Size & DCV: A Big Problem

[Erkenfresh]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

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.

 

Well, obviously, it wouldn't be free. Let's break it down shall we?

1. +1 OCV with all combat. You could do this with +1 to all combat (-1/2, Only for OCV): 5 points. 5 points seems consistent with using a "Negative CSL" to cause a -1 OCV for all attacks to someone.

2. +1 DCV with all combat. That's just a 5 point CSL.

3. -1 OCV at range, sounds like a "Negative PSL". Those cost 3 points to inflict on someone else. Seems reasonable to say it would cost -3 points for the character to suffer it.

 

Add 'em up. That's 7 points per 1 bonus/penalty. Going back, I'm starting to think +2 OCV/DCV per size category is a bit much. I'd probably set it at +1 OCV/DCV.

 

So the total cost for every size category smaller than human is 7 points. Every size bigger than human is -7 points (you could even roll that into the size disadvantage).

[Erkenfresh]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Also, this is fairly meaningless if a larger character just spends the deficit points on more CSL's. But, if you impose CSL limits, it makes a difference. Also, not every giant wants to be a fighter. Well, OK, only 99.9% of them but there's always a rare case heh.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Well, obviously, it wouldn't be free. Let's break it down shall we?

1. +1 OCV with all combat. You could do this with +1 to all combat (-1/2, Only for OCV): 5 points. 5 points seems consistent with using a "Negative CSL" to cause a -1 OCV for all attacks to someone.

2. +1 DCV with all combat. That's just a 5 point CSL.

3. -1 OCV at range, sounds like a "Negative PSL". Those cost 3 points to inflict on someone else. Seems reasonable to say it would cost -3 points for the character to suffer it.

 

Add 'em up. That's 7 points per 1 bonus/penalty. Going back, I'm starting to think +2 OCV/DCV per size category is a bit much. I'd probably set it at +1 OCV/DCV.

 

So the total cost for every size category smaller than human is 7 points. Every size bigger than human is -7 points (you could even roll that into the size disadvantage).

 

So for 7 points I can either buy:

 

(a) a DCV level that only works when I actually allocate it and +1 OCV to a single attack

 

OR

 

( I can buy my size category down one, and get +1 DCV that's always effective, even if I'm stunned or asleep, and get +1 OCV with all non-ranged attacks

 

Which one seems more valuable?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

So for 7 points I can either buy:

 

(a) a DCV level that only works when I actually allocate it and +1 OCV to a single attack

 

OR

 

( I can buy my size category down one, and get +1 DCV that's always effective, even if I'm stunned or asleep, and get +1 OCV with all non-ranged attacks

 

Which one seems more valuable?

 

Well, if these costs were inclusive of all aspects relating to size, option B also comes with some inherent penalties related to the reduced size, such as reduced reach and visual scope. I'm not sure if this was intended to replace both the positive effects and the Disad that's suggested by the rules.

 

I do remember once, instead of taking a Disad, I just bought +2 DCV with Side Effects: +3" KB from attacks for a character that was under 4 feet tall and rather slim. We never had a situation where she was attacked while sleeping or unconscious though.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I do remember once' date=' instead of taking a Disad, I just bought +2 DCV with Side Effects: +3" KB from attacks for a character that was under 4 feet tall and rather slim. We never had a situation where she was attacked while sleeping or unconscious though.[/quote']

 

The suggestion that these DCV levels remain fully applicable when the character's DCV is otherwise halved or reduced to zero would, in my view, make these DCV bonuses very potent compared to ordinary DCV levels. It's not just sleeping or unconscious - characters who are Grabbed, Entangled, Stunned, performing a Sweep or Rapid Attack all have reduced DCV's. If they can mitigate that loss of DCV with DCV bonuses that aren't subject to halving or reduction to zero, that's a very significant advantage.

[The Souljourner]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Per Size Category smaller than human:

 

+1 with DCV, Always Applies after modifiers (+1/2) 7 points

+1 with all combat, Always Applies after modifiers (+1/2), Only for OCV (-1/2) 8 points.

-2 to PER checks to discern 4 points

-2 Negative PSL for range -3 points

+2" Knockback -4 points

 

Total: 12 points per level.

 

Anyone with more than one level has no inherent reach and must use ranged attacks, stretching, or move into an opponent's hex to attack them.

 

Growth:

-1 with DCV, Always Applies after modifiers (+1/2) -7 points

-1 with all combat, Always Applies after modifiers (+1/2), Only for OCV (-1/2) -8 points.

