Size & DCV: A Big Problem

[Lucius]

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.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

I find it interesting, and may decide to use it. Some of the ideas do seem like they add excessive complexity, but it can probably be simplified.

 

A question. You list a point cost to be a certain size (a negative cost to be small, in fact) and list both an "Active Cost" and a "Point Cost" (presumably the "Real Cost.") These numbers are identical for sizes above normal human (the chart's zero point, so to speak) but for smaller sizes, the "Active Points" are double the "Point Cost." Why is this?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary also contemplates what it means to have something cost negative points.

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I find it interesting' date=' and may decide to use it. Some of the ideas do seem like they add excessive complexity, but it can probably be simplified.[/quote']

Yes. I intentionally made it as flexible and consistent as possible so that the GM can pick and choose or simplify as needed.

 

A question. You list a point cost to be a certain size (a negative cost to be small' date=' in fact) and list both an "Active Cost" and a "Point Cost" (presumably the "Real Cost.") These numbers are identical for sizes above normal human (the chart's zero point, so to speak) but for smaller sizes, the "Active Points" are double the "Point Cost." Why is this?[/quote']

I knew someone was going to ask about that. (8^D)

 

In order to answer this and it make any sense whatsoever you have to understand a couple of things.

 

1) This chart is strictly meant to represent "permanent" size differences for normals. Not Heroic. Not Superheroic.

2) This chart is strictly meant to represent "proportional/human" size differences. Not mice. Not Ogres.

 

If you look at all the stats and total up points based on the Human Base (10s not 8s) and other benefit/detriment costs you should get something close to the "Real Cost". Actually, the cost at each level varies some, especially for smaller characters, but I chose to do some rounding and chose to stay with increments of 5. Therefore....

 

Real Cost: Is an estimate (or guesstimate) for each step in the size chart.

Active Points: Represent the actual "Size Stat" for reference on the character sheet. However, I now think I can replace this with simple numbers 1,2,3,... for each doubling and -1,-2,-3,... for each halving. Then you can make calculating the size difference between characters easy.

 

However, the whole document is simply an aid for the GM. Feel free to change whatever values to what you think would work best for your game.

 

Would it be more useful to upload a .doc file or some other format?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Lucius]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Yes. I intentionally made it as flexible and consistent as possible so that the GM can pick and choose or simplify as needed.

 

 

I knew someone was going to ask about that. (8^D)

 

In order to answer this and it make any sense whatsoever you have to understand a couple of things.

 

1) This chart is strictly meant to represent "permanent" size differences for normals. Not Heroic. Not Superheroic.

 

Okay. First of all, I am not sure what you even mean by this. Do you mean, irrespective of whether one is using Heroic or Superheroic campaign rules?

 

2) This chart is strictly meant to represent "proportional/human" size differences. Not mice. Not Ogres.

 

This would seem to make it of extremely limited usefulness. Most characters/creatures of such radically different sizes will ALSO have a different form, to a greater or lesser extent. If you set out to create something only useful if you assume the character retains perfectly Human proportions, I'd have to ask, why bother?? Why not try to make something that would be more generally useful?

 

If you look at all the stats and total up points based on the Human Base (10s not 8s) and other benefit/detriment costs you should get something close to the "Real Cost". Actually, the cost at each level varies some, especially for smaller characters, but I chose to do some rounding and chose to stay with increments of 5. Therefore....

 

Real Cost: Is an estimate (or guesstimate) for each step in the size chart.

Active Points: Represent the actual "Size Stat" for reference on the character sheet. However, I now think I can replace this with simple numbers 1,2,3,... for each doubling and -1,-2,-3,... for each halving. Then you can make calculating the size difference between characters easy.

 

However, the whole document is simply an aid for the GM. Feel free to change whatever values to what you think would work best for your game.

 

Would it be more useful to upload a .doc file or some other format?

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

I'm afraid I still don't understand why the Active Points for smaller sizes is 2X the "Real Cost."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary speculates.

