This Seems Busted

[GAZZA]

Finally about to start a new Champions campaign after a 2 year hiatus in the wilderness of d20; I bought the 5th edition rules way long ago but haven't really used them before.

 

It looks to me that there are some things here that just seem broken. Now, don't take this the wrong way - 5th edition has lots of cool stuff in it - but I'm definitely not seeing the logic behind some of the decisions.

 

Oh, you want specifics?

 

Permanent Size Alteration.

Now, this is a complex issue. There were problems with buying Always On Growth, Shrinking, or Density Increase:

• It costs too much. Because of the high utility of STR, it is generally more cost efficient for strong characters to be of normal size and weight, which given the disadvantages of the weight is counter intuitive and arguably a "bug". Of course, Growth and Density Increase don't need special GM permission to go into an EC, which ameliorates this issue to some extent.
  
• It can be Adjusted/Suppressed/Dispelled. OK, this is a tricky one, but in many cases this isn't as terrible as it sounds. A Dispel Growth power quite possibly has a special effect of a "Shrinking Spell", which means that it isn't necessarily inappropriate for it to work against permanent effects. Of course you could just apply Inherent, but the issues with that are as above - it costs even more. In short - while definitely a theoretical issue I'm not really sure it was much of a practical one; I'd have been prepared to hand wave Always On Growth/DI/Shrinking as immune to inappropriate Adjustments, and I doubt I'd have lost any sleep over it. Difficult to codify into a rule, though, admittedly.

So anyway, a couple of problems with the old way. But the new way really strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bath water. It works OK for permanently heavy characters, but permanently small characters have to hand wave their lesser Knockback Resistance with a Physical Limitation that is always going to be subjective. And permanently large characters get pounded - the maximum value of a Physical Limitation is 25 points, which doesn't come close to compensating for the loss of DCV that comes with it. I would expect to see virtually no permanently large PCs in the new rules, since it just screws you over with no benefit.

 

Shapeshift

I guess I just don't understand what all the Sense Group nonsense is all about. In the BBB, Shapeshift was basically a physical alteration of your body into something else. It didn't necessarily allow you to mimic specific things (Disguise, possibly with Acting and Mimicry, were needed for that), but it was a "real" change, affecting all senses. If you wanted to change what you looked like but not what (eg) your radar profile was, you'd do it with a 1-hex Image. What was so unbalanced about this?

 

Fooling one sense and not another seems like it means that Shapeshift is NOT a "real" alteration - it's some sort of illusion. We already have Images for that. I'm just not seeing why most Shapeshifters would choose "sight only" when their special effect is "I turn into a wolf" (or similar) - that would affect virtually all senses, and if you buy this accordingly then Shapeshift becomes prohibitively expensive for a power that is not by any means game breaking.

 

Regeneration/Healing/Adjustment Powers

Way back in the day there was an extended discussion on the mailing list about when "healing" type powers reset. For example, I'm down 10 BODY. You have a 1d6 Aid BODY, "only to starting value (-1/2)". The maximum you could roll is 6 character points, or 3 BODY. So you can't heal more than 3 BODY... per what? Per day? Per hour? Per roll? If it's the latter, then out of combat healing powers need never be more than 1d6, which seems disproportionately powerful.

 

It's nice to see that this issue has been (as far as I can see) completely ignored in 5th edition.

 

I generally bailed on the whole quagmire and bought healing as Regeneration Usable By/Against Others. Can't do that anymore, though, since Regeneration is no longer a power - instead, you apparently buy Aid with a weird set of modifiers and suddenly it becomes a completely different power. This is just broken; you could not possibly argue that applying those modifiers to the power would have that result unless you point to the example - examples should illustrate rules, not invent them.

 

What other issues have people found that I need to tread carefully around?

[ghost-angel]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

Finally about to start a new Champions campaign after a 2 year hiatus in the wilderness of d20; I bought the 5th edition rules way long ago but haven't really used them before.

 

It looks to me that there are some things here that just seem broken. Now, don't take this the wrong way - 5th edition has lots of cool stuff in it - but I'm definitely not seeing the logic behind some of the decisions.