+2 to PER checks to discern -4 points

+2 PSL for range 3 points

-2" Knockback 4 points

+1" Stretching, Reduced END (+1/2) 7 points

 

Total: -5 points per level

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I have given this a lot of thought over the years and was initially in the OCV & DCV bonus camp for a long time. Then I got to thinking even more about what you "get" when you buy DEX/Skills/Whatever. Before you wonder why I'm talking about DEX, hear me out.

 

DEX is independent of size. If I buy 15 DEX I get 5 OCV that within the game allows me to hit a 5 DCV target at 11-. This isn't size relative, based on whether I am blue or green, or anything else.

 

If I shrink down in size I still have this ability. If I get larger I still have this ability. My size does not alter my base DEX and base CVs.

 

So, if you want to adjust OCV & DCV for size to create a balanced trade off (Ogre is -2 OCV -2 DCV and Pixie is +2 OCV +2 DCV) you can cost that out, but it introduces all sorts of wierdness, especially when talking about area attacks and such. True, this system ensures that an Ogre attacking an Ogre does so effectively at net +0 CV but it gets skewed when attacking the Pixie.

 

This led me to believe "you get what you paid for". I have a 15 DEX and my OCV is 5 regardless of size. So, the Ogre is sure to have a hard time hitting the pixie (+2 DCV) for size, but no more difficulty than a normal sized creature.

 

The problem here is that now Ogres have an easier time hitting each other, and Pixies have a harder time. Is this reality? Maybe, but it is hard to say.

 

There is an easy fix, at least in my opinion.

 

+/- DCV at 4 pts per level. Why 4? 5 Active Points; Relative Size Modifier -1/4. This limitation, much like the abstract "Real" limitation, subsumes all the potential wierdness of relative size.

 

How does it work?

 

If two combatants have opposite signed modifiers (one is positive and one is negative) - do nothing. The Ogre will be -2 DCV and the Pixie +2 DCV.

 

If the combatants have same signed modifiers, the more extreme of the two suffers the penalty reduced by the other. If an Ogre (-2 DCV) is attacking a Giant (-4 DCV), the Giant is at -2 DCV vs. the Ogre and the Ogre is -0 DCV vs. the Giant.

 

This solution avoids any wierdness with area affect attacks. It also makes similarly sized combatants not suddenly unbalanced (OCV 6 Giant attacking a modified DCV 2 Giant). I would like to believe, with an eye towards cinematic reality, that two giants brawling will result in the same outcome as two humans.

 

Aside from the DCV issues, I actually think the size templates are fairly good at capturing some of the key issues. However, I like to capture a little more detail. For example:

 

Giant

Cost PowerEND

Large+ (5.2m, 1600kg)

20 1) Greater Strength: +20 STR

8 2) Greater Mass: +4 BODY

4 3) Tougher: +4 ED

-4 4) The Harder they Fall: Falling Distance +4"

-4 5) Heavy Legs: Leaping -4"

8 6) Heavy: Knockback Resistance -4"

8 7) Long Legs: Running +4" (10" total)

-14 8) Visibility: -2 DCV, +2 to PER rolls against; Size Relative (-1/4)

4 9) Reach: Stretching 1", Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2); Always Direct (-1/4), No Noncombat Stretching (-1/4), No Velocity Damage (-1/4)

10 10) Very Tough: Physical Damage Reduction, Resistant, 25%; STUN Only (-1/2)

10 11) Very Tough: Energy Damage Reduction, Resistant, 25%; STUN Only (-1/2)

50 Giant Attacks:Multipower, 50-point reserve

2u 1) Smash: Area Of Effect (up to One Hex; +1/2) for up to 40 Active Points of STR

3u 2) Weapon Smash: Area Of Effect (up to One Hex; +1/2) for up to 67 Active Points of HTH

4u 3) Weapon Sweep: Area Of Effect Nonselective (up to 7" Any Area; Non Selective, Adjacent; +3/4) for up to 67 Active Points of HTH; 180 Arc (-1/4)

2u 4) Sweep: Area Of Effect Nonselective (up to 4" Any Area; Non Selective, Adjacent; +3/4) for up to 40 Active Points of STR; 180 Arc (-1/4)

Val Disadvantages

5 Large+: 5.2m, 1600kg, Eat/Drink/Excrete 16x

 

I lump the size issues into "Visibility": 4 pts for DCV 3 pts for Stealth/Concealment (self only) modifiers. The only thing I've been thinking about is while the +1 BODY per +5 STR mirrors Growth, looking at many creatures in the bestiary +2 BODY per is probably more appropriate.