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Okay. First of all' date=' I am not sure what you even mean by this. Do you mean, irrespective of whether one is using Heroic or Superheroic campaign rules?[/quote']

What it means is that this chart does not presume that the character remains as durable for smaller sizes.

 

Or simplify, this chart is used as a "Baseline" to build a character of that size. If the player chooses to have his character 1/1024x then his stats are now changed to what is in the chart. The player gets the points in the Real Cost column back in order to modify (buy back) anything he thinks is suitable for his character concept (Heroic/Superheroic). Such as Movement. Notice that I do try to deal with movement in manner that can be applied to the system.

 

This would seem to make it of extremely limited usefulness. Most characters/creatures of such radically different sizes will ALSO have a different form' date=' to a greater or lesser extent. If you set out to create something only useful if you assume the character retains perfectly Human proportions, I'd have to ask, why bother?? Why not try to make something that would be more generally useful?[/quote']

No, no. The chart is simply the "Baseline" to start from. If the player wants to play a Giant, then he would purchase perhaps Size 32x to start with. He would pay 150 Points and his base stats would be what is listed starting out. He can choose to alter those stats to fit the Giant. Perhaps sell back some movement or lower some of the stats.

 

Does this make more sense now?

 

I'm afraid I still don't understand why the Active Points for smaller sizes is 2X the "Real Cost."

Ignore the AP column. It was supposed to be the Size Stat column. replace them with integers -10,-9,...,0,...,9,10 values. They were numbers I was using for evaluation. They just became filler numbers for the Size Stat column.

 

Anything else confusing? (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Lucius]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Does this make more sense now?

 

Yes, I think so.

 

Anything else confusing? (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Just what seems to be an assumption that what a "hex" is would be totally dependant on what size you are, and the possible implication that has for range, area effect powers, etc.

 

But I think I can work around that without having to toss out the whole structure.

 

Also, I question making the power to change size equivalent in cost whether one is shifting up or down - you have made being bigger more useful than being smaller, in fact, being smaller is downright disadvantageous - on the whole. But perhaps I should look the whole thing over again before drawing conclusions.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Density Increase on a Palindromedary

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Just what seems to be an assumption that what a "hex" is would be totally dependant on what size you are' date=' and the possible implication that has for range, area effect powers, etc. [/quote']

Not sure how to do it otherwise and be consistent in other areas.

 

But I think I can work around that without having to toss out the whole structure.

I'd be curious to see your implementation once you are done.

 

Also' date=' I question making the power to change size equivalent in cost whether one is shifting up or down - you have made being bigger more useful than being smaller, in fact, being smaller is downright disadvantageous - on the whole. But perhaps I should look the whole thing over again before drawing conclusions.[/quote']

Perhaps. Alter Size was just something I threw in as a possilble alternative to growth/shrinking.

 

Wait!! I just remembered...

The Active Points were listed as a reference in case the GM decided to allow Adjustment Powers to affect the character's Size Stat. I knew I has some nebulous reason for leaving Active Points in the chart. So for adjustment purposes, 30 Active Points represents reducing/enlarging a character by half/double.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Removed

[prestidigitator]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

One of the reasons I don't really like it is if you add up all the benefits for a large character, they come to way, WAY over the cost of the size. For example the benefits of x128 comes to somewhere around 550 points (without even counting the Pre bonus). At most (if we assume -1 to DCV and Per rolls against vs. a normal-sized character each cost -5 points) we could subtract 140 points from that for drawbacks, which comes to about 400 points. On the chart it is listed as costing only about half of that.

 

Now the cost of Growth is off too; I'll admit that. But if I wanted to go with something different I'd want the cost issues to be fixed (to some degree), not made worse or simply different.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

...and for small character's, what would you do to buy off the drawbacks? Yikes! How could you? Extra Speed only to make up for size-related movement issues? Exponential cost for Dex Skill Levels to make up for the DFC penalties?

