10-21-2015, 06:09 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
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? |
10-21-2015, 06:15 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Australia WA
|
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.
|
10-21-2015, 06:18 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
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).
|
10-21-2015, 06:41 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
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. |
10-21-2015, 06:50 PM | #5 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Shooting at things bigger than you... Relatively speaking.
Quote:
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. |
|
10-21-2015, 06:53 PM | #6 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Shooting at things bigger than you... Relatively speaking.
Quote:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
10-21-2015, 06:55 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
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? |
10-21-2015, 06:58 PM | #8 | |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: Shooting at things bigger than you... Relatively speaking.
Quote:
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. 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. |
|
10-21-2015, 06:59 PM | #9 | |
Untitled
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: between keyboard and chair
|
Re: Shooting at things bigger than you... Relatively speaking.
Quote:
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. |
|
10-21-2015, 07:02 PM | #10 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Shooting at things bigger than you... Relatively speaking.
|
Tags |
size modifier |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|