Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-21-2015, 06:09 PM   #1
Unwashed Mass
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Shooting at things bigger than you... Relatively speaking.

I've noticed that ranged weapons don't take the shooters SM in to effect.

A target that's only 3 feet tall (-2 to hit) is always -2 to hit if your 15 feet tall or 15 inches tall.

Two giants (SM+3) throwing boulders at each other always get a +3 to hit and the opposite is true for two pixies (SM-6) throwing fireballs at each other. Oddly enough the Giant has only a -6 to hit the MUCH small pixie and the pixie has only a +3 bonus for something 30x it's size.

Shouldn't there be some sort of relative-ness for ranged attacks when it comes to SM?
Unwashed Mass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2015, 06:15 PM   #2
Leynok
 
Leynok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Australia WA
Default Re: Shooting at things bigger than you... Relatively speaking.

I've always used the difference between SM for bonuses or penalties to hit. I had thought that was RAW too. SM+1 attacks a SM+3 gets a +2 to hit.
Leynok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2015, 06:18 PM   #3
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Shooting at things bigger than you... Relatively speaking.

The most realistic results I've gotten are by saying: your target's SM is always a bonus. The negative if your SM is the minimum range modifier -- i.e. someone SM+6 will take a range modifier of -6 out to 20 yards, and then normal beyond that (this fits with humans not getting a +2 at 1 yard).
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2015, 06:41 PM   #4
Anaraxes
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Default Re: Shooting at things bigger than you... Relatively speaking.

Why would the size of the shooter matter to its ability to hit a target of a given size?

For melee, it might be hard to reach all of a target much bigger than you, compensated by the fact that there's a lot more to hit if you're not picky about hit location. But that's irrelevant to ranged attacks (unless the target SM is so huge as to push it into a higher range band).

If the argument is that smaller creature = smaller weapon = shorter sight radius, then that could be handled just by having the tiny crossbows / rifles have a lower Acc. It's really a property of the weapon, not the creature, and wouldn't get better if Gulliver picks up the Lilliputian weapon. With a self bow, that sight radius is arm length, so it does belong to the creature. But then, an SM 0 creature trying to use a tiny pixie bow would be silly for other reasons.
Anaraxes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2015, 06:50 PM   #5
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Shooting at things bigger than you... Relatively speaking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unwashed Mass View Post
I've noticed that ranged weapons don't take the shooters SM in to effect.

A target that's only 3 feet tall (-2 to hit) is always -2 to hit if your 15 feet tall or 15 inches tall.

Two giants (SM+3) throwing boulders at each other always get a +3 to hit and the opposite is true for two pixies (SM-6) throwing fireballs at each other. Oddly enough the Giant has only a -6 to hit the MUCH small pixie and the pixie has only a +3 bonus for something 30x it's size.

Shouldn't there be some sort of relative-ness for ranged attacks when it comes to SM?
Consider range. Giants are easier to hit at any given range, but at proportional range they're the same difficulty.

The one clear issue is that RAW, pixies can never get a range bonus for being closer than 2 yards. Trivial to allow if you want to, though.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2015, 06:53 PM   #6
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Shooting at things bigger than you... Relatively speaking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes View Post
Why would the size of the shooter matter to its ability to hit a target of a given size?

For melee, it might be hard to reach all of a target much bigger than you, compensated by the fact that there's a lot more to hit if you're not picky about hit location. But that's irrelevant to ranged attacks (unless the target SM is so huge as to push it into a higher range band).

If the argument is that smaller creature = smaller weapon = shorter sight radius, then that could be handled just by having the tiny crossbows / rifles have a lower Acc. It's really a property of the weapon, not the creature, and wouldn't get better if Gulliver picks up the Lilliputian weapon. With a self bow, that sight radius is arm length, so it does belong to the creature. But then, an SM 0 creature trying to use a tiny pixie bow would be silly for other reasons.
...I think you're the only one suggesting that smaller characters should be penalized.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2015, 06:55 PM   #7
Unwashed Mass
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Shooting at things bigger than you... Relatively speaking.

Then shooting the eye of either a pixie or giant is still a -9 regardless of SM?

If we apply to hit modifiers based on the size of the targeted location, why do we not apply one for size of target?
Unwashed Mass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2015, 06:58 PM   #8
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: Shooting at things bigger than you... Relatively speaking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unwashed Mass View Post
Shouldn't there be some sort of relative-ness for ranged attacks when it comes to SM?
Not really. Hitting a 2 yard target at 100 yards requires the same angular accuracy whether the shooter/thrower is a foot tall or a dozen feet tall (assuming the extra height isn't enough to trigonometry your way into a longer range penalty).

It should apply to melee combat, because there's a certain range element to it. A giant (SM +3) hitting a human (SM +0) isn't really penalized for hitting a small object, but for hitting a "default" object at long range, i.e. the length of his own arms.

I like the "minimum range penalty is your sign reversed size modifier" house rule. Perhaps with exceptions for unusual postures and less than full swings. You don't normally rotate from the hip to swat a fly, after all. And maximum to hit bonus for melee should probably be limited based on reach, since beyond a certain point, the bigger target just has more area out of reach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unwashed Mass View Post
If we apply to hit modifiers based on the size of the targeted location, why do we not apply one for size of target?
We do apply ranged attack modifiers based on target size. Just not for relative target size.
__________________
RyanW
- Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats.
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2015, 06:59 PM   #9
robkelk
Untitled
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: between keyboard and chair
Default Re: Shooting at things bigger than you... Relatively speaking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unwashed Mass View Post
Then shooting the eye of either a pixie or giant is still a -9 regardless of SM?

If we apply to hit modifiers based on the size of the targeted location, why do we not apply one for size of target?
Don't we?

Hitting the eye of a SM +3 giant would be -9+3 = -6
Hitting the eye of a SM -4 pixie would be -9-4 = -13

I think...
__________________
Rob Kelk
“Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.”
– Bernard Baruch,
Deming (New Mexico) Headlight, 6 January 1950
No longer reading these forums regularly.
robkelk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2015, 07:02 PM   #10
Unwashed Mass
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Shooting at things bigger than you... Relatively speaking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robkelk View Post
Don't we?

Hitting the eye of a SM +3 giant would be -9+3 = -6
Hitting the eye of a SM -4 pixie would be -9-4 = -13

I think...
Unfortunately, no.

RAW is the SM of the target unless you're attacking a location.

Therefore everyone's eyes are 2 inches across.
Unwashed Mass is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
size modifier

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.