Size & DCV: A Big Problem

[Dust Raven]

In another thread we've been discussion some of the problems concerning Size Powers, having a character that is not human sized normally, and what such such character's DCVs are. I'd like to open a discussion specifically concerning that last part.

 

For the most part, I find no flaws in the Hero System rules. Everything works smoothly and all the rules work together in perfect harmony. I love this system. However, there are a few things that either don't make sense to me, or otherwise add up. Most of the time I chalk these up to my not having a complete uderstanding of the rule and how they work together, for in the past, any given rule has become clear and easily accepted as I've explored the system further to see how it all works together. The one exception to this is size, and the DCV of characters of different sizes.

 

I recently asked Steve Long about how to make a character's DCV always modified by their size, meaning that even while sleeping or unconscious, they would receive the DCV bonus (or the attacker would receive the OCV penalty). His answer was nothing at all. According to the rules, an unconcsious character the size of a pea has the same DCV as an unconscious character the size of a barn.

 

The only solution Steve offered was to attempt to convince the GM to allow for the size modifiers to DCV as if the character were an inanimate object. This seems a bit kludgy to me. While SFX is an awesome tool, it really shouldn't, all by itself, determine between a character that is virtually unhittable and a character that is almost guarenteed to be hit. Especially when that said character is otherwise helpless.

 

What I'm looking for here is a simple rule that seemlessly flows into the standard rules that will account for the DCV of varying size characters. It should account for the logical DCV of unconscious characters, but could also determine the OCV/DCV between any given targets of different sizes. It should also involve characters paying for the bonus of being hard to hit, or betting a point break for being easier to hit.

 

I'm aware that there might not be a simple rule that seemlessly flows into the standard rules, but I'm hoping. Any ideas?

[Bloodstone]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Well, first, let us consider what we are mechanically talking about here.

 

Smaller targets should be harder for a larger target to hit.

 

Smaller targets should have an easier time hitting larger targets.

 

As the two targets approach the same size, the bonuses and penalties should cancel each other out.

 

So DCV, that is essentially Persistent, but scales based on size, with OCV that similarly scales. The OCV woudl need not be persistent, obviously, since it's useless when you are KtfO.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I would also like to point out that I really like the idea of altering hex sizes as it relates to range, movement and area of effect. But that is probably too complicated for what you are looking for...

[David Johnston]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

The problem is that smaller characters aren't always harder to hit. In reality, it is just as easy to hit a pea with the palm of your hand as it is to hit a barn with the palm of your hand. In neither case will you miss. It's only when you attack them at range, or the two objects start somehow moving around that the barn becomes an easier target.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

That's why it's a lot easier to catch insects with a net then with your bare hands. To the insect, the net is a massive AOE, your hands not so much...

[Dust Raven]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

The problem is that smaller characters aren't always harder to hit. In reality' date=' it is just as easy to hit a pea with the palm of your hand as it is to hit a barn with the palm of your hand. In neither case will you miss. It's only when you attack them at range, or the two objects start somehow moving around that the barn becomes an easier target.[/quote']

 

That's not entirely true. Place a pea on the side of a barn and attempt to punch it. You are guarenteed to hit the barn, but you still have to aim at the pea in order to hit, and there's a chance you'll miss.

 

Those chances of missing do increase with range of course, but there is already a mechanic for dealing with that.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Well, first, let us consider what we are mechanically talking about here.

 

Smaller targets should be harder for a larger target to hit.

 

Smaller targets should have an easier time hitting larger targets.

 

As the two targets approach the same size, the bonuses and penalties should cancel each other out.

 

So DCV, that is essentially Persistent, but scales based on size, with OCV that similarly scales. The OCV woudl need not be persistent, obviously, since it's useless when you are KtfO.

 

What I'm concentrating on here is making the DCV effect of size affect the DCV of differently sized targets while they are unconscious/sleeping/entangled/etc. This rule should demonstrate that a character getting such a DCV bonus for being small pays points for the advantage, and a character getting a DCV penalty for being large gets points. If such a rule can also handle all of the above, great!

[Lucius]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

In another thread we've been discussion some of the problems concerning Size Powers, having a character that is not human sized normally, and what such such character's DCVs are. I'd like to open a discussion specifically concerning that last part.

