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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-08-2014, 09:36 PM   #71
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
We have no established method by which to make that conversion, and indeed frequently treat HP as deriving directly from mass.
GURPS is pretty vague on what HP are, but the key feature of DR vs HP is that the DR doesn't (normally) ablate, while HP loss represents lasting damage, and, well, for a homogenous object that's basically the distinction between elastic and inelastic deformation.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2014, 02:12 AM   #72
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
GURPS is pretty vague on what HP are, but the key feature of DR vs HP is that the DR doesn't (normally) ablate, while HP loss represents lasting damage, and, well, for a homogenous object that's basically the distinction between elastic and inelastic deformation.
Yes, but that trivial statement does nothing to help me determine the HP of a block of metal.
__________________
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 11-09-2014, 03:27 AM   #73
Andreas
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
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.
The same problem should apply for things other than homogeneous objects. A contact explosion against living creatures of different size for example.

Quote:
A reasonable weaponized laser works by drilling holes with rapid, flash-vaporizing pulses.
The problem persists even for such a laser unless it is powerful enough to punch all the way through the object (which would require a ridiculously powerful laser for such cubes). If anything it seems to me that a more narrow beam should do more damage since it would penetrate deeper into the cube and thus act more like an internal rather than a contact explosion.

Quote:
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).
So the size of the hammer striking a cube should matter even if the contact area is the[/QUOTE]
Would this not just make the problem even worse? Assume that each hammer is of the same scale as the cube it is attacking. Then the smaller cube will take even less damage since the hammer attacking it is smaller.
Andreas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2014, 04:25 AM   #74
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
No, HP doesn't go as the cube. HP scales with dimension, not volume.
And volume is factor of dimension yes? HP increases with both, so increased ability to withstand damage due to increased size is shown by increased HP.

I think I see the problem here I'm not talking about a linear relationship I'm just stalking about a proportional one (more size more HP)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
Nope nope nope.
ah well if you say three time it must be 3x as true I guess!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
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.
That's not relevant to what you said, your comparison was to the same round having the same effect on both targets, you just demonstrated that different round have different effects on different targets, Yes that will be the case. What matters is the interaction between different limiting factors.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
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.
Only if you change the power of the .22 round which would effect how much damage would be passed on, and yes different result will occur (i.e it no longer a like for like comparison) as different limiting factors take over in a different situation

That 10pt .22 will do 5pt wound to the human

the same .22 round would also do a 5pt wound to the T-rex.

The limiting factor here is the rounds ability to inflict damage


In order to penetrate the t.rex entirely it would have to do a 100pt (50pt wound). I.e it would have to be 10x as powerful!

Noticeable that super .22 would be limited to a 5pt wound on the human. Because as you say depth matters.

In this instance the limiting factor is over penetration (i.e. depth)

Also remember a .22 doing 100pt of damage is on average a 29d attack, that's going to be a lot of energy being imparted!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
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++.

Except that pi-, pi, pi+, and pi++ differ only by absolute size of the wound channel. Which makes no sense.
It make sense because absolute size of the wound channel is how they differ, although I agree the fact they do so by thresholds is not smooth.

The fact that the overall effect of the wound is relevant to the overall HP is what matters when it comes to effect on the target.

Which is why a .45 doing 6pt damage leaves a 9pt wound channel. Assuming there enough body to leave the entire channel in.

Which is 90% of HP to a HP10 target, but only 9% of HP on HP100 T-rex. The wound is the same size in both targets, but the different size of the different target's bodies means it has a different impact on the whole target.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
No, it's just tied to it: cover DR = HP. That's all there is to the assertion.
No you just made about WM means it not just about depth (but width as well).

There are several limiting factors here in terms of defining the effect of wounds

1). Weapons ability to impart energy (damage rolled)
2). Physical properties of the wound left due to physical properties of the weapon (WM)
3). The target's ability to withstand damage (HP)

Depth can come in into play in several places here, but it doesn't always and it when it does it not always the only or even the main limiting factor on the effect on injury


EDIT: One thing you seem to now be talking about the issues of variable Pi, whereas before you were just talking about penetrative damage and wound totals. These are two different things, (and what I replied to Anthony about)

Last edited by Tomsdad; 11-09-2014 at 06:33 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2014, 06:19 AM   #75
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Simple: let's say I have two objects. One is 6" across, one is 12" across. They have the same density, so the larger object has 9x the mass and 2x the hit points of the smaller object.

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'?
Yep


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
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.
Only you've chosen a set up that fall on either side of the Pi/Pi++ barrier which ins't really fair (if they were both Pi then they would increase equally with HP by both doubling)

However I do agree Pi is a bit odd as penetration damage otherwise increases proportionally with HP (and your example shows that). And the fact that it tops out at P++ which is it's own oddity in the other direction)

However I don't think the Pi mechanic is designed to to just model damage in terms of volume of wound channel but more the disproportional effect of wider wound channels on different targets. Which is why it different between living, unliving and homogeneous etc.