 

Oh, you want specifics?

 

Permanent Size Alteration.

Now, this is a complex issue. There were problems with buying Always On Growth, Shrinking, or Density Increase:

• It costs too much. Because of the high utility of STR, it is generally more cost efficient for strong characters to be of normal size and weight, which given the disadvantages of the weight is counter intuitive and arguably a "bug". Of course, Growth and Density Increase don't need special GM permission to go into an EC, which ameliorates this issue to some extent.
  
• It can be Adjusted/Suppressed/Dispelled. OK, this is a tricky one, but in many cases this isn't as terrible as it sounds. A Dispel Growth power quite possibly has a special effect of a "Shrinking Spell", which means that it isn't necessarily inappropriate for it to work against permanent effects. Of course you could just apply Inherent, but the issues with that are as above - it costs even more. In short - while definitely a theoretical issue I'm not really sure it was much of a practical one; I'd have been prepared to hand wave Always On Growth/DI/Shrinking as immune to inappropriate Adjustments, and I doubt I'd have lost any sleep over it. Difficult to codify into a rule, though, admittedly.

So anyway, a couple of problems with the old way. But the new way really strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bath water. It works OK for permanently heavy characters, but permanently small characters have to hand wave their lesser Knockback Resistance with a Physical Limitation that is always going to be subjective. And permanently large characters get pounded - the maximum value of a Physical Limitation is 25 points, which doesn't come close to compensating for the loss of DCV that comes with it. I would expect to see virtually no permanently large PCs in the new rules, since it just screws you over with no benefit.

 

Don't use a Physical Lim for decreased DCV, used the Size Modifier table instead (5ER p382)

 

Shapeshift

I guess I just don't understand what all the Sense Group nonsense is all about. In the BBB, Shapeshift was basically a physical alteration of your body into something else. It didn't necessarily allow you to mimic specific things (Disguise, possibly with Acting and Mimicry, were needed for that), but it was a "real" change, affecting all senses. If you wanted to change what you looked like but not what (eg) your radar profile was, you'd do it with a 1-hex Image. What was so unbalanced about this?

 

Fooling one sense and not another seems like it means that Shapeshift is NOT a "real" alteration - it's some sort of illusion. We already have Images for that. I'm just not seeing why most Shapeshifters would choose "sight only" when their special effect is "I turn into a wolf" (or similar) - that would affect virtually all senses, and if you buy this accordingly then Shapeshift becomes prohibitively expensive for a power that is not by any means game breaking.

 

Disregard the naming conventions and Shape Shift works functionally the same as 4E. You DO actually change shape (Shape Shift: Touch Group mechanically).

 

We priced it out some time back, Shape Shift was basically the same cost for full shape shifting abilities in both 4th and 5th Ed.

 

 

 

You're on your own with Healing Regeneration. I personally find the 5E way acceptable on one hand, and recongnize it basically ignores all rules and convetions on the other. Go figure.

[Mister E]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

 

Permanent Size Alteration.

Now, this is a complex issue. There were problems with buying Always On Growth, Shrinking, or Density Increase:

• It costs too much. Because of the high utility of STR, it is generally more cost efficient for strong characters to be of normal size and weight, which given the disadvantages of the weight is counter intuitive and arguably a "bug". Of course, Growth and Density Increase don't need special GM permission to go into an EC, which ameliorates this issue to some extent.
  
• It can be Adjusted/Suppressed/Dispelled. OK, this is a tricky one, but in many cases this isn't as terrible as it sounds. A Dispel Growth power quite possibly has a special effect of a "Shrinking Spell", which means that it isn't necessarily inappropriate for it to work against permanent effects. Of course you could just apply Inherent, but the issues with that are as above - it costs even more. In short - while definitely a theoretical issue I'm not really sure it was much of a practical one; I'd have been prepared to hand wave Always On Growth/DI/Shrinking as immune to inappropriate Adjustments, and I doubt I'd have lost any sleep over it. Difficult to codify into a rule, though, admittedly.