 

For the most part, I find no flaws in the Hero System rules. Everything works smoothly and all the rules work together in perfect harmony. I love this system. However, there are a few things that either don't make sense to me, or otherwise add up. Most of the time I chalk these up to my not having a complete uderstanding of the rule and how they work together, for in the past, any given rule has become clear and easily accepted as I've explored the system further to see how it all works together. The one exception to this is size, and the DCV of characters of different sizes.

 

I recently asked Steve Long about how to make a character's DCV always modified by their size, meaning that even while sleeping or unconscious, they would receive the DCV bonus (or the attacker would receive the OCV penalty). His answer was nothing at all. According to the rules, an unconcsious character the size of a pea has the same DCV as an unconscious character the size of a barn.

 

The only solution Steve offered was to attempt to convince the GM to allow for the size modifiers to DCV as if the character were an inanimate object. This seems a bit kludgy to me. While SFX is an awesome tool, it really shouldn't, all by itself, determine between a character that is virtually unhittable and a character that is almost guarenteed to be hit. Especially when that said character is otherwise helpless.

 

What I'm looking for here is a simple rule that seemlessly flows into the standard rules that will account for the DCV of varying size characters. It should account for the logical DCV of unconscious characters, but could also determine the OCV/DCV between any given targets of different sizes. It should also involve characters paying for the bonus of being hard to hit, or betting a point break for being easier to hit.

 

I'm aware that there might not be a simple rule that seemlessly flows into the standard rules, but I'm hoping. Any ideas?

 

 

The obvious one.

 

Ignore the kludgy new ruling that came in with the current regime, and buy Growth, Shrinking, and/or Density Increase to 0 END, Persistant, Always On.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

"THAT was easy" remarks the palindromedary.

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Dust Raven,

 

What you are suggesting is an inherent permanent DCV Penalty/Bonus that is granted once the size difference between two opponents has reached a critical level.

 

This is similar to some of the rules I created in my Size document dealing with size in Hero.

 

Therefore, what I would suggest is the following:

 

+/- DCV Per 8x Size Difference (+ DCV For Smaller Character, - DCV For Larger Character)

 

How much the DCV Bonus/Penalty value is and how much it increases you will have to decide.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[keithcurtis]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

In my own campaigns, I say screw the rules. DCV from size is just that and always that. I don't care if the rules says persistant, inherent, whateverant.

I hadn't even considered there to be a problem until you brought it up.

 

If you want to balance it out, make it a metapower. The advantage to it being "always on" is balnced by the limitation that it is relative. Two gargantuan characters should attack each other as if they had normal DCV. Figure that the advantage equals the disadvantage and call it SizeDCV.

 

Or do as I do. Figure that the power is already bult that way and ignore it.

 

Keith "Simpleton" Curtis

[caris]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Is there a reason why putting the Advantage on the Persistent on the DCV that you've bought for the small character unacceptable?

 

The permanently large character is already getting points for the decrease in DCV in the "Size" physical limitation.

[Robyn]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

The permanently large character is already getting points for the decrease in DCV in the "Size" physical limitation.

 

In that case, I want to get points for taking "Large" because I'm easy to hit for pixies, brownies, and other small creatures; and I also want to get points for taking "Small" because I'm difficult to hit for ogres, giants, and other large creatures.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

In my own campaigns, I say screw the rules. DCV from size is just that and always that. I don't care if the rules says persistant, inherent, whateverant.

I hadn't even considered there to be a problem until you brought it up.

 

If you want to balance it out, make it a metapower. The advantage to it being "always on" is balnced by the limitation that it is relative. Two gargantuan characters should attack each other as if they had normal DCV. Figure that the advantage equals the disadvantage and call it SizeDCV.

 

Or do as I do. Figure that the power is already bult that way and ignore it.

 

Keith "Simpleton" Curtis

That's probably the best way of handling it. I kinda like Robyn's statement on it. For a normal sized character, it balances out. Get points for being easy to hit by small guys and having small guys harder to hit, but spend points for being able to hit bigger guys easier, and being harder to be hit by them. The same applies to all sizes. So maybe just do it and be done with it.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Hang on a tick.

