Size & DCV: A Big Problem

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Walking can be modeled pretty well using a pendulum. The magnitude of the swing is equatable to the distance covered with each stride' date=' 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.[/quote']

Precisely! Thank you. (8^D)

 

In order to do a proper comparison, the rate of strides or Pace of both beings must be equivalent.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Erkenfresh]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Everyone uses the "smash a bug with their hand" analogy. Try doing that with an axe or a sword instead. You're gonna miss a lot. But the floor the bug is sitting on is gonna get all cut up.

 

Here's my opinion. Should small/large creatures get a bonus/penalty to OCV? Of course not. This makes the assumption that a "halfling" is better at firing a bow, simply because he's short. This makes little sense to me. Haha, get it? Little.

 

Should small/large creatures get a bonus/penalty to DCV? Yes, definitely. Is a "halfling" harder to hit than a full-sized human? You betcha. This is like saying it's harder to hit the bullseye than the dart board. It really is (believe me, even if you haven't played darts before).

 

Should the DCV bonus/penalty negate each other due to size? This is where I'm iffy. If we say "yes", the halfling will have an easier time hitting a bullseye, simply because he's short, but this makes little sense. However, if we say "no" you have game balance issues, where it's impossible to miss something because it's big (especially in something like a starship battle). This also leads to saying that two giants will hit each other more often than two human-sized people, which also makes little sense. So, just for game balance, I'd have to go with yes, DCV bonuses/penalties negate each other.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I don't know man..I guess I don't like the example...a bug is harder for me to hit than a person' date=' 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...?[/quote']

 

Can you do that while effectively avoiding incoming attacks from other opponents (assuming the ladybug is also an opponent) and keeping yourself aware of your immediate surroundings, and perform the action in the same time you'd be able to attempt to land a punch on those other opponents? If you're not sure, put a grape on a table and ask a friend to attack you with a nerf bat while trying to grab or squish it, and avoid getting hit with the bat.

 

Play the same game again, only this time you have to punch the wall.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

First, I'd like to thank everyone for their imput so far.

 

What I was mainly concerned with in this thread was determing a way to simulate the fact that it's harder, in combat, to hit something small, when compared to hit something large, given that each target is immobile. For characters, I've decided just to apply OCV penalties to the attacker when attacking a small vs large target.

 

About the general big guys are easier to hit than little guys, this is mostly a matter of HTH combat. At range, the existing rules cover this quite well I think. Any attacker will have the same change to hit a target of X size at Y range, regardless of the attacker's size. All that matters is the attacker's accuracy, and size is not a factor here. The only time size would be a factor would be in HTH combat, and even this is somewhat debatable (a small attacker might have difficult closing into HTH range just getting past his target's longer arms, or might find it easier if the target's arms where too high up to reach him, or then find it harder still because his target only needs to take a small step back).

 

I'm not sure if there is a simple rule that can simulate all of this. The closest thing I have is just saying that in HTH combat, DCV penalties/bonuses are relative between the attacker and defender, but neither receive an OCV bonus. So if the guy who's 3 feet tall (and has +2 DCV due to his size) is fighting a guy who's also 3 feet tall, there are no modifiers to DCV between them, unless they are attacking each other at range. If Mr. 3foot attacked a 6ft tall guy in HTH combat, he'd be at -2 DCV, and if the 6ft guy attacked 3ft, 3ft would be +2 DCV. If these attacks were ranged, 6ft's DCV would be unmodified and 3ft's would be +2.

 

Now I'm not sure if that's fair, reasonable or even realistic, but it's what I've got right now. If anyone has a simpler way, or better way, let me know, 'cuz I'm still looking.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I shall once again attempt to address the relative size and distance issue.

 

The solid angle taken up by a target relative to the attacker should be the determining factor in how difficult it is to hit the target. This is because the ANGULAR accuracy of an attack is going to be roughly the same for any attacker. It is easiest (but the notion generalizes) to visualize this if the attacker is using, say, a rifle: the lateral linear error in aim is going to be proportional to the size of the attacker/weapon, but the length of the weapon is (obviously) proportional to the size of the attacker/weapon, so the angular error is constant. This means that a bonus/penalty to the attack roll for the ATTACKER being smaller/larger is NOT generally an accurate model for ranged attacks. HTH discussion to follow.

