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 11-08-2014, 03:46 PM   #61
Andreas
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
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.
Would not such wounding modifiers cause other unreasonable results? Imagine for example a cube of metal. A certain attack might cause 4 points of wounding to it. Another smaller but equally durable cube (it takes as much energy to destroy it as the first cube) might take 8 points of wounding just because it is smaller. That is probably only a reasonable result if the attack is powerful enough to penetrate both cubes.

How about only using wounding modifiers from the size of the attack to determine overpenetration? Does it really matter much how large the bullet that hits me is if it transfers the same amount of energy and momentum to my body?
Andreas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2014, 05:13 PM   #62
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
Would not such wounding modifiers cause other unreasonable results? Imagine for example a cube of metal. A certain attack might cause 4 points of wounding to it. Another smaller but equally durable cube (it takes as much energy to destroy it as the first cube) might take 8 points of wounding just because it is smaller.
The second cube should have extra hit points or IT(DR), because an attack that will go half way through the first cube will only go 1/8 of the way through the second cube (though it will be proportionately much wider).
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.

Last edited by Anthony; 11-08-2014 at 05:18 PM.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2014, 05:34 PM   #63
Andreas
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
The second cube should have extra hit points or IT(DR), because an attack that will go half way through the first cube will only go 1/8 of the way through the second cube (though it will be proportionately much wider).
It takes as much energy to destroy the second cube as the first, so I don't see why it should have more hit points than the other cube or IT(DR). That would make it more resistant against things like being destroyed with explosives or vaporized with a laser which is not supposed to be the case.
Andreas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2014, 05:46 PM   #64
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
It takes as much energy to destroy the second cube as the first, so I don't see why it should have more hit points than the other cube or IT(DR)
Because it has greater resistance to penetration -- the energy to break it apart totally is the same, but the energy to blow a hole through it is 4x greater.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2014, 07:45 PM   #65
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
It takes as much energy to destroy the second cube as the first, so I don't see why it should have more hit points than the other cube or IT(DR). That would make it more resistant against things like being destroyed with explosives or vaporized with a laser which is not supposed to be the case.
It shouldn't be equally easy to destroy it with explosives. Being smaller, it intercepts less of the energy of an explosion.

Lasers punch holes through, much the same as bullets do. Channel modifiers should be applied to lasers. If you do that, then the more HP (or IT(DR)) gets countered by the increased effective channel modifier and it balances out.
__________________
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 11-08-2014, 07:57 PM   #66
Andreas
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
It shouldn't be equally easy to destroy it with explosives. Being smaller, it intercepts less of the energy of an explosion.

Lasers punch holes through, much the same as bullets do. Channel modifiers should be applied to lasers. If you do that, then the more HP (or IT(DR)) gets countered by the increased effective channel modifier and it balances out.
That depends a lot on the size of the explosive compared to the size of the cube and the the distance between them. It is very possible for both cubes to receive roughly as much energy from the explosion. This is especially true for internal explosions.

You would need a ridiculously powerful laser to punch a hole through such a cube of metal... The laser melting the cube and then boiling the resulting liquid is a much more likely result. A broad beam won't do a better job at that than a narrow one (assuming that the total power of the beam is the same).

There are other examples as well where it don't make sense for the cubes to have different hp or IT(DR). For example uniformly deforming the cubes with a hammer strike should take an equally powerful blow for both cubes (assuming that the hammer can withstand hitting such cubes without deforming).

Last edited by Andreas; 11-08-2014 at 08:11 PM.
Andreas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2014, 08:53 PM   #67
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
That depends a lot on the size of the explosive compared to the size of the cube and the the distance between them. It is very possible for both cubes to receive roughly as much energy from the explosion. This is especially true for internal explosions.
Internal explosions or explosions in contact with the block pose a problem, yes.

Not sure the modeling of internal explosions on homogeneous objects is something we should take as a good point of reference though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
You would need a ridiculously powerful laser to punch a hole through such a cube of metal... The laser melting the cube and then boiling the resulting liquid is a much more likely result. A broad beam won't do a better job at that than a narrow one (assuming that the total power of the beam is the same).
A reasonable weaponized laser works by drilling holes with rapid, flash-vaporizing pulses.

A diffuse heat-beam that melts and then vaporizes the metal isn't really modelable as GURPS damage, and doesn't have a meaningful relationship with most of the forms of attack that do HP damage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
There are other examples as well where it don't make sense for the cubes to have different hp or IT(DR). For example uniformly deforming the cubes with a hammer strike should take an equally powerful blow for both cubes (assuming that the hammer can withstand hitting such cubes without deforming).
I would unapologetically extend the wounding modifier scale to cutting and crushing strikes as well as impaling, piercing, and tight-beam burning (though exactly what cutting scales with is an interesting problem).


EDIT: Note that these cubes are, necessarily, a bit of an abstraction. Cubes of metal in GURPS generally are modeled as having DR...and a smaller, presumably denser, sturdier cube probably has more DR. We're treating them as pure sacks of HP instead of how GURPS really would handle them. Not going anywhere with this, just pointing it out.
__________________
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 11-08-2014, 09:07 PM   #68
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Thinking about it, though, the two cubes do definitely pose a problem.

Because sure, maybe we can say one of them should have inflated HP or injury tolerance when we look at the pair of them.

But how would someone who only had the small cube determine that they had an object of freakishly abnormal toughness?
__________________
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 11-08-2014, 09:22 PM   #69
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
But how would someone who only had the small cube determine that they had an object of freakishly abnormal toughness?
By studying its mechanical properties. DR basically corresponds to elastic deformation, HP to inelastic deformation.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2014, 09:26 PM   #70
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
By studying its mechanical properties. DR basically corresponds to elastic deformation, HP to inelastic deformation.
We have no established method by which to make that conversion, and indeed frequently treat HP as deriving directly from mass.
__________________
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
Reply

Tags
balance, brainstorm, house rules, size modifier, strength

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 04:40 PM.


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