So anyway, a couple of problems with the old way. But the new way really strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bath water. It works OK for permanently heavy characters, but permanently small characters have to hand wave their lesser Knockback Resistance with a Physical Limitation that is always going to be subjective. And permanently large characters get pounded - the maximum value of a Physical Limitation is 25 points, which doesn't come close to compensating for the loss of DCV that comes with it. I would expect to see virtually no permanently large PCs in the new rules, since it just screws you over with no benefit.

 

I don't like Inherent. I think it's silly, and I've never been able to justify it.

 

Shapeshift

I guess I just don't understand what all the Sense Group nonsense is all about. In the BBB, Shapeshift was basically a physical alteration of your body into something else. It didn't necessarily allow you to mimic specific things (Disguise, possibly with Acting and Mimicry, were needed for that), but it was a "real" change, affecting all senses. If you wanted to change what you looked like but not what (eg) your radar profile was, you'd do it with a 1-hex Image. What was so unbalanced about this?

 

Fooling one sense and not another seems like it means that Shapeshift is NOT a "real" alteration - it's some sort of illusion. We already have Images for that. I'm just not seeing why most Shapeshifters would choose "sight only" when their special effect is "I turn into a wolf" (or similar) - that would affect virtually all senses, and if you buy this accordingly then Shapeshift becomes prohibitively expensive for a power that is not by any means game breaking.

 

"BBB?"

 

Multiform is the classic power for changing the build of your character, and comes stock with sensory modifications. You are required to buy alternate builds individually (+5 pt adder to multiply the number of alternate forms), and all in all is likewise very useful and expensive.

 

Shapeshift is a lot like Images in that the change is effectively only sensory (or otherwise cosmetic). Yes, it is a bit expensive to effect all senses (btw, concepts like all, universal, and invulnerable must be artificially injected into the HERO System by the GM), but IMO it is a major player enabling power with a lot of flexibility. I consider it a real change, despite the mechanical focus on senses. The adder called "Cellular," is sweet for simulating this as a 'deep-down' change; and the adder "Imitation" obviously makes this a viable impersonation power.

 

Regeneration/Healing/Adjustment Powers

Way back in the day there was an extended discussion on the mailing list about when "healing" type powers reset. For example, I'm down 10 BODY. You have a 1d6 Aid BODY, "only to starting value (-1/2)". The maximum you could roll is 6 character points, or 3 BODY. So you can't heal more than 3 BODY... per what? Per day? Per hour? Per roll? If it's the latter, then out of combat healing powers need never be more than 1d6, which seems disproportionately powerful.

 

It's nice to see that this issue has been (as far as I can see) completely ignored in 5th edition.

 

It's been addressed as "Simplified Healing" under the Healing power description... and yeah, it's nice, IMO.

 

I generally bailed on the whole quagmire and bought healing as Regeneration Usable By/Against Others. Can't do that anymore' date=' though, since Regeneration is no longer a power - instead, you apparently buy Aid with a weird set of modifiers and suddenly it becomes a completely different power. This is just broken; you could not possibly argue that applying those modifiers to the power would have that result unless you point to the example - examples should illustrate rules, not invent them.[/quote']

 

Not Aid, but Healing... and yeah... a lot of people fret over this. My suggestion is to use the HERO System as a toolkit (I know), and use the Regeneration build in the book to cost your own invented power.

 

What other issues have people found that I need to tread carefully around?

 

Extra-Dimensional Movement can be used to build the classic 'Wish" power/spell, by effectively 'moving' the character to the dimension where the wish has been fulfilled. I actually like this, but I've never let a character have it, yet.

 

Also... the breakdown of Transform into 3 distinct traits (physical, mental, and spiritual) is fully arbitrary, unnecessary, and imposes a system derived cosmology to your game that you might not otherwise want. I suggest using the 3 traits as only examples of what you can do, if you choose to. The Transform power is costed as an alternative to death for the victim; thus it stands that forcing characters to buy it multiple times to achieve effects that are not better than death as a bit outrageous.

[GAZZA]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

Don't use a Physical Lim for decreased DCV' date=' used the Size Modifier table instead (5ER p382)[/quote']

Ah, bugger, I don't have the revised rules. I guess I'll have to find them.