 

And if Shrinking gives you such horrible disadvantages, should it really cost as much as Growth (I'll grant it should probably still cost something, but...)?

 

What happens if you have a starting Body of 6 and you activate two levels of Shrinking, by the way? UAA Shrinking is starting to look mighty munchkiny...!

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

One of the reasons I don't really like it is if you add up all the benefits for a large character' date=' they come to way, WAY over the cost of the size. For example the benefits of x128 comes to somewhere around 550 points (without even counting the Pre bonus). At most (if we assume -1 to DCV and Per rolls against vs. a normal-sized character each cost -5 points) we could subtract 140 points from that for drawbacks, which comes to about 400 points. On the chart it is listed as costing only about half of that.[/quote']

So? Fix it.

 

What do you think each level of should cost?

 

Now the cost of Growth is off too; I'll admit that. But if I wanted to go with something different I'd want the cost issues to be fixed (to some degree)' date=' not made worse or simply different.[/quote']

Again, fix it. What should it cost?

 

If you can come up something better, I'll look it over to see if it is really better and change the document if it is.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

...and for small character's' date=' what would you do to buy off the drawbacks? Yikes! How [i']could[/i] you? Extra Speed only to make up for size-related movement issues? Exponential cost for Dex Skill Levels to make up for the DFC penalties?

Well since you are getting back points for being smaller, it helps offset this.

 

And if Shrinking gives you such horrible disadvantages' date=' should it really cost as much as Growth (I'll grant it should probably still cost [i']something[/i], but...)?

Are you even looking at the chart?

Being smaller gives you back points while being larger costs you points.

The disadvantages taper off the smaller you get since the stats involved have a floor value in the system.

 

What happens if you have a starting Body of 6 and you activate two levels of Shrinking' date=' by the way? UAA Shrinking is starting to look mighty munchkiny...![/quote']

Ummm... what are you talking about?

This is an "alternate" system that can be used in conjunction for allowing for "permanent" size differences.

If you are going to use the standard "Shrinking" and "Growth" powers, then they aren't going to affect chart anyway.

If you are talking about using the chart to adjust someone elses size, then you are talking about the "Adjustment Power" option for affecting the size stat.

 

If you want to discuss and evaluate this system, that's fine, but perhaps you should give examples of where there might be problems so I can address them. Thanks.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[prestidigitator]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Sorry. I should have been clearer. This is the first time I have read through the document. I don't mean to be completely deconstructive ( ); I'm giving my initial impressions. I intend to go back over it a few times and mull on it.

Well since you are getting back points for being smaller' date=' it helps offset this.[/quote']

Yeah, but one of the things I noticed is that the cost of offsetting the problems is exponential, whereas the points you get back are linear.

Are you even looking at the chart?

Being smaller gives you back points while being larger costs you points.

The disadvantages taper off the smaller you get since the stats involved have a floor value in the system.

 

Ummm... what are you talking about?

This is an "alternate" system that can be used in conjunction for allowing for "permanent" size differences.

If you are going to use the standard "Shrinking" and "Growth" powers, then they aren't going to affect chart anyway.

If you are talking about using the chart to adjust someone elses size, then you are talking about the "Adjustment Power" option for affecting the size stat.

I was talking about the, "Alter Size," Power (p. 7) that clearly replaces Growth and Shrinking. Why should it cost just as much to get smaller on the chart as it does to get larger? What happens to Characteristics like Body when this version of Shrinking is used (will it kill the character if they don't have enough Body before using it)?

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Your approach is very similar to mine, however we differ in our approach to the value of each size level. I tried to keep mine using straight Hero powers as much as possible.

 

I notice you have a creature with half the height and 1/8 the mass (size -5) as having only -5 STR. That seems inconsistent. You have each size step smaller than that at -15 STR per, but not that one, yet when you go one steup up you are +15 STR. What is the reasoning behind that?