 

The solid angle taken up by a target is proportional to the AREA (length squared) of the target and inversely proportional to the square of the distance away (radius). Hero models a target that is twice as difficult to hit with a -1 to the attacker's OCV. This is consistent between the Growth/Size tables and the Range Modifiers. It does not hold up for concealment penalites, which should be halved (half the area covered should result in a -1 OCV, not a -2 OCV; one quarter of the target being exposed should be equivalent to twice the distance and should give a -2 OCV penalty, not a -4 OCV).

 

Generally the closer the target is, the easier it is to hit, BUT there are some probable practical drawbacks when the target gets TOO close. Is it easier to punch or grab something when it is snug against your chest or back, in between your legs, or right in front of your face than if it is just inside your arm's reach? Well, PROBABALY not. I think if you have any experience with martial arts you will find that this bears out ("in-fighting," is no easier than other forms of fighting; it is in fact often more difficult and requires more training to be efficient at it). There should probably be some constant in-fighting penalty (-1 or -2 OCV).

 

"Arm's reach," in Hero can probably be assumed to be the number of hexes taken up by the attacker (actually one hex outside of this area). If the target is within this distance, neither HTH Attacks nor Ranged Attacks suffer any kind of penalty. However, the character obviously doesn't take up the entire space of the hexes (s)he occupies, and is generally assumed to move about in this space during combat. What's more, a small character can also attack a target that is a full hex away, and a small character generally is not penalized in terms of movement. While a small character's, "arm's reach," may be smaller than a full hex, we can generally take a hex to be the amount of movement taking place; the, "error in position," during combat as it were. A small character is modelled by the system as occupying a full hex, and this carries with it the assumption of a certain amount of movement and maneuvering during combat; a certain base time and distance scale, as it were.

 

So a small attacker might be able to hit a target in HTH more easily IF THE TARGET IS AT ARM'S REACH (since that reach is smaller than a large character's and brings the target closer), the system assumes the characters are still at a distance of approximately a hex apart, which is FURTHER than the small character's arm's reach. Actually the small character would also be easier for the larger character to hit if they engaged in combat at this clsoe distance, thereby negating the small character's size bonus to defense (but possibly also causing the large character a small constant penalty to OCV for in-fighting, and given the, "one hex," variability I mentioned above we can probably assume the large character can keep the small one at arm's reach under MOST circumstances--i.e. ones where the GM isn't giving a situational/surprise bonus because of creative/strategic gameplay).

 

A large attacker going after a normal sized target should really be at a penalty if the target is at the limit of his/her natural reach (greater distance). If they are still a single hex away (the normal sized character's reach) the attack should come at no penalty except again possibly a small constant one for in-fighting. The normal opponent if counter-attacking would be at a penalty if they are at the larger character's arm's reach (this is modeled fine for Ranged Attacks) and will get a bonus to hit if only a hex away from the large character (modeled by the large character's DCV size penalty).

 

On the other hand, assuming that either two large or two small characters fighting each other in fact, "distance themselves," according to their arm's reach may be slightly inconsistent, but it is probably reasonable and allows that level of, "relativity," that keeps us happy as gamers. So allowing the DCV bonuses/penalties to negate each other in a PSL-type way isn't a horrible idea.

 

So really here is where I see the inconsistencies with a realistic physical model:

1. Concealment penalties are inconsistent with both size/Growth tables and Range Modifiers. This should PROBABLY BE FIXED, but people seem to have gotten along fine with it so far.
   
2. There is no Range Penalty for attacking targets at distance using Growth or Stretching reach. This should DEFINITELY BE FIXED.
   
3. There is no in-fighting penalty for large characters. Given that this wouldn't really depend on the amount of Growth and we wish to keep things somewhat dramatic/simple (not to mention that a large character would be at a penalty at ANY distance; for in-fighting if not for range) this is probably REASONABLE. In fact, given than an in-fighting penalty would probably be fixed, we can likely assume Growth and Stretching include the cost of overcoming it in a limited fashion (unlike the range penalty for reach, which would NOT be constant!).
   
4. There is some level of relative size figuring in, because two small characters or two large characters do not suffer the same bonuses/penalties when fighting each other. As I discussed above, this is PROBABLY REASONABLE, and at least keeps us sane when we want to really think about, "realistic," but extraordinary scales.

But it is DEFINITELY NOT REASONABLE to give small characters a blanket OCV bonus to all attacks (especially ranged ones!). Even at HTH distances it is not very reasonable to assign them BOTH a DCV bonus (which assumes they keep a constant distance) AND an OCV bonus (which assumes they have closed to a closer-than-normal distance). This is where D&D gets it horribly wrong.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I think it's reasonable to model size issues with OCV modifiers rather than DCV modifiers. That means that:

1. Unconscious or otherwise, "totally vulnerable," characters will still be harder or easier to hit because of size (makes sense and is consistent with objects).
   