 

First, I think in 5ER there's a set of size templates. That's the first piece, as they spell out how to do the whole thing. (Appendix, p574). Second, if I understand what you're asking, i.e., how to keep small things from getting hit despite that they're holding still:

 

Why not simply leave their Size DCV modifier untouched in that circumstance? We know they're sleeping or whathaveyou, okay, no sweat. But they're still small.

 

Why not just let them be small? If being Small always gives a +2 DCV bonus, then you calculate it as effectively being persistant; it's always there, because they're always small. All other DCV modifiers are knocked down to 0. Inversely, giant creatures who are always at -4, are always at -4, even when otherwise they'd be at 0 (sleeping) people are still at a +4 to hit them.

 

Does that fix it?

[caris]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

In that case' date=' I want to get points for taking "Large" because I'm easy to hit for pixies, brownies, and other small creatures; and I also want to get points for taking "Small" because I'm difficult to hit for ogres, giants, and other large creatures.[/quote']

 

Is this from 5th Revised? I can not find any reference to a smaller than normal human sized character getting any free bonuses to OCV against a normal human sized character in pre-revised 5th, or for that matter a larger than normal human sized character getting a penalty against a normal human sized character.

 

 

If a GM is handing out bonuses to smaller than normal human sized characters for hitting normal sized characters, and not charging them for it, I would find this odd, because the rules do indicate that the smaller than normal human sized character should be purchasing their DCV bonuses.

 

If the GM is applying an OCV penalty to the attacks of any larger than normal human sized characters against human sized characters, I would at best consider that part of the Physical Disadvantage, and also a house rule. I would certainly hope, at least in a Heroic level game, that I would have access to larger than normal human sized weapons that game with OCV bonuses and/or Area Effect Advantages due to their size.

 

 

 

 

 

*Note I am using "normal human size" as the base line as that is what 5th ed uses. If a GM were to reset normal size for a campaign that did not have humans as the assumed base line character, I would not have a problem. (Mind you, if a GM were to reset the lifting value of STR either higher or lower for the same reason, I would not have a problem, either.)

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I just do it the way d20 does it. Sorry to bring that up again, but:

 

d20 says that we build DCV modifiers in steps. In other words, if every step is a -2 DCV/+2 OCV penalty, and I'm one step removed, you're one step easier to hit, and I'm one step harder to hit. I believe the system (Hero, that is) already reflects that when all the math is done. But because d20 parses everything out into separate bonus types, it's a little more plain.

 

Point being, if you're three size classes bigger than me, you're that much easier for me to hit. You're also proportionately stronger, which is something ELSE that Hero covers. If you're really feeling picky, you may grant a PRE Bonus because of the size differential as well.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I just do it the way d20 does it. Sorry to bring that up again, but:

 

d20 says that we build DCV modifiers in steps. In other words, if every step is a -2 DCV/+2 OCV penalty, and I'm one step removed, you're one step easier to hit, and I'm one step harder to hit. I believe the system (Hero, that is) already reflects that when all the math is done. But because d20 parses everything out into separate bonus types, it's a little more plain.

 

Point being, if you're three size classes bigger than me, you're that much easier for me to hit. You're also proportionately stronger, which is something ELSE that Hero covers. If you're really feeling picky, you may grant a PRE Bonus because of the size differential as well.

 

 

From a purely mechanical perspective, ignoring cost, it would seem preferable to redefine the Shrinking and Growth modifiers. Rather than providing a bonus or penalty to DCV, shrinking should provide a penalty to an attacker's OCV, and a bonus to the shrunken character's OCV. Then, "DCV=0" and "DCV halved" effects have no impact on these modifiers. Similarely, large characters would provide a bonus to an opponent's OCV, and a penalty to his own OCV.

 

Of course, now we need to reprice Shrinking and Growth for the fact that Shrinking has gained a signiifcant advantage, and Growth has gained a significant drawback.

 

This works in D&D because D&D is not a point-based system. [in D&D, as you note, larger characters tend to be stronger, which gives them an offsetting bonus to hit - should we add an OCV bonus for STR as well, if D&D is doing it right?] How should these bonuses be paid for in Hero?

 

Bonus DCV (or OCV penalty) for being small appears superior to a DCV level, which costs 5 points, as it always applies. Persistent DCV levels would logically cost 7.5 points, with their +1/2 advantage. However, when your DCV is otherwise reduced to 0 (such that those persistent DcV levels would not provide any benefit), the small target's OCV penalty should, as I understand the argument, remain in place. This makes that size DCV even better than a persistent DCV level. Should they cost 10 points each, perhaps?