 

You and I are thinking the same thing about stunning and stun in general, but I disagree with you that smaller creatures have less END. In general I think they have a normal amount of END, with REC reduced appropriately by their dimished STR. I have met few dogs of 25-30 lbs that can't run 3+ miles. I have met many people that cannot. I realize that there is more to that than just END and REC, but without going into a GURPS level of detail, I think END is well enough as is.

 

One thing I tried to capture for Narosia was things like Falling and Leaping as well as KB. Smaller creatures while suffering the same amount of velocity damage do take less damage when they hit (less mass), however they generally also have less STUN/BODY so it kind of evens out.

 

The DCV here is +1/2 Persistent and -1/4 Size Relative. This means that creatures of similar stature will cancel each other's (or a portion of) size DCV mod. This also means it is in play even when unconcious and is not modified by combat maneuvers. However, it also cannot be "turned off", so it is kind of always on. The same applies to the PER mod portion of VIS (Visible Size), which is a base 3 pts per (add Persistent and Size Relative). In general, this is about 9pts per +/- VIS. VIS is the modifier to DCV and Stealth/Concealment (or inverse modifier to Sight PER); +1 VIS is +1 DCV and -1 to others' Sight PER rolls. This type of ability I only allow if the character is permanently that size - in a heroic game this means their race.

 

We both end up with small creatures getting points back for being small and big creatures paying points.

 

DISAD is a mandatory disad that covers the disad for size as well as how much they eat/drink/breathe/excrete (don't get caught in an enclosed room with a large creature).

 

My chart is a little more granular because I wanted to apply it to more heroic games. It obviously can extend out (there are few creatures in Narosia larger than 16m).

 

The cost also assumes a 2 pts for +1 cost on STR. If you don't like that, just reduce large creatures cost by 5 pts per size and increase small creatures by +5 per size.

 

One handy thing about this solution is that it doesn't break anything in the Bestiary. Most creatures were built using the core of the chart anyway (STR, BODY, Running, etc.). For other stats (Falling, Reach, Damage Reduction, etc.) just use the chart based on what type of size disad they have (if they are -4 DCV, use the size that has a VIS of -4). The point values for such a creature would be slightly different, but that doesn't really matter.

 

The reason we did this for Narosia is we wanted to be sure that all of our creatures and races were somewhat consistent.

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Sorry. I should have been clearer. This is the first time I have read through the document. I don't mean to be completely deconstructive ( ); I'm giving my initial impressions. I intend to go back over it a few times and mull on it.

That's fine. Remember, I spent several weeks conversing with people on this board on this subject and going over many of the exact same issues you have brought up. Perhaps if I emailed you one of the original spreadsheets created that was more detailed in the costs it might help your evaluation.

 

Yeah' date=' but one of the things I noticed is that the cost of offsetting the problems is exponential, whereas the points you get back are linear.[/quote']

Do you mean exponential as iin costing less the smaller you get? Yes. You are correct. This is a result of the stats having a floor value that becomes static once you reach them.

 

I was talking about the' date=' "Alter Size," Power (p. 7) that clearly replaces Growth and Shrinking. Why should it cost just as much to get smaller on the chart as it does to get larger? What happens to Characteristics like Body when this version of Shrinking is used (will it kill the character if they don't have enough Body before using it)?[/quote']

As said in the above post. This were added after as possible replacement.

 

The ability to "change size" is completely different thing than being a permanent size. To be able to grow or shrink as will is versatile utility regardless of the effects resulting from that change.

 

Therefore, it doesn't matter if becoming smaller makes me more vulnerable since I get to choose when and under what circumstances to do so. This is no different than deliberately walking into a situation that you know might get you killed.

 

But the bigger point is that Alter Size isn't necessary since you can use Adjustment Powers to do the same thing.

 

However, I'm willing to listen to any ideas that might make this system better.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Your approach is very similar to mine, however we differ in our approach to the value of each size level. I tried to keep mine using straight Hero powers as much as possible.