 

The Sweeps allow the giant to attack all people in a 4 hex arc (or a 3hex + 4 hex arc with a weapon - picture a short, small cone with 3 hexes adjacent and then the next 4 hexes behind that). It is non-selective so an attack must be made against each target separately. Whether the power build is 100% accurate for all of the things you can do with this, I think you can see where I'm going. The giant can effectively smash a single hex with his STR or a weapon, or sweep an area (at no OCV/DCV penalty).

 

The "Heavy Legs" essentially cancels out any bonus to leap from high STR. The Very Tough actually increases with size. Larger creatures get full 25% (STUN and BODY) reduction, then get 50% at 8xheight/64xmass. This allows larger creatures to trade blows on an equivalent count to a human, and works pretty well.

 

We've been playing with this for the last few years playtesting Narosia. It has worked great, kept things simple (relatively), and allowed us to account cost for all of a larger creatures abilities. We only extended our table to 8x since that is about 50' long - such large creatures are fairly rare in a fantasy game. We can easily extend the patterns out farther, but that is large enough for most things.

 

This solution may work for some of you, it may not. I went through many solutions prior to this one, but I am most happy here. I think it recognizes the importance of "getting what you pay for in Hero" while addressing some of the reality stretching details of fantastic creatures. It's also, more or less, just an application of the optional size rules presented in various locations that suggest awarding -5 pts per -1 DCV and separating that from the size disad.

 

Enjoy.

[Talon]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Just want to say that this method looks good...hope Steve is paying attention!

[kjamma4]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

or the two objects start somehow moving around that the barn becomes an easier target.

 

Honest officer, the barn was moving when I ran into it. Hic.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Per Size Category smaller than human:

 

+1 with DCV, Always Applies after modifiers (+1/2) 7 points

 

This is the same cost as a DCV level which is Persistent, which would apply before modifiers and therefore be subject to halving and reduction to zero.

 

+1 with all combat, Always Applies after modifiers (+1/2), Only for OCV (-1/2) 8 points.

-2 to PER checks to discern 4 points

-2 Negative PSL for range -3 points

+2" Knockback -4 points

 

Total: 12 points per level.

 

Anyone with more than one level has no inherent reach and must use ranged attacks, stretching, or move into an opponent's hex to attack them.

 

Out of curiosity, is this intended to follow the Steve Long ruling that the bonus Knockback is the minimum knockback the character will take, or just that it adds 2 to BOD before rolling the reduction dice?

 

Growth:

-1 with DCV, Always Applies after modifiers (+1/2) -7 points

 

I could live with this - a reduction to DCV is normally "persistent" by default.

 

-1 with all combat, Always Applies after modifiers (+1/2), Only for OCV (-1/2) -8 points.

+2 to PER checks to discern -4 points

+2 PSL for range 3 points

-2" Knockback 4 points

+1" Stretching, Reduced END (+1/2) 7 points

 

Total: -5 points per level

 

There are some OCV issues here as well. A Shrunken character may well want to consider Non-Combat speed move bys and move throughs. His OCV is 0, but if we add in the bonuses for reduced size afterwards, a character the size of a housefly is still going to have a pretty fair OCV.

 

Meanwhile, our extra-large character may have a 6" reach, but he'll have next to no OCV in HTH. Of course, he can always use that 5 point savings per level to buy "]+1 with all combat, Only for OCV (-1/2) 5 points" to get his OCV back up where it belongs, and have a significant advantage in ranged combat.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

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.

I pretty much agree with that, but the problem is that if size constantly gives this bonus to a character we either have to charge them for it or carefully provide as many drawbacks as bonuses. Otherwise we'll have a, "one-up," war for who can create the smallest character.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

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.

 

That seems the most elegant way to handle it, but I do not think it is fair or balanced. You are penalizing large creatures without compensating them for it as much as you are rewarding small creatures without making them pay for it.

 

Think of King Kong. In Hero you can build King Kong independent of size, including stretching (to represent reach), KB resistance, etc. You can give someone the exact same abilities in a normal sized body. Why would I then penalize my character by making him 25' tall with no compensation?

 

Based on that point, I think it is important that just like every other aspect of size is accounted for through building Hero powers (reach, mass, etc.), target profile should be as well.

 

I was not of the camp that size DCV should be Persistent, but now I am. That makes my 4pt levels cost 6 pts (+1/2 Persistent, -1/4 Size Relative).