 

"BBB?"

Big Blue Book; showing my age there a bit. That's what we used to call the 4th edition Champions book.

 

Multiform is the classic power for changing the build of your character, and comes stock with sensory modifications.

It's one way, yes. My "change into wolf" was a bad example, clearly.

 

Shapeshift is a lot like Images in that the change is effectively only sensory (or otherwise cosmetic). Yes, it is a bit expensive to effect all senses (btw, concepts like all, universal, and invulnerable must be artificially injected into the HERO System by the GM), but IMO it is a major player enabling power with a lot of flexibility.

I don't disagree that it's a cool power to have, but I don't really think that "all" (for certain values of "all") sense Shapeshift is worth the price.

 

I suppose, upon thinking more carefully, there is some justification for what was done. In 4th edition, it was up in the air as to whether Discriminatory Scent could spot a shapeshifter (there's certainly a precedent for that in the comics; check out the X-Men movie for Wolvie-vs-Mystique). So in that "sense" (pun intended) I suppose breaking it out to be more generic is reasonable. I guess the sort of Shapeshift I'm after is basically light (Sight, Radar), Touch, and Sonar (which works out to - hmm, about 28 active points? I suppose that's not too bad).

[GAZZA]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

I have another couple of issues.

 

Damage Shield Must Be Continuous

I find this to be a very bad change. IF Damage Shield was thought to be too efficient at +1/2 - and it's a big if - then raise the cost. Raise it all the way to +1 1/2 if you feel that's what it should cost.

 

What's the difference? Well, there's a few problems:

• 
  
• Power modifiers should be self contained. This isn't always possible (Persistent requires 0 END, for example), but when you make an exception there should be a very good reason for it.
  
• Previously, if you bought Continuous on a Damage Shield, you were actually creating a power that continued to harm the victim after they weren't touching you anymore (eg a poison, or setting them alight, or whatever). Now this can't be done unless you creatively apply Usable Against Others.
  
• At +1 1/2, you're going to encourage "Advantage Stacking" to try and squeeze some sort of utility from the power. A 10DC power comes out to a feeble 4d6 with +1 1/2 on it, something that even many agent level villains will laugh at. Do we really want to encourage adding Penetrating and 1/2 END, lowering it to only 3d6 (or more likely a 1d6 HKA, since you're still allowed to add STR apparently)?

It would take an exceedingly well reasoned argument to convince me to adopt this over the straight +1/2 from the BBB.

 

Elemental Controls and No END Powers

If this was an attempt at a more generalised "No Special Powers in Frameworks" rule, it's a bad one. Powers that do not cost END are not inherently more powerful than those that do. I just see no real point in this restriction at all - of all the things to pick on, END cost is just such so trivial. Powergamers will still buy everything in an EC; they'll just grab a big END Reserve outside it (indeed buying every power with "costs END" or sometimes even "2x END" and using some of the saved points to get a big END Reserve is a tried and tested powergamer mechanism for squeezing more point efficiency). This also cuts out powers with charges from an EC (unless you buy them as costs END as well, I suppose).

[Rapier]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

Elemental Controls and No END Powers

If this was an attempt at a more generalised "No Special Powers in Frameworks" rule, it's a bad one. Powers that do not cost END are not inherently more powerful than those that do. I just see no real point in this restriction at all - of all the things to pick on, END cost is just such so trivial. Powergamers will still buy everything in an EC; they'll just grab a big END Reserve outside it (indeed buying every power with "costs END" or sometimes even "2x END" and using some of the saved points to get a big END Reserve is a tried and tested powergamer mechanism for squeezing more point efficiency). This also cuts out powers with charges from an EC (unless you buy them as costs END as well, I suppose).

 

Not so. The rule is that powers that do not NORMALLY cost END cannot be in an EC. So charges are fine, as is Reduced END - 0 END. You can also take powers that do not normally cost END (eg Extra Limbs, Armour) and apply Costs END Lims on them and put them in an EC.