 

Add to that the OCV bonus, which is like a 5 point "+1 to OCV" bonus and we've added 10 points of value for each 1 point bonus a smaller character presently has. I'd say this indicates Shrinking should cost 15 points per level (the present 10, plus another 10 for these new advantages, but it costs END, which skill levels don't, and you have the associated drawbacks of reduced size, so round it out to 15).

 

A character with Growth loses an OCV, so we should probably drop Growth down a bit, probably to 3 points per level, to reflect this major side effect. The Growth character can make up for this decline in OCV by purchasing skill levels. He can Link them to Growth, for -1/2, but a Limited skill level still costs more than 2 points per level of Growth, so we're probably not discounting the price enough. Maybe we need to add some benefits back to Growth as well (maybe some of the benefits it had in older editions, when it cost 10 points per level, like extra PRE, Reach or bonus running).

 

Is the current system perfect in its logic? No, it isn't. Is the end result so far out that we need to adjust it significantly, and reprice the size adjustment powers to reflect this change in their utility? Again, I would say probably not. It seems to me that the current system is consistent with the source material - smaller than huan targets are often noted as "harder to hit", while larger targets are seldom written as having difficulty connecting with man-sized targets. The current system reflects that accurately enough.

[pinecone]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

In another thread we've been discussion some of the problems concerning Size Powers, having a character that is not human sized normally, and what such such character's DCVs are. I'd like to open a discussion specifically concerning that last part.

 

For the most part, I find no flaws in the Hero System rules. Everything works smoothly and all the rules work together in perfect harmony. I love this system. However, there are a few things that either don't make sense to me, or otherwise add up. Most of the time I chalk these up to my not having a complete uderstanding of the rule and how they work together, for in the past, any given rule has become clear and easily accepted as I've explored the system further to see how it all works together. The one exception to this is size, and the DCV of characters of different sizes.

 

I recently asked Steve Long about how to make a character's DCV always modified by their size, meaning that even while sleeping or unconscious, they would receive the DCV bonus (or the attacker would receive the OCV penalty). His answer was nothing at all. According to the rules, an unconcsious character the size of a pea has the same DCV as an unconscious character the size of a barn.

 

The only solution Steve offered was to attempt to convince the GM to allow for the size modifiers to DCV as if the character were an inanimate object. This seems a bit kludgy to me. While SFX is an awesome tool, it really shouldn't, all by itself, determine between a character that is virtually unhittable and a character that is almost guarenteed to be hit. Especially when that said character is otherwise helpless.

 

What I'm looking for here is a simple rule that seemlessly flows into the standard rules that will account for the DCV of varying size characters. It should account for the logical DCV of unconscious characters, but could also determine the OCV/DCV between any given targets of different sizes. It should also involve characters paying for the bonus of being hard to hit, or betting a point break for being easier to hit.

 

I'm aware that there might not be a simple rule that seemlessly flows into the standard rules, but I'm hoping. Any ideas?

 

I don't know man..I guess I don't like the example...a bug is harder for me to hit than a person, But the chances I'll somehow miss a ladybug that doesnot (and cannot) move is zilch...I gonna smush it every time. So to me zero DCV sound totally reasonable...?

[keithcurtis]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Perhaps 6th edition should have a SIZE characteristic?

You get a +1 (or whatever) to hit any creature whose size is one level larger and a -1 (or whatever) to hit any creature whose size is one level smaller.

Basically every change in level away from your opponent's size gets you the equivalent of +1/-1 or -1/+1, so long as the opponent is aware of the attack and capable of resisting (ie not stunned/entangeled/unconsciuos/etc.). It should balance out.

It is similar (and possible integratable with) the vehicle SIZE characteristic.

 

Keith "ten times as big as a ma-a-a-a-n" Curtis

[Lucius]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

IT's a thought....

 

but like dumping the COMeliness characteristic, it's probably too radical for them to really do it.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is pessimistic about them even adjusting the cost of STR

[tesuji]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Smaller targets should have an easier time hitting larger targets.

 

Can this premises be challenged? or is it an unassailable axiom?

 

Do midgets and children actually make better marksmen than full sized adults?