2. Size differences won't be halved with the target is at 1/2 DCV. Sounds reasonable but should probably be monitored during play testing.
   
3. Shrinking could be thought of as providing limited Negative CSLs for opponents as opposed to DCV CSLs for the character. It would be interesting to build such a construct and see if the costs seemed consistent.

EDIT: Oh, but you might consider allowing a size OCV penalty for hitting an immobile target to be negated if the attacker takes extra time to do it. This doesn't really apply to an unconscious character because the attacker can take that extra time to perform a coupe de gras and no attack roll is necessary, but it could certainly apply to an otherwise immobile one (a target held helpless in an Entagle, for example).

[The Souljourner]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

As an avid D&Der, I have to say that I love the D&D size system. Small characters get a size bonus to OCV and DCV, large characters get a penalty. When fighting against people of the same size, these modifiers cancel each other out.

 

I don't know why this isn't a perfectly acceptable solution for Hero. Have size modifiers applied after any multiplication of DCV or OCV (so 1/2 or 0 OCV, then apply size modifiers). And that works just fine.

 

If relative size doesn't help you hit, how come the wall around my dartboard has a lot more holes in it than the bullseye?

 

I can punch a person dodging around me a lot easier than I can punch a fly buzzing around my head. That fly can pretty easily buzz around my head and land on me no matter how I dodge.

 

What isn't taken into consideration with the D&D size rules is range. Sure, to the halfling, the human is a big wall of flesh twice as big in any direction as himself..... but he's also twice as far away. But I think for simplicity's sake, it's easier to handwave that than try to fix it.

 

As for big creatures having more strength in D&D... sure, but nothing says the same can't be true for Hero.

 

I think there should be size templates in Hero that are independant of other stats. No strength modifier, just "I am 6 inches tall, so I inherently have +4OCV and +4DCV". And give them points values... growth in this case would actually have a negative points value... you might give bigger creatures some stretching because of their longer arms, too.

 

This is something I was just thinking about, and I think it's something that should get put into the rules as a standard thing (not necessarily my solution, just *some* solution, other than the size templates in 5ER).

 

-Nate

[ghost-angel]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

There already are size tempaltes in Hero, after a fashion. What isn't really done is having them explicitely spelled out in a neat table.

 

It shouldn't be hard to, for your game, to create a set of size templates of expected behavior at each size level you determine.

 

I think a lot of this is points posturing because we've got it in our heads that everything has to be made with Points. It's along the lines of making someone pay point for a flashlight... common sense says "nah" while our gamist brains are going "points don't add up!! WARNING!! AUGH!!" and freaking out on us.

 

Just go with it. If you have a giant, and have given him Giant Properties based on SFX (Knockback Resistance, STR, Reach, Phys Lim: Big Object) just go Ok, people are half his size, makes him easier to hit, well, easier to smack in the shins...

[Lucius]

Re Size & DCV & OCV & Running etc. A Growing Problem

 

???

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.

 

“Covering more distance†is a pretty meaningless statement without more context than you gave it. To me, it seemed you were implying “covering more distance in the same amount of time.â€

 

Of course, it could mean “Walk farther in a day†or “Over the course of a lifetime will have traveled more†or perhaps any number of other things. It seemed to me that what you were saying – albeit admittedly, not explicitly – was that the larger being will cover more distance in the same amount of time, i.e. move faster.

 

If I point out that the larger being probably has a larger cranial capacity, and leave it at that, would you assume I was implying that larger creatures are more intelligent? If you don’t assume that, would you be wondering what I WAS trying to say?

 

Walking can be modeled pretty well using a pendulum. The magnitude of the swing is equatable to the distance covered with each stride' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

This is a little technical, but I think I understand it. Makes sense to me.

 

Of course, the problem here is that a larger creature is not necessarily going to be proportioned strictly like a normal Human, and may not be remotely Humanoid.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Insert palindromedary tagline here

[Rapier]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Unfortunately, I don't think there is an easy answer.

 

Two 2 hex tall people have 0 DCV mods for size.

Two 1/4" tall people have DCV mods for size.

 

Does it make sense? Nope. If two people are 1/4" in size they are the same size and should have no DCV mods for size. But what about range? So you should start altering hex sizes to match. But then you are mixing and matching hex sizes.

