple targets at bay.

That's not a bad idea, though Cover is normally only usable when you could hit the target anyway. The idea is that you have made the attack, but are just barely holding back on piercing the target's skin, pulling the trigger, etc. I think using either Cover or Delayed actions (with contested Dex/Fast Draw rolls for the latter) would be a good way to handle this.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

For each doubling of distance' date=' the amount of light is halved (roughly for game purposes see: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html), which is where the penalties per doubling of range come from (or my guess anyway). If a target is x2 the profile of another target, the size modifier should absolutely be handled just like a range penalty or, inversely, a bonus.[/quote']

BTW, this link seems to be invalid. I know what you are talking about, however. I am a physicist.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

OK' date=' reasoning this through a bit. Compare and contrast.[/quote']

Yeah. The only significant benefit to using individual Powers, Characteristics, Skills, and Disadvantages rather than Growth or Shrinking is that you can separate the different benefits and drawbacks. So I can create a giant ant that is big (mass, DCV and Stealth penalties), strong (Str), and tough (Body and Stun), but cannot reach very far from its body (no extra reach). You can argue (possibly very validly) that this can be done with a Limitation on Growth, but whatever.

 

I'm not sure which method I like better. I certainly don't like the fact that large creatures take a very significant DCV penalty and get very little discount for it (at least by default). The Knockback penalties for small characters also seem to be pretty crazy since Steve Long clarified them (a thread in the System Questions forum somewhere).

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

Hmm, the link seems okay. I think the paraenthesis got caught in the URL: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html

 

I agree Gazza, the phys lim is not enough. That's why I use the 8 point Visibility Levels, which are just DEX built with appropriate lims and a PER modifier. Neat, and easy.

 

As for reach, that is discussed in the Equip Guide (p23), FH (??), and Combat Handbook. Essentially, the penalty is -1 OCV per doubling of of diff in melee attack length based on who hit last. So, if I have a reach of 2" and you are using a dagger (0") and I hit you last, you are at -2 to attack me. However, if you manage to hit then I am at -2 to attack you because you are inside my reach.

 

Target size and range are essentially the same thing. If I am aiming at a 1m square target down range (200m) vs. a 2m square target the 2m is easier to hit. If I move the 1m target to 100m the silhouettes are the same size. The 2m target results in modifier that is the same as doubling the range.

 

Smaller targets essentially results in the inverse. To accurately reflect the size change you'd really have to redefine the size of a hex, which might account for small creatures having greater accuracy. If a squirrel jumps from branch to branch he is actually hitting a hex 15cm (or so) accross, which would be like us leaping onto a 2m wide catwalk. They seem more precise when they try to leap on us because we are bigger than one of their hexes... in effect they can't miss.

 

IMO, the easier way to represent that is in a simple OCV bonus rather than redefining the size of a hex. I also agree that the size of the creature changes their reach, in effect making it more challenging for them in melee combat. That is also another thing I account for with large or small creatures. Every creature has a reach, to which you add your weapon and for every doubling of difference in reach between two opponents is a -1 OCV penalty.

 

A 1.25m character has a reach of .6m wields a sword-sized dagger .25m = reach of .85m

A 4m character has a reach of 2m and wields a right-sized dagger of 1m = reach of 3m.

 

This results in -2 OCV penalty to the small character at the initial fight. However, the small character has a +2 OCV bonus for small size for a net of 0, while the large character has a -2 OCV penalty due to size (and being larger scale). Net is small +0 large -2. Once the small guy hits, the mods switch to +2 for the small guy and -4 for the large. And in addition, the small guy is +2 DCV and the large guy is -2 DCV. However, at that size a creature should be large enough to attack a 1 hex area, either using both "hands" or something similar, which effectively negates the DCV of the small creature in certain cases.

[zornwil]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

I just can't help but feel it worked better in the old days. I can't "prove" it (even to myself) and I actually want to embrace the 5th ed. change, since I think it has a lot going for it, but in the end the old solution actually feels more easy and more "accurate" as to what is going on. Even in the way it functioned in 4th, you could still buy Disads.

[GAZZA]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

My feelings are similar, but on the other hand there was a problem with the 4th edition. I can't help feeling that if you're taking a permanent decrease to your DCV, a mass issue, and so on, that it should be cheaper.

 

For instance, in the time honoured BBB fashion:

 

Growth (15pts), 0 END Persistent (+1), Always On (-1/2) costs 20 points. It gives you +15 STR, +3 BODY, +3 STUN, -3" KB resistance.

 

Alternately: +15 STR (15 pts), +3 BODY (6 pts), +3 STUN (free from BODY), -3" KB resistance (6 points) only costs 27 points, and gives you an extra +3 PD (3 points), +3 REC (6 points), and +7.5 STUN (7.5 points) worth of figured characteristics. Since virtually any brick is going to want to buy up their PD and STUN (if not REC), then this is a more efficient way to buy it - and you don't get those annoying limitations. I'm sure I'm not the only powergaming munchkin to have noticed that in 4th.

 

At least in 5th edition the spirit in is the right place - strong big guys should cost less than strong normal sized guys - but the execution at high levels of size is not as fair as it could be, IMHO.

