Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
Simple: let's say I have two objects. One is 6" across, one is 12" across. They have the same density, so the larger object has 9x the mass and 2x the hit points of the smaller object.
Now, let's say I make a hole that is 3" deep and 1/2" wide in the 6" object, and a hole that is 6" deep and 1" wide in the 12" object. Would you agree that these are equivalent 'injuries'?
|
Yep
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
Based on the way piercing injuries work, and assuming the bullet size is about 3/4 the hole size (so 0.37 caliber and 0.75 caliber), the first attack is roughly 3 points Pi (3 points wounding), the second attack is roughly 6 points Pi++ (12 points wounding). Therefore, at least in the case of piercing attacks, to get the injuries to be equivalent, we need to reduce that pi++ to pi (or increase the pi to pi++).
This doesn't obviously apply to other wound types, but either we have to assume that piercing damage is an anomaly, or we should use the same rule for all attack types. Since large objects tend to be unrealistically vulnerable to a swarm of tiny attacks in GURPS, I prefer to apply this adjustment to all damage types.
|
Only you've chosen a set up that fall on either side of the Pi/Pi++ barrier which ins't really fair (if they were both Pi then they would increase equally with HP by both doubling)
However I do agree Pi is a bit odd as penetration damage otherwise increases proportionally with HP (and your example shows that). And the fact that it tops out at P++ which is it's own oddity in the other direction)
However I don't think the Pi mechanic is designed to to just model damage in terms of volume of wound channel but more the disproportional effect of wider wound channels on different targets. Which is why it different between living, unliving and homogeneous etc.
So don't get me wrong I get the theory behind saying what counts as a P++ wound on human should count as P- on a T-rex in terms of disproportional effects of a 18mm wound channel on both (beyond the penetration)
My problem with adjusting the WM is you have to come up with a general sliding scale of adjustment to size or target and thst going to assume .
I think I'd rather do it by making specific adjustment to the target (injury tolerance, DR etc)
DR in particular counters Pi+ and Pi++ as every point of DR removal more than point of injury.
DR also solves the large targets being taken down by lots and lots of tiny attacks.
However that is a fudge I will admit. I have seen the the various tweaks for increases HP by mass, which I'd be fine with as well (but the HP to ST relationship would need to be rethought out).
One suggestion could be giving the same discount on HPs that positive SM gives to ST? (EDIT: sorry not very clear as in extra HP brought on top of those from ST that would already be discounted)