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 11-21-2012, 11:45 AM   #1
Jeminai
 
Jeminai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Jacksonville FL
Default SM, Is it relative?

If I am an SM 0 human trying to punch a sprite (SM -6) I understand that I have a -6 to my skill. Is this because of the size of the target or the relative size of the target?

For instance, if the sprite was trying to punch me back does he automatically have a +6 to hit me, or is he at modifier 0.? If he gets in a fist fight with another sprite does he have any penalties to hit.

If the ruling is that SM is relative, is it always relative? What if the sprite is trying to use a cross bow to hit another sprite. Are the rules the same for ranged attacks?

If SM is relative then I have a -6 to hit the sprite and the sprite is +6 to hit me.

If SM is just a generic, flat representation of size and is not relative then the sprite would be at no penalty to hit me at all (or bonus for that matter)

Last example (and why this came up at all) If I am a human trying to hit a house (Let's call it SM+5) with my club, I am +5 to my skill to hit the house. If a Giant comes along (SM +3) with his club, is he at a +5 to hit the same house or at +2?
__________________
Two things that I learned from Dungeons & Dragons is that I LOVE GURPS and it isn't really a compliment when a gnome tells you your hair smells nice.
Jeminai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 12:07 PM   #2
Cheomesh
 
Cheomesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: LP City, Maryland
Default Re: SM, Is it relative?

It's relative.

The sprite has a +6 to hit you, as you have a -6 to hit them.

Every slight adjustment of muscle moves the limb a different arc distance (etc); the smaller the limb/adjustment, the smaller the distance covered.

M.
Cheomesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 12:33 PM   #3
Infornific
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Default Re: SM, Is it relative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheomesh View Post
It's relative.

The sprite has a +6 to hit you, as you have a -6 to hit them.

Every slight adjustment of muscle moves the limb a different arc distance (etc); the smaller the limb/adjustment, the smaller the distance covered.

M.
It's relative for melee combat. For ranged combat it would be absolute. If you want to get more technical, you could take a look at Tbone's Games Diner - the Gulliver section in particular. Those are house rules of course but useful if you want more detail.
Infornific is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 01:16 PM   #4
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: SM, Is it relative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheomesh View Post
Every slight adjustment of muscle moves the limb a different arc distance (etc); the smaller the limb/adjustment, the smaller the distance covered.
Put another way, the pixie is not punching a SM+6 target. He's hitting a SM+0 target at a pixie's arm length (+6).

Realistically, there should probably be a cap on relative SM bonus (after hit location) in melee, because eventually most of the target is going to simply be out of reach and not relevant to the odds of hitting.
__________________
RyanW
Yo Dawg, I heard you like memes and Imma let you finish but one does not simply walk into all your base killing all ur d00dz.
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 01:22 PM   #5
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default Re: SM, Is it relative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanW View Post

Realistically, there should probably be a cap on relative SM bonus (after hit location) in melee, because eventually most of the target is going to simply be out of reach and not relevant to the odds of hitting.
about how big is a barn? or is that for ranged combat?

additionally, why is there a need to cap tohit? its naturally capped at 16.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog

Now recruiting in PbP forum!
ericthered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 01:45 PM   #6
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: SM, Is it relative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanW View Post
Put another way, the pixie is not punching a SM+6 target. He's hitting a SM+0 target at a pixie's arm length (+6).

Realistically, there should probably be a cap on relative SM bonus (after hit location) in melee, because eventually most of the target is going to simply be out of reach and not relevant to the odds of hitting.
I believe +4 has been recommended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
about how big is a barn? or is that for ranged combat?

additionally, why is there a need to cap tohit? its naturally capped at 16.
Because it's not reasonable for it to be easier for a human to punch an aircraft carrier than a space shuttle. (And yes, you never succeed on a 17 or 18, but bonuses beyond that can compensate for penalties, including Deceptive Attack...in case that aircraft carrier was going to dodge.)
__________________
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 11-21-2012, 02:10 PM   #7
lwcamp
 
lwcamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The plutonium rich regions of Washington State
Default Re: SM, Is it relative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
Because it's not reasonable for it to be easier for a human to punch an aircraft carrier than a space shuttle. (And yes, you never succeed on a 17 or 18, but bonuses beyond that can compensate for penalties, including Deceptive Attack...in case that aircraft carrier was going to dodge.)
Big things tend to react slower, making it easier for smaller things to compensate for the motions of the big things and harder for the big things to counter the actions of the small things. This could be modeled by allowing deceptive attack to make it harder for the aircraft carrier to dodge.

Luke
lwcamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 03:06 PM   #8
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: SM, Is it relative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lwcamp View Post
Big things tend to react slower, making it easier for smaller things to compensate for the motions of the big things and harder for the big things to counter the actions of the small things. This could be modeled by allowing deceptive attack to make it harder for the aircraft carrier to dodge.

Luke
Only if we want to:
-bundle unrelated concepts,
-make positive SM an even worse deal,
-only model the 'big things are bad at defense' rule in melee,
-have their slowness act as a bonus for purposes other than Deceptive Attack as desired which stacks with the normal +4 Telegraphic,
-and ignore parts of the FAQ entry that the relative SM in melee thing comes from.
__________________
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 11-21-2012, 03:19 PM   #9
Dinadon
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: SM, Is it relative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lwcamp View Post
Big things tend to react slower, making it easier for smaller things to compensate for the motions of the big things and harder for the big things to counter the actions of the small things. This could be modeled by allowing deceptive attack to make it harder for the aircraft carrier to dodge.

Luke
When you can throw superscience and/or magic into the mix tends to doesn't really cut. The big thing could also be fast. I wouldn't make Deceptive Attack better against larger things, you can already convert the SM bonus itself, and a vehicle like an aircraft carrier would also likely have a negative handling bonus. Instead I would use Perception checks to see if the larger creature can attempt to dodge at all.

As to having a maximum for melee, it makes sense since you only have so much Reach. Eventually you will reach an SM were parts of the target are always out of Reach. At this point it doesn't make sense to keep giving more and more bonus from SM, since as far as your attack area is concerned there is no difference.

To fair you should probably have a cap for SM bonus from range, but only after you've cancelled out speed/range penalties from the target.
Dinadon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 04:07 PM   #10
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: SM, Is it relative?

You want the Size Modifier and Combat box in GURPS Powers.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 03:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.