Daring to ask the what does SM do question.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

+1 in Grapples!

As a general rule yes. But in reality it's often a case of large size increasing the effectiveness of strength sometimes in a binary "major advantage or horrible problem" way rather than a simple always there marginal bonus.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by lexington

So the argument, as I follow it, is that if you make completely ridiculous characters like an SM -1 creature with ST19 and examine them in a vacuum the whole system falls apart?
...

Most gamers don't play realistic games. The rules have to allow for that. St 18 SM-1 is like ST 27 SM +0 and ST 36 SM +1. Do those sound as unlikely to be played in any game too?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

+1 in Grapples!

As a side note, I have tried to grab small animals, and from experience, I don't seem to actually have a +5 to grab a pet rat or a +12 to grab a fly. In fact, I would say that attempts to grab are affected by size in exactly the same way as attempts to hit. If I ran into someone half my size who was my equal in strength, I doubt I'd be able to hold them easily either. The only useful effect of size in a grapple is valid targets: it's basically impossible to do a one-handed grab on anything that's more than two hand-spans in circumference, and reduced ST on anything that's more than one hand-span in circumference. On someone my own size, that means I can get a good one-handed grip on the wrist, a weaker one-handed grip elsewhere on the arm or the ankles, and gripping somewhere like the thigh is a nonstarter. Against someone SM+2, I doubt I could actually get a one-handed grip anywhere but on small appendages such as the fingers or ears. Against someone SM-2, I can get a firm grip anywhere on the upper arm and the ankles and a poor grip anywhere on the legs.

[lexington]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Most gamers don't play realistic games. The rules have to allow for that. St 18 SM-1 is like ST 27 SM +0 and ST 36 SM +1. Do those sound as unlikely to be played in any game too?

I consider your premise false, that is the equivalent in ST scaling but its is irrelevant to them showing up in games. ST27 demigods/supers strike me as more common than dwarves who don't get most of their Basic Lift from Lifting ST.

In any event my position is that that effects of different Reach should be emphasized/reworked to reflect the biggest benefit and the biggest penalty to being different sizes. Without that a small SM is mainly a benefit in combat, if you hold everything else constant.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Well, assuming they only need to defend against melee attacks and their enemies haven't managed to break through to engagement range.

I chose SM+2 because you start to see the benefits of Reach there. The small enemies will be getting attacked by kicks long before they get into CC range and they still have to deal with spear thrusts from the ranks behind the pikemen. All of that is after going through ten meters of constant attacks from pikes, most of which will be Determined.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I'd quite like to see a clear writeup of how Combat at Different Levels is intended to work for different-sized characters fighting each other on a level surface.

Same here. I suspect it just works out to the shorter character never losing the ability to target the larger one's legs/feet (ok, eventually he'll only be able to reach the feet...) and the larger one never loses the ability to engage any part of the smaller one with kicks (probably gets to keep the +1 to target head/neck as well). I'm curious as to what happens with the defense penalties/bonuses, however - I suspect the penalties stay at up to -3, while the bonuses don't apply.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Anthony

SM -1 is a 2/3 multiplier, fractions are explicitly dropped, and there is no damage penalty for one-handed use unless it's in some other book than Basic.

Ah, you're using the simpler DF rules. I was using the rules in Low-Tech Companion 2. Although if you're using DF rules, you might be able to convince the GM to let you make that sword Dwarven (Iffy).

The damage penalty is in Martial Arts. Any two-handed weapon used in 1 hand gets -1 damage, in addition to using the equivalent one-hand skill.

Incidentally, I find it kind of silly to be carrying a shield but not skill it up. A shield is an incredibly useful weapon if used right. It also forces you to get the Shield Wall perk (And spending one of your possibly quite-limited combat perks) or that +3 to parry also gives you a -3 to hit with your sword.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

Ah, you're using the simpler DF rules. I was using the rules in Low-Tech Companion 2.

Ah. I don't have LTC2. I suspect the optimal weapon choice changes depending which rules you're using.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

Incidentally, I find it kind of silly to be carrying a shield but not skill it up. A shield is an incredibly useful weapon if used right. It also forces you to get the Shield Wall perk (And spending one of your possibly quite-limited combat perks) or that +3 to parry also gives you a -3 to hit with your sword.

It's -2, isn't it?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

Incidentally, I find it kind of silly to be carrying a shield but not skill it up..

Let's say I already have 4+ points in both weapon and shield. +8 points in my primary weapon gives +2 to hit (can be traded for a number of useful things, including -1 to my foe's defense, and also helps with stuff like feint) and +1 to parry. +8 points in my shield gives +1 to block.

The +2 weapon skill is almost always better, unless I've got a lot of missile attacks to deal with, and in that case it's often better to invest in dodge.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by Kromm

The issues of playing up strengths and playing down weaknesses guide my hand a lot as a developer. I ask, "Right, here are the detached, mechanistic costs for the downsides and upsides . . . but how far can the downsides be suppressed and the upsides be pushed?" Then I price the trait assuming player selection with intent, and ensure that when downsides are maximally suppressed and upsides are maximally abused, the trait still doesn't seem "too good." If that breaks the more moderate cases, I don't let that worry me

I've seen this result in some very large problems in play when players take traits that are priced this way. Particularly with disadvantages that are easily overcome with the help of technology or supernatural abilities that might not be present in the game.

Blindness might be fine at -50 if you can use those points to buy your super a bunch of super senses to overcome that. But it's not so great when a player has a concept for a blind person in a modern horror game. Deafness is a similar case. And it's the same with lots of stuff. Mute is fine at -25 for a telepath. Maybe it even gives back too many points in that base. But it's seriously more disadvantaging to a normal player character.

I've very consistently seen players skip the physical disadvantages, even if they had started out with a concept that called for them. They just give too few points back in comparison to the relatively less disabling mental disadvantages.

The root of the problem here is that the ability to compensate for the physical disadvantages isn't the same in every game. It's the same problem that comes up often with the universal trait pricing. Traits are going to end up overpriced for some games and underpriced in others. In this case, it's a matter of what game you're assuming is being played when making these assumptions about the player characters being able to suppress the downsides of their disadvantages. If you're SM +1 in a TL 0 hunters and gatherers game, then it's not much of a disadvantage at all. There's no armor to worry with. There aren't a lot of structures that will fail to support your weight. And so on. But in a TL 3 combat-heavy fantasy game, or a TL 9 realistic space travel game, it's going to be a huge inconvenience. Significantly so. If you were pricing the traits for a TL 0 game, then the prices are going to make less sense the farther you stray from that sort of game. And we see that with the RAW prices, where they start to break down in science fiction and supers games, which happens much more often than significant problems with the trait pricing in low tech fantasy games.

And players usually don't like giving themselves free disadvantages. If the only way they could take Blindness for their character concept that calls for it was to take it and get no points back, then they would probably abandon that character concept. That's what I see happening in DF with the SM +1 characters. Inexperienced players see the Barbarian and think it's cool, then play it for a while, only to abandon it as soon as they figure out the workings of the system and the opportunity costs of the various traits.