Relative size mods for Monsters

[geppo_68]

Hi, does the "to hit" number already include the difficulty of hitting a size 0 human?
E.g. a size +3 hill giant warrior in "Monsters 2" gets a skill 14 with club.
Do I have to roll on 14 or 11 to hit a human?

Thanks
Giuseppe

[Anthony]

Officially, it needs to roll against a 14, though it's sometimes done the other way as a house or variant rule (I think it was published in one of the alternate GURPS articles in pyramid).

[tbone]

Originally Posted by geppo_68

Hi, does the "to hit" number already include the difficulty of hitting a size 0 human?
E.g. a size +3 hill giant warrior in "Monsters 2" gets a skill 14 with club.
Do I have to roll on 14 or 11 to hit a human?

Thanks
Giuseppe

By the book in GURPS and DFRPG, the giant modifies skill for SM, which is 0 in this case, so he rolls against 14.
Similarly, two SM +10 giants roll at +10 to hit each other, meaning they can't miss. Two SM -10 bugs roll at -10 hit each other, meaning they can't touch each other.

The other way, offered as an option in the GURPS FAQ, is to modify skill for the difference in SM (termed "relative SM" by some). So your giant would, as you've calculated, roll against 14 -3 = 11 to hit the human; it faces the same challenge as the human trying to hit a SM -3 target.
Similarly, the two SM +10 giants try to hit each other at no mod for SM; the two SM -10 bugs try to bite each other at no mod for SM.

The second method is the one that makes sense. I highly recommend it for both GURPS and DFRPG.

[Blind Mapmaker]

I've been using tbone's method for years now and it is really much more intuitive. The intention of the GURPS books' authors is of course to use the rules as written. A Hill Giant that rolls against 11 to hit a human is probably more realistic, but it presents a much lesser threat, one that some lucky delvers (and every delver needs Luck) can probably tackle without taking too much punishment.

It all depends how you want to use the monsters, but generally speaking an experienced part against a single, easy-to-hit opponent with no special defences is not that much fun if they also can't hit reliably. On the other hand, if every hit is a possible death check for your novice heroes, it can be quite a tension-filled fight. Your mileage may vary.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Blind Mapmaker

an experienced part against a single, easy-to-hit opponent with no special defences is not that much fun if they also can't hit reliably. On the other hand, if every hit is a possible death check for your novice heroes, it can be quite a tension-filled fight. Your mileage may vary.

I'm doing a detailed playtest of the recent Warlock Knight (DFRPG) adventure, and I just ran a combat that was just like that. The party had to whittle down a large, strong foe. One hit from said foe would absolutely wreck the human; the target was large enough that hits from the party were pretty certain.

It is definitely a tense fight that could go either way.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by tbone

The other way, offered as an option in the GURPS FAQ, is to modify skill for the difference in SM (termed "relative SM" by some). So your giant would, as you've calculated, roll against 14 -3 = 11 to hit the human; it faces the same challenge as the human trying to hit a SM -3 target.

That's always felt like "double dipping" to me. The SM +3 giant not only has a penalty to hit smaller foes, but the smaller foes have a bonus to hit him. This makes larger SM a decided drawback while overly bonusing smaller SM, when the predominance of the PCs are all SM 0.

I'm all for sliding the scale when the party is not predominantly SM 0.

(Note, my feelings on this are only for when dealing with "to hit". I'm generally more okay with relative SM when dealing with mass and ST considerations.)

[Rasputin]

Not to toot my own horn too loudly, but I wrote up some untested rules for incorporating height into this as well a few years ago. Probably too crunchy for DFRPG, but who knows?