 

While there are some differences between 4th and 5th, I think you are going through the rules shock and gnashing of teeth that we all went through quite a while ago.

 

While I was initially displeased with a couple of the changes, Shape Shift most notably, I've come to the point that I realised that the new methods are not any better or worse than the old...just different. Shape Shift is still Shape Shift, even if how you get to it is a little different.

[GAZZA]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

That must be a Revised thing; the 5th edition book just says that all powers in an EC must cost END. But fair enough.

 

It does mean that you can't put Armour in an EC, and Force Field 0 END is not the same (it isn't Persistent), but that's a completely different issue that has existed longer than 4th edition.

[Vestnik]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

I agree emphatically that Damage Shield is too expensive.

[Sean Waters]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

They are not rules.

 

They are suggestions.

 

 

All the topics you flag have been beaten up over the years, but the final arbiter is really whether they work in your game. If you ignore the tooth grinding way we sometimes get there, is the cost about right? If so, go with it and turn a blind eye.

[Sean Waters]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

...or just use the BBB way if you like - you can mix and match without anything exploding, honest.

[KarinsDad]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

On the Growth / Shrinking issue, I too ran into this recently. It was more of a pain in the butt buying a series of powers (most of which could not go into a framework) that it was Persistent Growth.

 

But, that is not my real issue with Growth and Shrinking. It is the DCV modifiers.

 

The problem with -2 DCV for larger creatures and +2 DCV for smaller creatures is that the game mechanic itself is flat out broken.

 

9 inch tall attacks 18 inch tall (one size larger creature) and is at -4 to hit

18 inch tall attacks 3 feet tall (one size larger creature) and is at -2 to hit

3 feet tall attacks 6 feet tall (one size larger creature) and is at 0 to hit

6 feet tall attacks 12 feet tall (one size larger creature) and is at +2 to hit

12 feet tall attacks 24 feet tall (one size larger creature) and is at +4 to hit

 

18 inch tall attacks 9 inch tall (one size smaller creature) and is at -6 to hit

3 feet tall attacks 18 inch tall (one size smaller creature) and is at -4 to hit

6 feet tall attacks 3 feet tall (one size smaller creature) and is at -2 to hit

12 feet tall attacks 6 feet tall (one size smaller creature) and is at 0 to hit

24 feet tall attacks 12 feet tall (one size smaller creature) and is at +2 to hit

 

Instead, it should be that a smaller creature is +1 DCV and +1 OCV per smaller size, the larger creature is at -1 DCV and -1 OCV per larger size. Then it would become:

 

9 inch tall attacks 18 inch tall (one size larger creature) and is at +2 to hit

18 inch tall attacks 3 feet tall (one size larger creature) and is at +2 to hit

3 feet tall attacks 6 feet tall (one size larger creature) and is at +2 to hit

6 feet tall attacks 12 feet tall (one size larger creature) and is at +2 to hit

12 feet tall attacks 24 feet tall (one size larger creature) and is at +2 to hit

 

18 inch tall attacks 9 inch tall (one size smaller creature) and is at -2 to hit

3 feet tall attacks 18 inch tall (one size smaller creature) and is at -2 to hit

6 feet tall attacks 3 feet tall (one size smaller creature) and is at -2 to hit

12 feet tall attacks 6 feet tall (one size smaller creature) and is at -2 to hit

24 feet tall attacks 12 feet tall (one size smaller creature) and is at -2 to hit

 

 

Course, the DCV size rules have been screwed up for many editions.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

Not so. The rule is that powers that do not NORMALLY cost END cannot be in an EC. So charges are fine' date=' as is Reduced END - 0 END. You can also take powers that do not normally cost END (eg Extra Limbs, Armour) and apply Costs END Lims on them and put them in an EC.[/quote']

 

I'm in agreement with the OP that this is a stupid rule. Why is it that I can have healing that costs no END in an EC, but not Aid that costs no END? A Force Field that costs no END is OK, but not Armor that costs no END. The decision of which powers do, and don't, cost END is, ultimately, fairly arbitrary, so any rule based on whether a power costs END as a default is also pretty arbitrary.