 

I notice you have a creature with half the height and 1/8 the mass (size -5) as having only -5 STR. That seems inconsistent. You have each size step smaller than that at -15 STR per, but not that one, yet when you go one steup up you are +15 STR. What is the reasoning behind that?

This chart is actually a truncated version of the full chart that was developed. This chart only shows the steps where each is Double/Half the prior step. The original chart showed steps in between but was cumbersome.

 

Now as for the STR consistency. To remain consistent with the rules, I was forced to make STR follow the increments you noticed. STR 10 allows one to lift 100kg which is what the character weighs. You will notice that the Lift matches consistently the character mass throughout the chart. So what appears to be inconsistent actually is consistent with the rules for better or worse.

 

You and I are thinking the same thing about stunning and stun in general' date=' but I disagree with you that smaller creatures have less END. In general I think they have a normal amount of END, with REC reduced appropriately by their dimished STR. I have met few dogs of 25-30 lbs that can't run 3+ miles. I have met many people that cannot. I realize that there is more to that than just END and REC, but without going into a GURPS level of detail, I think END is well enough as is. [/quote']

Totally agree with your logic here. But your conclusion is wrong.

 

Remember the two premises this chart is based on:

1) This chart is strictly meant to represent "permanent" size differences for normals. Not Heroic. Not Superheroic.

2) This chart is strictly meant to represent "proportional/human" size differences. Not mice. Not Ogres.

 

In order for you argument to have validity, you would have a small person of the same proportions, but the same mass of the dogs you are referring to. Then test to see if they have less endurance or not. If the results are as you say, then you would be correct, but there is no evidence I've seen yet to suggest this. Perhaps you've come across some information I haven't.

 

Now my calculations could be off since the system does not handle long term endurance the same way short term endurance is handled.

 

We both end up with small creatures getting points back for being small and big creatures paying points.

Yeah, no way to get around that with the system.

 

DISAD is a mandatory disad that covers the disad for size as well as how much they eat/drink/breathe/excrete (don't get caught in an enclosed room with a large creature).

This is presumed to be handled by the GM and for the campaign that is being run.

 

Where were you when I was working on the Size Stat? (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Now as for the STR consistency. To remain consistent with the rules, I was forced to make STR follow the increments you noticed. STR 10 allows one to lift 100kg which is what the character weighs. You will notice that the Lift matches consistently the character mass throughout the chart. So what appears to be inconsistent actually is consistent with the rules for better or worse.

I don't see how. You have -5 STR and a mass of 12.5kg. Ahhh, wait, the STR is actually -5 not -5 to the base. Got it.

 

Totally agree with your logic here. But your conclusion is wrong.

 

In order for you argument to have validity, you would have a small person of the same proportions, but the same mass of the dogs you are referring to. Then test to see if they have less endurance or not. If the results are as you say, then you would be correct, but there is no evidence I've seen yet to suggest this. Perhaps you've come across some information I haven't.

Before you step off in the wrong direction, do not pretend to judge whether or not my argument is valid. This whole discussion is conjecture and without any hard empirical data one argument is as valid as the next.

 

I agree that you would need to have a small person to truely test this, but I don't see any evidence for or against my position. The point being, let's keep it simple. We have nothing that makes it clear that smaller creatures have less endurance or more endurance than larger creatures. And my point also was that even a normal person often does not have the stamina for certain tasks while smaller ones do. Since the evidence doesn't really point in a definitive direction, why change it. Leave END alone and let REC be taken care of by the feeding characteristics.

 

This is presumed to be handled by the GM and for the campaign that is being run.

Yes.

 

Where were you when I was working on the Size Stat? (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

I didn't see the original discussion or if I did felt the discussion was becoming too pedantic. Either way, the solution I came up with works well, has done so for the past few years, and deviates as little as possible from the core canon, especially since most of my ideas are really just putting the optional suggestions from Bestiary and other sources into specific point values. I have no problem deviating from the core rules if necessary, but I don't think it is required here.

