No Size Penalty

[Supreme]

Would any of you GMs allow an advantage like this...

 

No Size Penalty: +1/2

 

Works just like No Range Penalty, except that the attacker suffers no minuses for the target's size.

 

???

[OddHat]

Re: No Size Penalty

 

Well, mechaically it looks fine. Maybe overpriced unless you're giving it to someone who regulary fights Liliputians.

 

As a player, I'd sink my points into penalty skill levels to offset the size penalty. Much more bang for your buck in most circumstances.

[transmetahuman]

Re: No Size Penalty

 

An argument could be made that range penalties, size penalties, and hit location penalties are all the same thing, and that any justification for any of them should logically give you all of them. I'd probably price No Size Penalty at +1/4, and note that (for any rationale I can thing of) you won't get bonuses for big targets either. If you're going to include hit location in with size (and realize that certain players are gonna argue that it ought to be, automatically), I'd make it a lot bigger than +1/2 unless you don't use those rules, in which case the point is moot.

 

On the other hand, you have to be able to see it to aim at it, so maybe CSLs "Only To Offset Size (+/or Location) Modifiers up to a certain point" might be the way to go.

[Enforcer84]

Re: No Size Penalty

 

Stand back! This looks like a job for "Motion of the Ocean" Man!

 

 

 

sorry, my psych lim was tripped.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: No Size Penalty

 

Stand back! This looks like a job for "Motion of the Ocean" Man!

 

 

 

sorry, my psych lim was tripped.

I'm sorry, folks, but it looks like I'm responsible for this latest abberation of his...

[Enforcer84]

Re: No Size Penalty

 

[Enforcer84]

Re: No Size Penalty

 

An argument could be made that range penalties, size penalties, and hit location penalties are all the same thing, and that any justification for any of them should logically give you all of them. I'd probably price No Size Penalty at +1/4, and note that (for any rationale I can thing of) you won't get bonuses for big targets either. If you're going to include hit location in with size (and realize that certain players are gonna argue that it ought to be, automatically), I'd make it a lot bigger than +1/2 unless you don't use those rules, in which case the point is moot.

 

On the other hand, you have to be able to see it to aim at it, so maybe CSLs "Only To Offset Size (+/or Location) Modifiers up to a certain point" might be the way to go.

In all seriousness. I like the penalty skill levels idea best for bashing the littleones.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: No Size Penalty

 

+1/2 seems excessive given you could buy AE-1 hex for the same price and get anyone with a high DCV, from shrinking or otherwise.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: No Size Penalty

 

Also, in all seriousness, I'd be a bit hesitant to allow that Advantage at all. With the 'range' thing, that's a penalty for something being far away from you, and anyone that can move might be able to get that penalty for themselves if they wanted to make it harder for you to hit them.

 

The size thing, though, isn't a penalty on you...is a bonus for them, and it's something they paid for when they bought Shrinking. I think it's a bit unfair as well as a bit cheesy to have a simple +1/2 or +1/4 Advantage take away something that another character paid for. (And yes, before anyone brings it up...I'm perfectly aware that Affects Desolid is a +1/2 Advantage that takes away that damage-avoidance ability of Desolid, which the player paid for...but still having to define a way you can be affected while Desolid [and knowing there's an official Advantage that can be bought that can negate your Desolid damage avoidance] is part and parcel of Desolid, and you know that when you buy it. There is no such stipulation when you buy Shrinking.)

[Steve Long]

Re: No Size Penalty

 

An interesting question! I sense fodder for a "HEROglyphs" column in the near future.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: No Size Penalty

 

Also, in all seriousness, I'd be a bit hesitant to allow that Advantage at all. With the 'range' thing, that's a penalty for something being far away from you, and anyone that can move might be able to get that penalty for themselves if they wanted to make it harder for you to hit them.

 

The size thing, though, isn't a penalty on you...is a bonus for them, and it's something they paid for when they bought Shrinking. I think it's a bit unfair as well as a bit cheesy to have a simple +1/2 or +1/4 Advantage take away something that another character paid for.

 

As noted above, +1/2 "AE - 1 Hex" (Accurate or otherwise) removes all the DCV benefits the target character paid for. Area Effects can also remove much of the benefits of being difficult to see, as well as OCV penalties. NND removes the benefits of high defenses, whole Hardened removes the benefits of indirect, penetrating and Armor Piercing.

 

With all of these in mind, an advantage that removes the DCV bonus from an opponent's shrinking really doesn't seem like it's setting a dangerous precedent, in my view.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: No Size Penalty

 

With an AOE attack, the target could Dive for Cover to get out of the area, thus still avoiding the attack that "negates" (ignores) those DCV bonuses he paid for as part of his Shrinking. A straight Advantage like No Size Penalty doesn't give him an option, an out.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: No Size Penalty

 

With an AOE attack' date=' the target could Dive for Cover to get out of the area, thus still avoiding the attack that "negates" (ignores) those DCV bonuses he paid for as part of his Shrinking. A straight Advantage like No Size Penalty doesn't give him an option, an out.[/quote']

 

I believethat, by the rules, you can dive for cover to avoid any attack. It's easier to avoid the "negates shrinking DCV penalties" attack than to avoid an explsion or AE other than 1 hex since the character only need dive 1 hex away.

 

Alternatively, one could just buy skill levels to offset the DCV bonus provided by shrinking, however. Let's see...5 point skill level to OCV, Only Usable to Offset Shrinking Bonuses (-2), only usable to enhance OCV with 1 attack (-1? -2?) means 1 to 1.25 points per level. Whether that's better or worse than a +1/4 advantage depends hpw large the attack is and how much shrinking you want to offset. It seems unlikely a +1/2 advantage would ever be the cheaper approach.

[pinecone]

Re: No Size Penalty

 

Would any of you GMs allow an advantage like this...

 

No Size Penalty: +1/2

 

Works just like No Range Penalty, except that the attacker suffers no minuses for the target's size.

 

???

Sure why not? you could buy AE: 1 hex accurate, Lim : Only vs size penalty targets and it would do much the same or more And be cheaper.....

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: No Size Penalty

 

I believethat, by the rules, you can dive for cover to avoid any attack. It's easier to avoid the "negates shrinking DCV penalties" attack than to avoid an explsion or AE other than 1 hex since the character only need dive 1 hex away.

 

Alternatively, one could just buy skill levels to offset the DCV bonus provided by shrinking, however. Let's see...5 point skill level to OCV, Only Usable to Offset Shrinking Bonuses (-2), only usable to enhance OCV with 1 attack (-1? -2?) means 1 to 1.25 points per level. Whether that's better or worse than a +1/4 advantage depends hpw large the attack is and how much shrinking you want to offset. It seems unlikely a +1/2 advantage would ever be the cheaper approach.

That's probably true; I'm not trying to convert the unconverted to my way of thinking, or anything. In all honesty, my main objection to something like that Advantage is "it feels wrong", gut-wise, and I'm trying to find a way to put that feeling into logical, rational arguments for myself as much as I am for other people. In other words, I've got a feeling, and I'm groping my way towards an answer as I answer more posts...