11-07-2014, 09:35 AM | #51 | |
Join Date: Nov 2011
|
Re: Balancing High Size Modifier
Quote:
It occurs to me, shouldn't volume be useful for grappling? Simply having larger hands seems like it should realistically necessitate purchase of increased grappling ability. |
|
11-07-2014, 10:18 AM | #52 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Balancing High Size Modifier
Quote:
This is true, but beneath the resolution of the system - you get a +1 to grappling for every SM you are larger than your target, so any volume effect below that of a full +1 to SM has no effect. Large Hands - like Born Biter - might be legitimate as a Feature or Perk. |
|
11-07-2014, 10:36 AM | #53 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Balancing High Size Modifier
No, HP cover the fact that you need to make a hole 12" deep.
|
11-08-2014, 02:33 AM | #54 |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Balancing High Size Modifier
How is that relevant to the point about adjusting wounding mods for larger targets?
Increased HP means you need to do inflict more damage to leave a more massive target as damaged as less massive one. The target having more HP (mass) and getting the reduce damage mod, is double dipping? Incidentally tying HP just depth of wound brings us into (over)penetration, which is would mean objects with a a large disparity in their dimensions would have to have there HP over penetration threshold recalculated depending on the angle of attack. That gets complicated (think about the different effects of shooting a 32" x 4" x 8" through different facings). |
11-08-2014, 03:31 AM | #55 | |||||||||||||||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Balancing High Size Modifier
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now yes that obviously assumes a mass/surface area ratio of a human body, so yes if I had to deal with lead people I'd have to adjust that initial 150 To certain extent it is, hence the rules about adjusting SM by the different dimensional ratios. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
maybe go with what Varyon has done and individually price each effect and sum them. (at least that way you can individual assess how relevant each one is to your campaign and thus each one's value can be adjusted accordingly) Quote:
If nothing else there's always the unspoken "....if the GM agrees with it" after that. Right OK I think we can go on doing line by line, but ultimately I think we're not going to reach agreement here. (although individually assess each benefit and cost might get us there). I do think that the Sm is as net benefit/cost is so dependent on a combination of so many things that adjudicating it for cost is not worth the effort. I also think you and i view CP slightly differently. I'm always viewing each one as part of the whole package, and tend not to view than in isolation. I very much look for how advantages etc work in a synergistic manner, value adding (or not) to each other. Take the classic example, combat reflexes is worth more in an SAS build, than it is in a wheelchair bound lawyer build. anyway Cheers TD |
|||||||||||||||
11-08-2014, 08:33 AM | #56 | ||||||||||||||
Join Date: Nov 2011
|
Re: Balancing High Size Modifier
Quote:
Quote:
I do think that the synergy of ST is about equal for positive and negative SM. That doesn't mean that SM on the whole is a feature. Quote:
Quote:
All of positive SM's advantages put together compared to all of it's disadvantages put together do not, in my opinion, balance out in general. Quote:
Quote:
Certainly not all threads for examining house rules should work this way, I've done a few spitballing threads myself, but there is a validity in coming up with a solution having assumed a problem is legitimate. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's also important for rules to as much as we can make them incentivize people to not be a jerk instead of incentivizing them to be jerks and hoping that they resist the incentive and aren't displeased by ending up with a lower powered character. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Cheers. |
||||||||||||||
11-08-2014, 09:19 AM | #57 | ||
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Balancing High Size Modifier
Quote:
Suppose a projectile of a particular size with damage = HP: that is, one that fully penetrates the subject. On a larger subject with proportionately more HP, the amount of body in the wound track will be the same per HP as on a human-size target, since HP scales with linear proportion. But the fraction of the body in the wound track will be vastly less, because the volume of the body goes as the cube! Without injury tolerance for size, a 20mm wound track means the same amount of hurt to a tyrannosaur as it does to a human, even though the 20mm shell in proportion to the dinosaur is more like a .22 bullet. Quote:
Which goes on to not make the adjustment you refer to, because simplification happens.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
||
11-08-2014, 09:55 AM | #58 | |||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Balancing High Size Modifier
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Say the Human is has 10 HP and the t-rex has 100 HP the .22 does 2 damage and the 20mm does 20 damage the .22 vs. the human removes 20% of HPs the .22 vs. the T-rex removes 2% of HPs the 20mm vs. the human removes 200% of hit points (over penetration depending*) the 20mm vs. the T-rex removes 20% of HPs Amount of damage here means over all effect on target (ie to total HP) not just in terms of damage rolled. So while 20mm is to the T-rex what the .22 is to the human (20% of HP), at no point is the 20mm the same to the human and the T-rex (200% vs. 20%). Which is why damage mods tend to be related by the fundamental nature of what's being hit (homogeneous, diffuse, no vitals etc) or the fundamental nature of the wound (Imp, Pi, Cut etc) but not the size of the target (the effect of of which is modelled by how the damage effects HP). Which is why a .22 delivers the same force in the same way (2 pts of Pi-) to a T-Rex as a human, but the effect of that damage on the target very much depend on the Targets HP, which gives us the overall effect on the target. Tl:dr it wouldn't be "the same amount of hurt" as the "amount of hurt" is a factor of the damage & HP, not just the damage. It's partially tied to it, but not just to it. If nothing else there are a whole load of situations were just depth of wound isn't the only HP effect (or even a a relevant one), and some other effects of depth that are included elsewhere (damage limited by over penetration). Last edited by Tomsdad; 11-08-2014 at 10:10 AM. |
|||
11-08-2014, 12:00 PM | #59 | ||||
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Balancing High Size Modifier
Quote:
Quote:
Both bullets shoot through. That was the premise. The .22 hits the human for 10 damage, just barely passing through the body and causing 5 injury, or 50% of HP. the 20mm hits the dino for 100 damage, just barely passing through the body and causing 200 injury, or 200% of HP. For bonus points, if you somehow projected the .22 round through the dinosaur (!) it does 50% of HP...just like it would to the human. Despite being a proportionately much smaller hole. Oh, and a .22 round is over 5mm, so given these numbers we really ought to be talking about about a 56mm shell going through the dino...but that wouldn't matter since you never rate higher than pi++. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
||||
11-08-2014, 02:55 PM | #60 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Balancing High Size Modifier
Quote:
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'? 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. |
|
Tags |
balance, brainstorm, house rules, size modifier, strength |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|