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

Before you step off in the wrong direction' date=' do not pretend to judge whether or not my argument is valid. This whole discussion is conjecture and without any hard empirical data one argument is as valid as the next.[/quote']

Sorry, please forgive me. I wasn't trying to insult or be judgmental.

 

My point was that since this is all conjecture anyway, any comparison would be pointless unless you tried to remain as consistent as possible with the comparison. And trying compare dogs with humans as far as something as nebulous as endurance would fall into this category.

 

I did not mean to say that the idea that endurance may or may not be less or more is incorrect, it actually might be. Only that the comparison you gave was inconclusive.

 

Since the evidence doesn't really point in a definitive direction' date=' why change it. Leave END alone and let REC be taken care of by the feeding characteristics.[/quote']

Actually, there is evidence to suggest that larger humans require more endurance than an average size human.

 

But maybe there is some confusion in what the term endurance means in this context.

 

If the endurance of different size humans is the same, this would imply, to me, that both humans would get exhausted at the same time while walking at the same pace.

 

For this to be true, a larger human must have more "endurance" to compensate for the additional resources needed by the larger body.

 

Or to put it in hero terms, more END is required for larger characters since their enhanced stats (STR specifically) will require more END over time.

 

If this is true, and it is a simple conjecture, then to be consistent the corrollary should be true. Smaller characters require less END.

 

Now whether the calculations actually bear this out is another thing entirely. (8^D)

 

I didn't see the original discussion or if I did felt the discussion was becoming too pedantic. Either way' date=' the solution I came up with works well, has done so for the past few years, and deviates as little as possible from the core canon, especially since most of my ideas are really just putting the optional suggestions from Bestiary and other sources into specific point values. I have no problem deviating from the core rules if necessary, but I don't think it is required here.[/quote']

My chart was created before the Bestiary or the Size Template was created.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

My point was that since this is all conjecture anyway, any comparison would be pointless unless you tried to remain as consistent as possible with the comparison. And trying compare dogs with humans as far as something as nebulous as endurance would fall into this category.

 

I did not mean to say that the idea that endurance may or may not be less or more is incorrect, it actually might be. Only that the comparison you gave was inconclusive.

Agreed

 

Or to put it in hero terms, more END is required for larger characters since their enhanced stats (STR specifically) will require more END over time.

 

If this is true, and it is a simple conjecture, then to be consistent the corrollary should be true. Smaller characters require less END.

I agree with your logic here, however I think there are more factors in play than a scaled endurance to reflect the amount of energy required for larger/smaller bodies. Just as there are large and small creatures with a great amount of endurance, there are plenty of the opposite. Point being unlike a STR/mass relationship I do not believe there is as strong a correlation between size and END, and it would get muddled when the CON of the creature is set.

 

I think our different views on this issue stem from our different goals in creating a size "template". I don't think it would be fair of me to try and state what your goals are, but my goals of keeping things as close the the rules as possible lead me, in this instance, to leave well enough alone. The END system in Hero is not granular or realistic enough to accurately model real world exertion but at the same time it isn't broken - it is what it is, works as intended, and isn't enough of an issue that I feel I needed to address it in my size templates.

 

My chart was created before the Bestiary or the Size Template was created.

Fair enough. I don't think I was actively heavy on these boards prior to the Bestiary's appearance so that at least explains something.

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I agree with your logic here' date=' however I think there are more factors in play than a scaled endurance to reflect the amount of energy required for larger/smaller bodies. Just as there are large and small creatures with a great amount of endurance, there are plenty of the opposite.[/quote']

Most certainly, which is what I alluded to when I mentioned that the concept of Endurance is nebulous.

 

To try to expand your comparison of Dogs and Humans more objectively.

1) Dogs don't sweat though their skin like humans do. They sweat mainly through thier mouth. Regulation of body heat is one factor that may influence endurance.

