SM, is it relative or not?

[lachimba]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Default RAW, SM is absolute. Variant rules exist.

um no


not in melee combat. It is 100% the difference. There are some differences in ranged.


Also no variant rules exist that's GURPS this is DFRPG and the DFRPG thread.\.

[tbone]

Relative SM as a TH mod in melee is not the rules-as-written method in DFRPG and GURPS. RAW says to just use the target's absolute SM.

The GURPS 4e FAQ does offer the use of relative SM as an option. It would work the same under DFRPG as well.

Which should you use? Whichever you like, of course – but I'll unequivocally call relative SM the "correct" choice. By which I mean this: With absolute SM, melee combat among non-human sizes yields all sorts of weird, even "broken", results. With relative SM, melee combat among non-human sizes works perfectly fine, whether you're talking Giant-vs-Giant, Pixie-vs-Pixie, Pixie-vs-Giant-vs-human, anything.

My full take on the topic is here: http://www.gamesdiner.com/guths ; take a look if interested. It's a pretty brief read. (It's written for GURPS, but applies equally to DFRPG.)

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by lachimba

um no


not in melee combat. It is 100% the difference. There are some differences in ranged.

Having it be the difference has been presented as variant rules in various places, such as Combat Writ Large, but it's not the way the rules are written in either Basic or DFRPG.