 

It's just a difficult situation.

 

Ok, here's the scenario.

 

Blur is a character that fades in and out of our reality. He does it all the time and can't shut it off. It's been bought as +3 DCV Levels, Always On. If he's asleep (0 DCV), I'm still going to give him a DCV of 3. For my mind 0 DCV means that you take no conscious defensive stance. So you get no DCV from DEX or consciously controlled powers. However, you are still small and hard to hit so you would keep size adjustment DCV levels and any unconscious DCV levels.

 

It shouldn't be too hard to figure those out real quick.

[Killer Shrike]

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']

Exactly, and well said.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Blur is a character that fades in and out of our reality. He does it all the time and can't shut it off. It's been bought as +3 DCV Levels, Always On. If he's asleep (0 DCV), I'm still going to give him a DCV of 3. For my mind 0 DCV means that you take no conscious defensive stance. So you get no DCV from DEX or consciously controlled powers. However, you are still small and hard to hit so you would keep size adjustment DCV levels and any unconscious DCV levels.

 

It shouldn't be too hard to figure those out real quick.

 

Once again, I pose the question "If Blur's DCV levels apply even when he is asleep or otherwise normally reduced to 0 DCV, what do they cost?" Clearly, they ought to cost more than Captain Croatia's levels which only apply if he's assigned them, or even Dr. Dodge's +3 Persistent DCV levels that reflect his constant Dodging, but which follow the usual rule of "DCV 0 means DCV 0 - levels or not". Persistent is a +1/2 advantage. Is "Even when sleeping or frozen in place" a further +1/2?

[The Souljourner]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I'd make "applies after 1/2 or 0 DCV modifiers" a +1/2. That's a sizeable advantage that comes into play fairly often.

 

-Nate

[prestidigitator]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Hrm. Perhaps Uncontrolled (+1/2) on top of being Persistent would be appropriate. Strange use of that Advantage, but it kind of makes sense....

[Rapier]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Once again' date=' I pose the question "If Blur's DCV levels apply even when he is asleep or otherwise normally reduced to 0 DCV, what do they cost?" Clearly, they ought to cost more than Captain Croatia's levels which only apply if he's assigned them, or even Dr. Dodge's +3 Persistent DCV levels that reflect his constant Dodging, but which follow the usual rule of "DCV 0 means DCV 0 - levels or not". Persistent is a +1/2 advantage. Is "Even when sleeping or frozen in place" a further +1/2?[/quote']

 

Well, that depends on how you are looking at it.

 

What is the power. Is it Always On or Just Active When Unconscious? I can understand where you might want it to be an Advantage. It does offer some utility. Hmmm. Ok, I need to think more on it.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

If you really want the physically unrealistic behavior (see my post above) of a blanket OCV bonus to small characters, you are welcome to buy the OCV bonus alongside Shrinking or whatever other size package you are using. I would hate it being built into the base system, and it is the very first thing I would spend a lot of energy to accurately house rule away.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

If you're going to go the Advantage route why not just use Persistent & Inherent.

 

Now it's always on and can't be "removed." If the character has Growth used on them the -DCV should cancel out the Inherent DCV to a net of 0.

[caris]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

If the problem is with the way DCV is calculated making the CSLs bought for DCV meaningless, how about buy them as Negative Skill levels instead? Would that be an illegal build?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

If the problem is with the way DCV is calculated making the CSLs bought for DCV meaningless' date=' how about buy them as Negative Skill levels instead? Would that be an illegal build?[/quote']

I think that was pretty much what we were getting at in posts 29 and 31.

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Maybe I shouldn't even bother posting this, since no seems interested in this method.

 

The DCV Bonus/Penalty should not be part of Shrinking/Growth or even part of a Size Template.

 

The DCV Bonus/Penalty should be part of the Combat Modifiers just like the Range/Perception Modifiers are.

 

Therefore, any size difference would be evaluated at the time of attack and applied.

 

As for the points about striking "Prone" or "Unresisting" or "Objects", this is alreay handled by current rules for "Coup De Gras".

 

For the points about smacking small mobile things with open hands, this is already covered by current rules concerning Area Effect attacks.

 

Again, this is all covered in more depth in the Size For Hero document. I can email to any who are interested.