 

Should a 3' tall kid, little person, halfling etc gain a bonus to hit vs a 12' giant thats more than the bonus to hit that a 6' adult human gets?

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Can this premises be challenged?

Yes.

 

or is it an unassailable axiom?

Yes.

 

Do midgets and children actually make better marksmen than full sized adults?

No.

 

Should a 3' tall kid' date=' little person, halfling etc gain a bonus to hit vs a 12' giant thats more than the bonus to hit that a 6' adult human gets?[/quote']

No.

 

These are the correct answers to the questions.

Unfortunately these questions are totally independent of each other and aren't necessarily equivalent for comparison or evaluation. (8^D)

 

Having done extensive research on this particular subject myself, I discovered that the bonus/penalties can only be applied consistently when addressing different size humans that are equivalent in structure proportionately and maturity of skill.

 

What this means is:

 

1) Children (10 and younger) generally aren't skilled in using thier body as mature adults (coordination/balance/dexterity)

 

2) Midgets generally aren't equivalent in proportions comparatively

 

3) Marksmen has to do with skill in using weapons at range, which as a skill can be increased through practice and also is dependent on one's perception in addition to the size factor which is only one component

 

4) Fantasy races rarely have the equivalent proportions of the race of men

 

These differences are easily seen when comparing strides of different size beings.

 

Two humans with one being half the size of the larger and proportionally equivalent. When walking/running at the same pace, the larger will cover more distance. This would be an axiom.

 

An Ogre and an Elf. The Ogre is twice the size of the Elf. The Elf may actually travel faster than the Ogre or vice versa depending on the proportions and the race benefits.

 

Just Something To Consider

 

Edited to reduce any ambiguity that may have existed.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Lucius]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

 

Two humans with one being half the size of the larger and proportionally equivalent. The larger will cover more distance walking/running. This would be an axiom.

 

No, it's a half-truth.

 

The larger one covers more distance with each stride. That will "cover more distance" in that sense.

 

That does not mean the larger being necessarily walks faster. The smaller being will probably be making more strides of shorter length in the same amount of time that the larger one makes fewer strides of greater length.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary tries to use Forensic Medicine on a still living person....

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

No' date=' it's a half-truth.[/quote']

No it is a full truth.

 

The larger one covers more distance with each stride. That will "cover more distance" in that sense.

And this is exactly what I implied since I specifically used the word equivalent.

 

That does not mean the larger being necessarily walks faster.

???

Where did I ever imply that the Larger being would be walking faster?

Nowhere did I ever imply that.

I did imply that the stride (Walking/Running) would be larger and thus result in the larger being covering more distance.

 

The smaller being will probably be making more strides of shorter length in the same amount of time that the larger one makes fewer strides of greater length.

Now you are scewing the comparison by destroying the equivalency of the two beings in the comparison.

 

For a true comparison of distance traveled based on size difference, it is implied that the two beings walk/run at the same pace, so therefore, neither is walking/running any faster than each other. Thus the result will be same. The larger being will cover more distance.

 

Lucius, you need to read more carefully. I spent several weeks going over this with different posters here. I've got a document that offers an alternative way to handle size in Hero. I'm willing to email it to any who want to check it over. It is far from perfect, but it does handle size in a more consistent manner than the current system. I may have sent you that document already, but if not, just email me at schir1964 @ netzero.com and I'll send it to you.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[prestidigitator]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

No, it's a half-truth.

 

The larger one covers more distance with each stride. That will "cover more distance" in that sense.

 

That does not mean the larger being necessarily walks faster. The smaller being will probably be making more strides of shorter length in the same amount of time that the larger one makes fewer strides of greater length.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary tries to use Forensic Medicine on a still living person....

Walking can be modeled pretty well using a pendulum. The magnitude of the swing is equatable to the distance covered with each stride, and the frequency is equatable to the rate of strides. The amplitude (in terms of actual distance traveled) of a pendulum is proportional to its length (L). The frequency of a pendulum is proportional to the inverse of the square-root of its length (1/sqrt(L)). The walking speed of a creature will be proportional to the product of these, or the square-root of the length of the limb (sqrt(L)). As length increases, walking speed goes up, but not linearly. Running is slighly different, but the general relationship is still one with a positive correlation.