Large Size Template seem a little wonky

[docdoom77]

I was building a pregen for a test game who is large. I looked at the size templates in the appendix. Large size physical complication is listed as (Infrequent; Slightly Impairing 10 pts). Which I agreed with until I read the preceding text where it says the +2 OCV modifier applies to characters with this template (well it applies to people attacking him anyway ;P). Now that seems more than Slightly Impairing and it is DEFINITELY not Infrequent as it will apply to every single combat.

 

Does anyone else see it this way. I'm thinking of either increasing the cost of the complication to match, or just changing it so that the +2 OCV is only a range modifier (and therefore applies less frequently, but still preserves the feeling that he's an easier target due to his size). Thoughts?

[psyber624]

You might instead treat it more like they treat small size characters. As part of the "Template" a Large character sells back 2 DCV (to represent the OCV bonus attackers get) and therefore the template becomes 10 points cheaper, he can then increase his DCV to normal if he wishes. Of course if you do so remember that attackers no longer get the +2 OCV to attack him, you basically ignore the size modifier when targeting this character (he has already "paid" for it by reducing his starting DCV).

[L. Marcus]

The problem with that approach is that DCV can never be reduced below zero. Characters larger than Large could only sell back 3 DCV, no matter their scale.

[Greywind]

Combat is also not the only consideration for the cost, nor should it be the most important in the general scheme of things. Combat is generally "infrequent" regardless if it happens every adventure.

[docdoom77]

Combat is also not the only consideration for the cost' date=' nor should it be the most important in the general scheme of things. Combat is generally "infrequent" regardless if it happens every adventure.[/quote']

 

Can you please clarify what you mean by that statement. Obviously you have a great deal of experience with the game, so I don't doubt your knowledge. As a noob to Hero, I only have what's in the core books. It says on page 416 of 6E1 that a complication which affects a character "almost every single game session" is classified as Extremely Common. So if combat happens every games session, how is it considered Infrequent?

 

At any rate, a +2 OCV for attackers, which is functionally equivalent to -2 DCV is worth 10 points all by itself. I don't see how the large size physical complication could come to 10 pts when that is taken into consideration. I mean the small size complication is 10 pts; is equally complicating outside of combat and DOESN'T make it easier for people to hit you. It just seems plain inconsistent to me.

 

Thanks for the replies guys!

[Greywind]

How often does your group end up in combat? Once per day? Twice per day? 10x per day? Once a week? Once a month? Once a year?

[bigbywolfe]

How often does your group end up in combat? Once per day? Twice per day? 10x per day? Once a week? Once a month? Once a year?

If "almost every singe game session" is considered Extremely Common by RAW what does it matter "how often" it is in game world? If you have one fight a year in game and that translates to every game session than it is effecting the player all the time.

[Grailknight]

The Growth power has been changed with each edition of the game and actually changed in Champions Complete. The power now states to use the size templates in CC and the templates no longer contain the +OCV and Perception rolls that are listed in 6E1.

 

 

Upon checking the books, the footnote to the Growth table and the text to the size templates on 6E1 pge 443 are the places which state the OCV and Perception penalties. CC has no Growth table and the appendix text is much shorter and lacks the penalty section. This may be a change or an error of omission.

 

 

Personally, I think removing the OCV penalty is an overall improvement that balances Growth better . I'll run it as per the CC text but probably put the PER roll penalty back in.

[Christopher]

We do know that it is easier to hit a large target, then a small one. Everyone whoever fired a weapon can tell you that a Tank is a lot easier to hit then a person.

For hero this difference is relevant enough for an OCV/DCV modifier. As each +1/-1 represents the Chance of Sucess moving by about +10%/-10%, +2 OCV/+2PER for attacker is quite a bit of advantage.

 

This disadvantage is part of the "growth" package deal. For all intents and purposes growth and Density Increase are "Brick powers on limitations". Shrinking however is "OCV/DCV/Hide Rolls (and thus Martial Arts/Ninja Skills) on Limitationtions".

 

Selling back your DCV is not the same as getting DCV penalty or the attacker getting a OCV bonus. For example if you set your DCV to 1/2 or 0 (stunned, knocked out), the attacker would have no advantage.