 

- Christopher Mullins (schir1964 @ netzero.com)

[Erkenfresh]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

How's about this? This seems to make the most sense of anything so far:

1. Bigger creatures get a -2 OCV/DCV per doubling of size.

2. Smaller creatures get a +2 OCV/DCV per halving of size.

3. Bigger creatures range modifiers are reduced by 2. That is, start with a -2 at 8", then -4 at 16", etc.

4. Smaller creatures range modifiers are increased by 2. That is, start with a -2 at 2", then -4 at 4", etc.

 

This solves the issue of a short person being better at using a gun just because he's short. The +2 OCV bonus will cancel out with the extra range penalty starting at 2" instead of 4".

 

It also makes it consistent in that D&D fashion where two small people and two large people have the same chance of hitting each other, which also makes sense.

 

Whether you guys like it or not, I think I'll use this rule in my upcoming FH campaign and see how it works out.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Maybe I shouldn't even bother posting this, since no seems interested in this method.

 

The DCV Bonus/Penalty should not be part of Shrinking/Growth or even part of a Size Template.

 

The DCV Bonus/Penalty should be part of the Combat Modifiers just like the Range/Perception Modifiers are.

 

Therefore, any size difference would be evaluated at the time of attack and applied.

 

As for the points about striking "Prone" or "Unresisting" or "Objects", this is alreay handled by current rules for "Coup De Gras".

 

For the points about smacking small mobile things with open hands, this is already covered by current rules concerning Area Effect attacks.

 

Again, this is all covered in more depth in the Size For Hero document. I can email to any who are interested.

 

- Christopher Mullins (schir1964 @ netzero.com)

Actually, I'm in complete agreement personally.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

How's about this? This seems to make the most sense of anything so far:

1. Bigger creatures get a -2 OCV/DCV per doubling of size.

2. Smaller creatures get a +2 OCV/DCV per halving of size.

3. Bigger creatures range modifiers are reduced by 2. That is, start with a -2 at 8", then -4 at 16", etc.

4. Smaller creatures range modifiers are increased by 2. That is, start with a -2 at 2", then -4 at 4", etc.

 

This solves the issue of a short person being better at using a gun just because he's short. The +2 OCV bonus will cancel out with the extra range penalty starting at 2" instead of 4".

 

I keep coming back to "what's the cost?" This approach means that, for one "size decrease", you get +2 OCV so long as you're within 2", and +2 DCV. One Size Increase, meanwhile, costs you 2 DCV, and reduces your OCV by 2 if your target is within 4".

 

Seems like being small gets you an advantage, and being large carries drawbacks. If I get to select my size category with no point cost, "miniscule" or smaller looks pretty good. I get a huge DCV bonus, and my OCV is enhanced so long as I'm in HTH range, and no worse at range than it otherwise would have been.

 

Lte us know how the playtest goes, and what proportion of giants to insects you get submitted as PC's.

[Rapier]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Maybe I shouldn't even bother posting this, since no seems interested in this method.

 

The DCV Bonus/Penalty should not be part of Shrinking/Growth or even part of a Size Template.

 

The DCV Bonus/Penalty should be part of the Combat Modifiers just like the Range/Perception Modifiers are.

 

Therefore, any size difference would be evaluated at the time of attack and applied.

 

As for the points about striking "Prone" or "Unresisting" or "Objects", this is alreay handled by current rules for "Coup De Gras".

 

For the points about smacking small mobile things with open hands, this is already covered by current rules concerning Area Effect attacks.

 

Again, this is all covered in more depth in the Size For Hero document. I can email to any who are interested.

 

- Christopher Mullins (schir1964 @ netzero.com)

 

Oh I'm totally there. I agree completely, 100%. I just think we make a lot of concessions to playability and time. It's hard to have a separate attack-chart for each character, especially if you run into multi-sized characters...and if you don't use multi-sized characters in a game are you bowing down to expediency?

 

It's a whole rough kind of neighbourhood to be sleeping in your car.

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Oh I'm totally there. I agree completely, 100%. I just think we make a lot of concessions to playability and time. It's hard to have a separate attack-chart for each character, especially if you run into multi-sized characters...and if you don't use multi-sized characters in a game are you bowing down to expediency?

 

It's a whole rough kind of neighbourhood to be sleeping in your car.

Actually, you don't have to have a chart if you set things up right. You created a "Size Stat" as simply as a number for comparison. When you have two characters with two different size stats you take the difference and that becomes the indicator for determining the Bonus/Penalty. The difference can be the actual value or some type of multiple so it is easy to determine.

 

It would work just like comparing STR values for escaping grabs.

 

- Christopher Mullins