[zornwil]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

Good point, and relates to why it isn't provable that 4th was better. As you say, the spirit is probably in the right place, it's just some mechanics still need to get worked out. Schir1964 has some good ideas on this, I think he's posted them elsewhere here.

[Narratio]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

Agreed. I'm with you in liking the way 4th handled growth, it still seems right somehow. But as the 5th makes as much sense and, as it's part of the latest rules, I'll go with it.

 

I just dug up a 1st edition 'growth' character. My word, the capabilities have changed and an awful lot over the years.

[schir1964]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

I'll email my document on Size if anyone is interested.

 

Just email me at schir1964 @ netzero.com address.

 

It's not 100% solid solution to the problem, but it takes a couple of steps to helping make it more consistent in how it's handled.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

What was so terribly wrong with buying it as Growth? Certainly it had the disadvantage that you could technically have it dispelled or suppressed' date=' but doesn't the new Inherent advantage cover that? I'm not totally opposed to "the new regime", but can someone sell me on it?[/quote']

*puts on his BS hat*

 

Fantasy Hero is Heroic Level. In a Heroic Level you automatically have Normal Characteristics Maxima. As a GM for a Fantasy Hero game I'm going to agree that someone bigger than others isn't going to have the same upper limit.

 

Now double human size is +15 STR and +3 BODY. That's NCM of 35 STR and 23 BODY. The point difference they are potentially saving is 21 points. Plus they get permission to buy stretching and knockback resistance which others do not normally get.

 

Now the Physical Limitation is Infrequent, Slightly Impairing. Slightly Impairing is spot on. You have to duck entering buildings and usually walk hunched down when indoors. The rest of it comes from within combat which isn't too bad when you consider the +15 STR is giving the character +3 PD making the hits less effective. Invest 5 points on Damage Resistance to make the giant person thick skinned and you have someone practically immune to small weapons and bad damage rolls.

 

The Infrequent is good unless you find the game going into cities most of the time or if combat is very common in which case you could agree to give the person Frequent. Also don't forget, a large person is likely also going to have Distinctive Features and maybe even a Social Limitation.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

Not to open a whole 'nother can of worms,

 

but way back before there was an "Inherent," we allowed that Always On, Persistent, 0 END pretty much _was_ inherent, as it allows no reasonable way to turn the power off.

 

With that in mind, we allowed players building 'really big' or 'really tough' critters and characters to go ahead and use the additional STR, CON, etc, toward their figureds as well.

 

 

Not trying to get involved in this; just putting it out there. It worked for us, and it might work for someone else.

[GAZZA]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

Not to open a whole 'nother can of worms,

 

but way back before there was an "Inherent," we allowed that Always On, Persistent, 0 END pretty much _was_ inherent, as it allows no reasonable way to turn the power off.

 

With that in mind, we allowed players building 'really big' or 'really tough' critters and characters to go ahead and use the additional STR, CON, etc, toward their figureds as well.

 

 

Not trying to get involved in this; just putting it out there. It worked for us, and it might work for someone else.

I'm not really familiar with editions of Champions before the BBB (I do own 1st edition somewhere, but I'm scared to read it unless it falls apart on me); however, I believe you're referring to previous versions of the Growth power that did indeed give bonus CON.

 

The whole "without Inherent it can be Drained" and so forth has always bothered me a bit. It's absolutely true, of course, if you consider it mechanically; on the other hand, though, it is hard to come up with a special effect that would target Growth in this way. Of course you can have a shrinking ray that drains Growth, or maybe Aids Shrinking, but from a special effects perspective they should work just fine on people that are normally really big (even if it's bought Inherent, I would argue - unless the Inherent was supposed to represent some sort of innate immunity to shrinking rays and the like).

 

I suppose it comes up when you come up with something like a "alien power inhibitor ray", which you aim at something really big with lots of tentacles. If the desire there is to target things like the alien's telepathic powers and acid blood, but not its size or razorsharp claws, I suppose you need Inherent - but I can't help thinking that should be more in the nature of a limitation on the attack rather than an advantage on the defence.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

 

I'm not really familiar with editions of Champions before the BBB (I do own 1st edition somewhere' date=' but I'm scared to read it unless it falls apart on me); however, I believe you're referring to previous versions of the Growth power that did indeed give bonus CON.[/quote']

 

Previous versions of Density Increase and Growth gave a lot more than the current versions, but cost 10 points per level. I don't recall everything, but I do recall Growth provided +5 PRE and DI provided +5 CON. There were also optional advantages from (IIRC) CXhampions III which allowed your Growth and DI to provide figured characteristics (+1/4 and +1/2, respectively).

 

Most Bricks at that time were big and bulky, because a couple of levels of DI and Growth, always on, helped a lot. Huge numbers quickly became counterproductive, however, since Reduced END was +1/4 for each halving, and END was 1/5 of AP, so reducing a 50 AP power to 0 END fo it could be Always On was expensive (+1 advantage, as it goes from 10 END to 5, 2, 1, 0). Paying 83 points (50 x 2.5/1.5) for 5 levels of DI, always on, that effectively added +25 CON and +25 STR with Figured starts to be a break even proposition even assuming you wanted all that REC and END.