2) Dog Lungs and Human Lungs don't have the same capacity and may have a different construction (not sure). How quickly and efficiently the body processes oxygen from the air is another factor that may influence endurance.

 

Point being unlike a STR/mass relationship I do not believe there is as strong a correlation between size and END' date=' and it would get muddled when the CON of the creature is set.[/quote']

Perhaps there is no correlation when comparing differnent species, but I think when comparing the same species, there might be. But that is neither here or there.

 

When trying to apply this to the game system it will always have problems since there are certain inconsistencies within the system itself. Can't be avoided due to certain assumptions that were made when the system was originally designed. So any solution will be kludge, whether it is official or not, unless they decide to rebuild the system with some new assumptions.

 

BTW: I originally fought for having CON adjusted in the original discussion. I was finally convinced that by removing it from the equation it granted more benefits in simplication than it created problems with being inconsistent with how the system worked. Can't get everything I suppose. (8^D)

 

I think our different views on this issue stem from our different goals in creating a size "template"...

Most certainly. Doesn't mean either of our solutions is more or less correct/valid.

 

Fair enough. I don't think I was actively heavy on these boards prior to the Bestiary's appearance so that at least explains something.

Yeah, I could have used your input then. It might have made some things easier. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

If this is mentioned, I apologize, I breezed through the posts and didn't see this mentioned, explicitly that is, though there is an implication throughout...

 

The issue here is PERCEPTION, not CVs. Let's say I am a subatomic character, unconscious. My DCV is always 0. The issue isn't, per se, my DCV versus your ability to hit...the issue is whether you can see me at all. If you can see me (in this example via Microscopic Vision) and I cannot move, then you can almost certainly (barring an 18 or real CV problems on the attacker's part, and setting aside range) hit me. So long as a successful PER roll can be made, I don't think there's any issues here. The PER roll of course can be affected by size and other variables.

 

PS - GMs could always adjudicate according to the conditions under which the PER roll is made and the margin of success - e.g., if I am trying to see a teeny character without any optical aid but my INT is very high, my PER is based more on my ability to intuit than to see, so in that case perhaps even making a PER roll at a 0 degree of success might be a -5 to hit, and each 1 I make the PER roll by relieves that. But that's a case-by-case thing.

[schir1964]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

The issue here is PERCEPTION' date=' not CVs...[/quote']

I think we did touch on this a bit. I simply made reference to that fact that the "Coup de gras" rule eliminates any need to roll as long as the character can see the target and the target is unmoving/unresisting, so the to hit is automatic an d only damage needs to be determined.

 

BTW: What caused you to find this thread and reply to it after all this time? (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I think we did touch on this a bit. I simply made reference to that fact that the "Coup de gras" rule eliminates any need to roll as long as the character can see the target and the target is unmoving/unresisting, so the to hit is automatic an d only damage needs to be determined.

 

BTW: What caused you to find this thread and reply to it after all this time? (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

Just catching up, I am browsing through all the threads since I last was up on them.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I'd have to go back and reread everything to be certain, but I believe the issue of perception versus CV was made. The thing is, hit probability isn't necessarily dependant upon perception. Perception determins whether or not an attempt can be made, but really doesn't affect the chances (at least not much).

[zornwil]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I'm not saying hit probability is dependent on perception, I'm saying though that if you can perceive something (fully/targetted) and it does not and cannot move, for all practical purposes you will hit it (at least for the purposes of an action-adventure RPG).

[Dust Raven]

Re: Size & DCV: A Big Problem

 

I'm not saying hit probability is dependent on perception' date=' I'm saying though that if you can perceive something (fully/targetted) and it does not and cannot move, for all practical purposes you will hit it (at least for the purposes of an action-adventure RPG).[/quote']

 

Except for one thing: Why would a character who just happens to be the size of a dime be easier to hit than an actual dime? Or are all innanimate objects equally easy to hit (0 DCV)?