So don't get me wrong I get the theory behind saying what counts as a P++ wound on human should count as P- on a T-rex in terms of disproportional effects of a 18mm wound channel on both (beyond the penetration)

My problem with adjusting the WM is you have to come up with a general sliding scale of adjustment to size or target and thst going to assume .

I think I'd rather do it by making specific adjustment to the target (injury tolerance, DR etc)

DR in particular counters Pi+ and Pi++ as every point of DR removal more than point of injury.

DR also solves the large targets being taken down by lots and lots of tiny attacks.

However that is a fudge I will admit. I have seen the the various tweaks for increases HP by mass, which I'd be fine with as well (but the HP to ST relationship would need to be rethought out).

One suggestion could be giving the same discount on HPs that positive SM gives to ST? (EDIT: sorry not very clear as in extra HP brought on top of those from ST that would already be discounted)

Last edited by Tomsdad; 11-09-2014 at 10:55 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2014, 08:07 AM   #76
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
The same problem should apply for things other than homogeneous objects. A contact explosion against living creatures of different size for example.
Living things of different size with extremely different physical qualities. We don't have a problem unless the small thing has the 'as hard to disrupt as the big thing' quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
The problem persists even for such a laser unless it is powerful enough to punch all the way through the object (which would require a ridiculously powerful laser for such cubes). If anything it seems to me that a more narrow beam should do more damage since it would penetrate deeper into the cube and thus act more like an internal rather than a contact explosion.
No, because damage (adjusted by AP factors) = penetration.

10 pi and 10 pi++ penetrate to exactly the same depth in a given substance, so the same goes for 10 burn+ and 10 burn++.

The laser doesn't act particularly like an explosion regardless of depth. It mainly acts like a (very fast) drill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
Would this not just make the problem even worse? Assume that each hammer is of the same scale as the cube it is attacking. Then the smaller cube will take even less damage since the hammer attacking it is smaller.
Why would a smaller hammer make it take less damage? A smaller and thus finer-pointed hammer delivering the same energy (alternatively momentum, melee damage is problematic) should have higher damage.
__________________
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 11-09-2014, 08:41 AM   #77
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
And volume is factor of dimension yes? HP increases with both, so increased ability to withstand damage due to increased size is shown by increased HP.

I think I see the problem here I'm not talking about a linear relationship I'm just stalking about a proportional one (more size more HP)
That would be a problem, yes. We cannot have a meaningful discussion if you treat the magnitude of the change as irrelevant. (And why would it be unclear that when I contrast "scales with linear proportion" with "goes as the cube" you shouldn't just look at the direction?)

Also, using 'proportional' to refer to a non-linear relationship would be a problem, though I think this is the first time you did it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
That's not relevant to what you said, your comparison was to the same round having the same effect on both targets
Fair enough, though I think you'd benefit from not ignoring them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Only if you change the power of the .22 round which would effect how much damage would be passed on, and yes different result will occur (i.e it no longer a like for like comparison) as different limiting factors take over in a different situation
No, it's the comparison I said I was making in the first place: "Suppose a projectile of a particular size with damage = HP: that is, one that fully penetrates the subject."

Projectiles that fully penetrate were the subject, not projectiles of fixed damage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Also remember a .22 doing 100pt of damage is on average a 29d attack, that's going to be a lot of energy being imparted!
If we suppose that energy being imparted is a useful thing to look at, well. Damage is proportional (that means a linear relationship) with the square of energy per Interior and Terminal Ballistics for GURPS, so the T-rex round has 100 times the energy of the man-penetrating version. However, the 100hp T-rex has 1000 times the mass of the man. So in terms of energy/mass of target it's way behind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Which is 90% of HP to a HP10 target, but only 9% of HP on HP100 T-rex. The wound is the same size in both targets, but the different size of the different target's bodies means it has a different impact on the whole target.
Look for a moment at what 'the wound is the same size' means, though. The bullet disrupts the same amount of flesh on both targets, pretty much. The T-rex has 1000 times the body volume. So it's taking 1/10th the damage (proportional to HP) for 1/1000th the amount of its body destroyed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
No you just made about WM means it not just about depth (but width as well).
WM means injury is not just about depth. Damage, however, is very definitely about penetration, and HP scales with dimension (with the obvious relationship to penetration) and determines the cover DR one provides as a barrier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
EDIT: One thing you seem to now be talking about the issues of variable Pi, whereas before you were just talking about penetrative damage and wound totals. These are two different things, (and what I replied to Anthony about)
No, I'm not talking about issues with variable pi, aside from the side complaint about the range being bounded at the ends.
__________________
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 11-09-2014, 01:07 PM   #78
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
...

Look for a moment at what 'the wound is the same size' means, though. The bullet disrupts the same amount of flesh on both targets, pretty much. The T-rex has 1000 times the body volume. So it's taking 1/10th the damage (proportional to HP) for 1/1000th the amount of its body destroyed.

....
Right OK I think I see the point your making (and I think I see how the example you made was trying to illustrate it) and I think I agree with you.

Cheers for your patience!

TD
Tomsdad 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 02:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.