[Erkenfresh]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

To answer a few questions:

1. I think the OCV/DCV bonuses should be included in "halving" or "reduced to 0". Granted, a sleeping pixie will be harder to hit than a sleeping human, but to maintain some game balance, it seems safe to go with this.

2. I'll be using this for a Fantasy Hero campaign. Players can't create miniscule characters simply because I do not give them that option. I am very interested in this topic because one of my playable races will be about 10 feet tall and I'm putting them in the "2x human size" range. A few other races will be about 3 feet tall and be "1/2x human size" range. So, I want to ensure the rules are fair to these players.

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I pretty much agree with that' date=' but the problem is that if size constantly gives this bonus to a character we either have to charge them for it or carefully provide as many drawbacks as bonuses. Otherwise we'll have a, "one-up," war for who can create the smallest character. [/quote']

Really? You charge for Range Penalties or the Set Bonus for combat? You charge for being able to hit a Hex easier than a Character or an Imobile character vs a a Mobile character? How odd? (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

That seems the most elegant way to handle it' date=' but I do not think it is fair or balanced. You are penalizing large creatures without compensating them for it as much as you are rewarding small creatures without making them pay for it.[/quote']

Please read my full document before jumping to a conclusion. (8^D)

 

I've only been discussing only the relevant parts and pieces here. I'm more than happy to email you the full document and then you can decide for youself.

 

- Christopher Mullins (schir1964 @ netzero.com)

[prestidigitator]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Really? You charge for Range Penalties or the Set Bonus for combat?

No, but these aren't inherent to your character; anyone can Set, and anyone (including your opponent) can change their range from someone else. Range Penalty Levels I charge for, of course. What you seem to be proposing is that some characters are just harder to hit. Period. Without it costing anything. That goes directly against the nature of the system, and rips play balance to pieces.

You charge for being able to hit a Hex easier than a Character or an Imobile character vs a a Mobile character? How odd? (8^D)

Well, having an attack that can be effective when aimed at a hex costs points (more points than a comparable attack that has to be aimed at a character, in fact), and being able to immobilize a character in order to hit them easier certainly costs points.

 

We aren't talking about simple situational bonuses here. We are talking about a factor that is either always going to be present for the character or that the character is going to have a great deal of control over, and that kind of bonus costs points.

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

What you seem to be proposing is that some characters are just harder to hit. Period. Without it costing anything. That goes directly against the nature of the system' date=' and rips play balance to pieces.[/quote']

(8^D)

Actually, the game system actually supports this with a commonly overlooked combat modifier. Every character gets penalties/bonuses against objects of different sizes. Every x2 the size the character automatically is granted either a bonus (for larger sizes) or penalty (for smaller sizes). This works identically to the range modifier.

 

What you are proposing is that size won't matter at all, which makes no common sense at all. It doesn't matter if the object is unliving or living, immobile or mobile. The fact that something is larger or smaller affects the chance of hitting it.

 

Now you can debate the breakpoints and amount of bonus/penalty granted, but the fact remains, smaller things are more difficult to hit than larger things when compared on an equivalent basis.

 

This can be easily seen by doing a comparison at the extreme ends.

Character: Normal Human

Object 1: 100 mile wide/high wall

Object 2: 1 Millimeter wide/high pebble

Range: 1 Meter Distance

 

Test 1: Immovable: Both objects have DCV 0 per the rules. Done.

Test 2: Movable (50 Centimeter Random Movement Within Hex): Wall DCV < Pebble DCV. Done.

 

Now if you wish to argue that the Wall is just as difficult to hit as the pebble in the example above, feel free, but I don't think you do.

 

Keep in mind that I am talking strictly about relative size differences. If I am faced with a duplicate of myself at 100x larger, I'm going to find it easier to hit than if my duplicate were 100x smaller than myself, I will have a harder time seeing them and will have a harder time hitting them (but only if Area Effect Rules are not in place) which in the system I propose they are in force.

 

Another option is allow the character of larger size to simply negate the range penalties on a comparative basis, but this doesn't help with hand to hand distance.

 

We aren't talking about simple situational bonuses here.

Actually, we are. See above. Maybe I didn't convey everything properly. But once again, read my document for the full possible options for handling this. Or do you already have it?

 

I understand your concerns, but I think that many of them have already been addressed.

 

- Christopher Mullins (schir1964 @ netzero.com)

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I'd be happy to read this mysterious document, but after taking the time to review the past few pages of posts, I can't seem to find it. Do you have a link?