[Mister E]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

Instead' date=' it should be that a smaller creature is +1 DCV and +1 OCV per smaller size, the larger creature is at -1 DCV and -1 OCV per larger size.[/quote']

 

Pretty cool. If I were to change to this method, I'd rescale the range modifiers to match, just for system continuity:

 

Target half as big = +1 DCV (rather than +2 DCV)

 

Target twice as far away = -1 OCV (likewise, rather than -2 OCV)

[Dust Raven]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

Healing and being a significantly different size/shape than normal are kinda complicated, and the game mechanics for handling it have always been complicated. 5th Edition is just a different kind of complicated.

 

The Damage Shield thing I halfway agree with. It should cost more than +1/2, but it's Nerfed at a total of +1 1/2. Of course, you can still slap it on Suppress for a straight +1/2 (because it's already Constant). I do like you can only put it on a Constant/Continuous Power as that just makes sense. No need to roll that into DS itself, because you should be able to make Powers Continuous without a Damage Shield, and there is one Attack Power that's Constant already. As for the value, I think Continuous is overrated. +1/2 should be good enough, though I can see how that can be easily abused if you pile additional Advantages on.

[schir1964]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

Here's a thread you might find interesting. Some of the threads discuss certain areas in the rules that might be improved.

 

[thread=42607]New Mechanic Ideas[/thread]

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

....................Instead, it should be that a smaller creature is +1 DCV and +1 OCV per smaller size, the larger creature is at -1 DCV and -1 OCV per larger size. Then it would become:

.......................

 

DnD got that so wrong*....

 

Personally, as far as melee combat goes I'd be happy enough to assume that the advantages of reach balance the advantages of being a smaller target, no pluses and no minuses. I have children, and believe me it is far harder for them to hit me in melee than this rule would suggest. Against ranged attacks, bigger targets should be at a DCV penalty, and smaller ones at a DCV bonus. That I can see.

 

 

 

 

*maybe not entirely fair - it does have the advantage of simplicity.

[KarinsDad]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

Pretty cool. If I were to change to this method, I'd rescale the range modifiers to match, just for system continuity:

 

Target half as big = +1 DCV (rather than +2 DCV)

 

Target twice as far away = -1 OCV (likewise, rather than -2 OCV)

 

Precisely. That is what I did the last time I added the size modifiers to my house rules (which, btw, were practically the only modifications I made to my last Champions campaign).

 

Then, get an old small tape measure and color code it (with permanent ink) for each range of changing CV (e.g. 3 colors away = -3 OCV or +3 DCV depending on which is easier). Never count out hexes again!

[KarinsDad]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

DnD got that so wrong*....

 

Actually, I used that house rule since Champions 2E, more than a decade before DND 3E came out. It's magnitudes better than +2 DCV and -2 DCV which is just plain in error.

 

Personally, as far as melee combat goes I'd be happy enough to assume that the advantages of reach balance the advantages of being a smaller target, no pluses and no minuses. I have children, and believe me it is far harder for them to hit me in melee than this rule would suggest. Against ranged attacks, bigger targets should be at a DCV penalty, and smaller ones at a DCV bonus. That I can see.

 

Which is reasonable as well. However, it should still be both an OCV and DCV modifier for range, otherwise you still run into the exact same problem as the current rule (if you give +2 DCV per smaller size range only, the 18 inch PC is still at -6 to hit the 9 inch NPC at range). The mechanics of only modifying DCV is flat out bad.

 

But, using the OCV and DCV modifier rule for both ranged and melee, or only using it for ranged, either way is preferable to the current rules.

 

 

The reason Champions introduced the +- 2 DCV size rules it did was to reflect the Wasp flying around bad guys and hardly ever getting hit, but Giantman easily getting hit. But, the implementation of it was terrible.

 

I think the +1 / -1 OCV/DCV rule adds in all of the flavor of what was being looked for with regard to comics, without having the glaring error of the math.

[Rapier]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

The main problem with retooling the size rules is that they get hopelessly complex VERY quickly.

 

DCV is only the beginning. What do you do with Reach? What about Range penalties? What about AoE?

