relative size modifier

[damon]

the faq suggests that the attack modifier to hit should be based on the attacker's SM as well as the defender. Makes a lot of sense, otherwise giants would never ever miss one another and pixies would never ever hit each other. But that does make it so that a dwarf/really short character would get +1 to hit pretty much everyone. Does that seem right? I'm playing a short little girl right now so that would really help her, but it seems a little odd.

[Ulzgoroth]

Using relative SM is suggested somewhere outside the basic set. Powers, probably.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by damon

the faq suggests that the attack modifier to hit should be based on the attacker's SM as well as the defender. Makes a lot of sense, otherwise giants would never ever miss one another and pixies would never ever hit each other. But that does make it so that a dwarf/really short character would get +1 to hit pretty much everyone. Does that seem right? I'm playing a short little girl right now so that would really help her, but it seems a little odd.

It can seem a little odd, but think of it like this: a punch has kind of an area of hit probability (a perfectly on target hit will be dead center, a miss by a little is going to be off to the side, and a miss by a lot will be on the outside edge). Basic geometry shows that the size is going to be proportional to arm length, and thus a target bigger than yourself is going to fill up more of that threatened area.

That's true whether the size difference is from a smaller than average attacker or a larger than average target.

[GoblynByte]

This thread sort of answers one I started. Hahahaha.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Using relative SM is suggested somewhere outside the basic set. Powers, probably.

The fact that Basic Set suggests to use absolute SM, but Powers (and/or the FAQ) suggest to use relative SM always surprised me.

It's a pretty basic design choice, and it changes radically game balance... so I'd have expected GURPS to give just one, consistant ruling.

Specifically, if you use relative SM, then being little becomes more advantageous, and being big (positive SM) becomes more disadvantageous.
And not by a small margin... +1 to hit everything with any skills is easily worth 10-15 points. So a SM-2 race freely gets 40/60 points worth of advantages compared to a SM+2 race (if you use relative SM).

SM is supposed to be a zero-point feature, because its ads and disads are supposed to cancel out, so I'm wondering... how can that be? How can be that Size Modifier is always worth 0 CP, whether you use relative or absolute modifiers in combat?

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Lupo

The fact that Basic Set suggests to use absolute SM, but Powers (and/or the FAQ) suggest to use relative SM always surprised me.

It's a pretty basic design choice, and it changes radically game balance... so I'd have expected GURPS to give just one, consistant ruling.

Specifically, if you use relative SM, then being little becomes more advantageous, and being big (positive SM) becomes more disadvantageous.
And not by a small margin... +1 to hit everything with any skills is easily worth 10-15 points. So a SM-2 race freely gets 40/60 points worth of advantages compared to a SM+2 race (if you use relative SM).

SM is supposed to be a zero-point feature, because its ads and disads are supposed to cancel out, so I'm wondering... how can that be? How can be that Size Modifier is always worth 0 CP, whether you use relative or absolute modifiers in combat?

Well, this isn't actually true. Smaller people get +1 to hit with some skills. The bigger people get the +1 to get with grappling skills.

Also, +1 == 10-15points assumes way more combat skills than I usually ever have. So...and those small people will be doing less damage. It is all balanced out for me.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by trooper6

Also, +1 == 10-15points assumes way more combat skills than I usually ever have.

Then 5-10 points... doesn't change much, we all agree that a bonus to hit is worth some points, don't we?

So...and those small people will be doing less damage. It is all balanced out for me.

First of all, small people WON'T be doing less damage, not at all. SM has no relation with ST. If small creatures have lower ST, they will get points from it, as anyone else.

In any case: I can't see how it can be all balanced out, with BOTH RULES.

E.g. Basic Set claims that the effects of SM "balance out" even if smaller creatures a bonus to hit.

Powers claims that the effects of SM balance out, when smaller creatures DO have a bonus to it.

So, which one is right? They can't possibly be BOTH right :)

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Lupo

Then 5-10 points... doesn't change much.



How can that be?
I can't see how it can be all balanced out, with BOTH RULES.

E.g. Basic Set claims that the effects of SM "balance out" even if smaller creatures a bonus to hit.

Powers claims that the effects of SM balance out, when smaller creatures DO have a bonus to it.

So, which one is right? They can't possibly be BOTH right :)

Whichever rule is used doesn't matter much to me...because in both incarnations of the rule, Small characters get a bonus to some combat skills, but big characters get a bonus to others.

SM-1 Halfling goes to stab a SM+1 Ogre. Absolute SM gives him a +1 to hit. Relative SM gives him a +2 to hit.
SM+1 Ogre goes to grapple SM-1 Halfling. Absolute SM gives the Ogre +1 to grapple, Relative SM gives the Ogre a +2 to grapple.

So, whichever option you go with, there is balance between big and small.

[damon]

where's that grapple diffeerence mentioned? does a SM -1 character get -1 to grapple Sm 0 creatures? i don't see that in campaigns but maybe it's listed in a non-obvious place.. the faq claims it's p 402 but i don't see it there.

plus the relative rule does mean that a giant gets -1 to hit sm0 people in melee which is a pretty significnt drawback as well...

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by damon

where's that grapple diffeerence mentioned? does a SM -1 character get -1 to grapple Sm 0 creatures? i don't see that in campaigns but maybe it's listed in a non-obvious place.. the faq claims it's p 402 but i don't see it there.

plus the relative rule does mean that a giant gets -1 to hit sm0 people in melee which is a pretty significnt drawback as well...

IDHMBWM...but I remember seeing a text box on Grappling and Size Modifiers? Or Size Modifiers and combat? Can anyone who is by their books get a page reference? If not, I'll look it up in 12 hours or so when I get home.

SM+1 Giant, vs. SM0 Human.
Absolute: Giant has no penalty to attack the human in melee. Giant has a +1 to Grapple.
Relative: Giant has -1 Penalty to attack the human in melee. Giant has a +1 to grapple.

Relative seems more symmetrical...but I haven't thought it all through.