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I'd be happy to read this mysterious document' date=' but after taking the time to review the past few pages of posts, I can't seem to find it. Do you have a link?[/quote']

I've said multiple times in this thread that I would be happy to email it to anyone interested. Just email me at the schir1964 @ netzero.com address.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

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.

Hmm. It doesn't seem kludgy at all to me. After all, a character who's unconscious essentially *is* an inanimate object in terms of their ability to evade attacks. They can't do it at all. In such situations, their DCV should be based entirely on their size.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Hmm. It doesn't seem kludgy at all to me. After all' date=' a character who's unconscious essentially *is* an inanimate object in terms of their ability to evade attacks. They can't do it at all. In such situations, their DCV should be based entirely on their size.[/quote']

Well the point was that a helpless character is normally at 0 DCV. Does it make sense that a small character's DCV should get better when (s)he is unconscious than it is normally when (s)he is helpless (like when captured in an Entangle)? That unconscious DCV could even potentially be higher than the character's halved DCV if their Dex is low (and the character is quite small).

[Dust Raven]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Well the point was that a helpless character is normally at 0 DCV. Does it make sense that a small character's DCV should get better when (s)he is unconscious than it is normally when (s)he is helpless (like when captured in an Entangle)? That unconscious DCV could even potentially be higher than the character's halved DCV if their Dex is low (and the character is quite small).

 

I'm seeing this as no different that determing DCV from velocity. A character who's been Entangled, but can still move, might (and in my opinion should) be allowed to calculate DCV from velocity, as a moving target is harder to hit than a stationary target. In a similar way, a character could be allowed to calculate DCV based on size. This size based DCV doesn't add to the character's DCV as calculated from DEX, it replaces it if it is greater, just like velocity based DCV would. A general rule could be that any character may at any time take the highest DCV from all three methods, with none adding to each other.

 

The main problem with this method is dealing with large characters whose size would give them a negative DCV. They'd effectively never be affected by that penalty though small characters would often get their bonus. Maybe small characters could chose, but large characters must take the penalty... that doesn't seem fair though.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I'm seeing this as no different that determing DCV from velocity. A character who's been Entangled, but can still move, might (and in my opinion should) be allowed to calculate DCV from velocity, as a moving target is harder to hit than a stationary target. In a similar way, a character could be allowed to calculate DCV based on size. This size based DCV doesn't add to the character's DCV as calculated from DEX, it replaces it if it is greater, just like velocity based DCV would. A general rule could be that any character may at any time take the highest DCV from all three methods, with none adding to each other.

 

The main problem with this method is dealing with large characters whose size would give them a negative DCV. They'd effectively never be affected by that penalty though small characters would often get their bonus. Maybe small characters could chose, but large characters must take the penalty... that doesn't seem fair though.

Huh. Interesting approach, though. I'll have to think on it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I'm seeing this as no different that determing DCV from velocity.

 

The high velocity character paid to obtain the ability to move at high velocities. Under most circumstances where DCV would be reduced to zero, they are still at DCV 0. If we assume they can still travel when Entangled or Grabbed, thus enhancing their DCV, they also can't be assisted in breaking free as the Entangle/Grabber should get the same DCV, and will also be far away from the HighSpeed character, as you can't have velocity without moving somewhere.

 

Meanwhile, MicroMan paid the same points for his bonus DCV as Captain Spider, but MicroMan gets his DCV bonus when entangled, stunned, grabbed, unconscious, etc. and Captain Spider doesn't. Given the choice, all characters buying DCV levels would want "I'm small" levels rather than "I'm fast" levels.

 

The "three types of DCV" approach sounds good in theory. But isn't a small fast-moving object harder to hit than a large fast moving object? If two objects are moving at the same high speed, isn't the one that weaves about harder to hit than the one moving in a straight line? "Evasive maneuvers" mean little otherwise, and a baseball's a lot easier to hit than its velocity would imply because you know roughly where it will be.

 

As well, there's that issue you raise for large characters - they get penalized for large size all the time, whether conscious or not. Meanwhile, MicroMan can use his "I'm tiny" DCV when he's KO'd, or after making a Sweep or Rapid Fire attack, and use his regular DCV when it suits him. Or just buy all his DEX "does not enhance DCV" and use his size-based DCV all the time.

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Well what do you know!!

I just discoverd I can attach PDF files. (8^D)

 

Here you go. Granted, it doesn't solve some problems, but it does make things more consistent. But each person must decide for themselves whether it is "balanced" or not.

 

[thread=54747]Size Stat[/thread]

 

- Christopher Mullins