It is correct that the Frequency of a Limitation should be measured based on how often it "happens per game session" and "how much impact it has on the game). Due to the difficulties of bringing meaningfull decission into Non-Combat (see here, point 5), this quite often means "multiple times per game session".

I would guess that the Complications listed in the templates only look at the non-combat part of being big, ignoring the Combat part.

 

 

I see a quick solution: Disceting Growth and rebuilding it as compound power while leaving a few limtiations out, instead of a Template of Charactersitics + Complciation. This build would be closer to a persistent Growth Power then the Template. So first let's disect growth:

According to the toolkitting section in 6E1 230 Growths Pricing is nothing but a bunch of Characteristics, Movement (and perhaps a Naked AoE Advantage on HTH-Attacks for really big sizes), with Costs Endurance (-1/2), Linked (-0), Unified (-1/4) and Side Effects (acquires a Physical Complication that makes him easier to hit and to perceive, and makes it harder for him to exist in the normal-sized world; -1/2).

The real cost of this construct are then used as "Base Cost" for the "Power named Growth". (Yes the price is fully based on other powers and Characteristics cost; DI and shrinking have the same pricing approach, as had 5E Force Field).

 

If you want "persistent growth" the beast approach would IMHO be too:

1. Take Growth Base Price

2. Multiply it by 2.25, to get the original Active Point cost (and also base point cost, as no Advantages were applied)

3. Divide by 1.75 to get the cost for Growth without "Cost Endurance to Maintain"

 

Just take the resulting Real Cost the base Cost for a new power labeled "Persistent Growth" and you have a new Power written up for your game. The pricing is better the applying 0 END and Persistent to Growth, and naturally better then buying all those Characteristics alone. I get the following prices for "Persistent Growth":

Large: 32

Enormous: 64

Huge: 115

Gigantic: 154

Gargantuan: 192 or 193 (exact result is 192.57..., not certain about rounding right now)

Colosal: 276 or 276 (276,57...)

[Greywind]

How often does your group end up in combat? Once per day? Twice per day? 10x per day? Once a week? Once a month? Once a year?

Sufficient to say "I disagree".

[Lucius]

Dealing with size issues has always been a big problem in Hero.

 

Sure, you can only sell back up to 3 pts of DCV - and that's enough. If you're inside a barn trying to hit the broad side, does doubling the size of the barn really make you that much more likely to hit? At a certain point you're targeting the area not the creature, and all you need are the normal "scatter" rules - "Okay, you missed by 3 but you were targeting its center of mass, so" (roll dice for direction) "it's still a hit."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Giant Size Palindromedary Thing

 

 

 

[docdoom77]

I'm thinking, that for me, just putting a cap on DCV for larger characters is probably good enough. For instance, if I cap DCV at 8 for a normal character, a large character will cap at 6; larger sizes at a lower cap. Of course, this is for a fantasy game and I don't expect Growth powers, so I'm only addressing permanently large characters, but good enough.

 

I like your view on it Lucius

[bigbywolfe]

Sufficient to say "I disagree".

I assume there is a software issue and you are not actually disagreeing with yourself.

 

You do seem to be disagreeing with RAW though, which would put you firmly in House Rule territory if it wasn't for the fact that RAW basically contradicts itself in this case.

[NuSoardGraphite]

I base it on the "DCV penalty" on the Vehicle and old Growth chart, but generally I use it to reduce the Range penalty.  For the purposes of Hand to Hand combat against characters/creatures of different scales, I use it as a DCV modifier.  I split the difference between the combatants.  The larger creature gets half the penalty to its DCV.  The smaller creature gets half the penalty as a bonus to it's DCV.  For example, if an 8 meter tall Mecha is trying to step on a soldier who is trying to place an anti-armor mine on the mecha, the penalty on the size chart for an 8 meter (4 "hex") tall creature is -4 DCV, thus the mecha is at -2 DCV (reducing it's DCV from 5 to 3) and the soldier is at +2 DCV (increasing it's DCV from 4 to 6)

 

For Ranged combat I just reduce the ranged penalty, so that same soldier trying to hit that mecha with an RPG would target that mecha out to 32 meters (16") at no penalty to his OCV, where the Mecha at that same range is at -4 to its OCV to hit the Soldier (of course, a Mecha probably has Telescopic visual augmentation that will remove that penalty!)