 

Can you figure all this out? Oh sure. But it is going to get involved.

 

This is, after all, a game. My job as GM is to keep things moving and not get hopelessly bogged down. My job is to make trade offs between what is realistic and what works.

 

This is one of those cases where I'm happy to stick with what works and not get so bogged down with realism.

[Sean Waters]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

..................

 

Which is reasonable as well. However, it should still be both an OCV and DCV modifier for range, otherwise you still run into the exact same problem as the current rule (if you give +2 DCV per smaller size range only, the 18 inch PC is still at -6 to hit the 9 inch NPC at range). The mechanics of only modifying DCV is flat out bad.

 

....................

 

I think the +1 / -1 OCV/DCV rule adds in all of the flavor of what was being looked for with regard to comics, without having the glaring error of the math.

 

I don't see that a small character should be easy to hit just because the attacker is smaller, not in ranged combat. That assumes, inter alia, that a small character is better at aiming, presumably because they can make finer movements. That does not follow, I feel. Shrinking does not improve DEX.

 

Now, in an ideal world, I would not change the DCV of the character, I'd change the range penalties. Back in the day, when range modifiers were -1/3" rather than this exponential thing we have now, that was easy. Now it is less so.

 

However, as a thought experiment, we have 2 characters Maxiblast and Miniblast, the former being 4 hexes tall and the latter being 1/4 hex tall, standing side by side and aiming at Normallo, who is 1 hex tall and 16 hexes distant. Both are using functionally identical 10d6 EBs.

 

I'm not getting why the midget should have an easier time hitting?

[tesuji]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

I'm not getting why the midget should have an easier time hitting?

 

because time and time again the lethality of little person snipers in the real world has proven itself.

[Sean Waters]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

because time and time again the lethality of little person snipers in the real world has proven itself.

 

Oh yes. Those leprechaun assasination squads. I'd forgotten.

[KarinsDad]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

I don't see that a small character should be easy to hit just because the attacker is smaller, not in ranged combat. That assumes, inter alia, that a small character is better at aiming, presumably because they can make finer movements. That does not follow, I feel. Shrinking does not improve DEX.

 

...

 

However, as a thought experiment, we have 2 characters Maxiblast and Miniblast, the former being 4 hexes tall and the latter being 1/4 hex tall, standing side by side and aiming at Normallo, who is 1 hex tall and 16 hexes distant. Both are using functionally identical 10d6 EBs.

 

I'm not getting why the midget should have an easier time hitting?

 

Because the normal character is 4 times his size and looks like a Giant to him.

 

For the exact same reasons that -+ 2 DCV was added to the Growth and Shrinking powers in the first place.

 

The range issue you bring up, though, is an issue. If one really wanted to model it, the example would be that Miniblast at 16 hexes would be +2 to hit (for size), but -2 to hit due to how far 16 hexes looks to Miniblast (64 hexes). Maxiblast would be at -2 to hit (for size), but +2 to hit due to how short 16 hexes looks to Maxiblast (4 hexes).

 

In this example, if appropriate range modifier (based on size) rules were put in place (in addition to size rules), both Miniblast and Maxiblast would have the same chance to hit Normalla at that range.

 

But, that requires more effort to create those special range rules.

[Dust Raven]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

Instead' date=' it should be that a smaller creature is +1 DCV and +1 OCV per smaller size, the larger creature is at -1 DCV and -1 OCV per larger size.[/quote']

I thought the whole point of there being games other than D&D was so we don't have to play D&D...

 

Course, the DCV size rules have been screwed up for many editions.

 

The DCV size rules? How about all the size rules. They suck worse then the adding damage rules. Okay, maybe not, but they're close.

 

The thing is, at least in my opinion, we can't have "good" size rules. I've noticed that size may or may not matter, or if it matters, it may matter in different ways from one setting/genre/campaign to another. How do you make a rule for that? Well, Hero System tried...

[Kenn]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

I've noticed that size may or may not matter' date=' or if it matters, it may matter in different ways from one setting/genre/campaign to another. [/quote']

 

Or from one woman to another.