04-03-2009, 03:03 PM | #21 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vermont, USA
|
Re: relative size modifier
Here's another attempt at the list (+ = Pro, – = Con, / = Situational):
Higher SM + Buy ST, HP, Arm ST, Lifting ST, Striking ST at reduced cost (SM +1 or more, p. B15, 16, 40, 66, 89) + Immune to Constriction Attack (relative SM +1 or more, p. B43) + Easier to intimidate, harder to be intimidated (p. B202) + Easier to pin, harder to be pinned (p. B370) + Can squeeze torso (relative SM +1 or more, p. B371) + Increased reach (SM +1 or more, p. B402) + Easier to hit when you grapple (p. B402) + Can trample/overrun (relative SM +2 or more, p. B404, 432) + Longer poison delay (p. B438) + Eat less frequently (p. BIO63) + Larger weapons do more damage (p. DF1:27) + Unliving, Homogenous, and Diffuse targets add SM to resistance roll vs. Afflictions (p. P40) + "Realistic" larger creatures eat proportionately less amounts of food† (p. S149) – Easier to be hit (p. B19) – Easier to be noticed (p. B19) by Vision (p. B358) or Vibration Sense (p. B96) – Vulnerable to Parasitic Possession (relative SM +1 or more, p. B76) – Harder to be camouflaged (SM +1 or more, p. B183) – More damage from extreme pressure (SM +2 or more, p. B435) – Eat more food† (pp. BIO62-63) – Require more space and life support (p. BIO63) – Larger equipment costs more and weighs more (p. BIO63, p. DF1:28, p. HT10, p. P50, p. UT16) / Increases the size of a Jumper Tunnel (p. B64) or Permeation Tunnel (p. B75) / Costlier to be affected with Regular spells (SM +1 or more, p. B239) / More likely to block line of sight (p. B389) / Attack counts as Large-Area Injury* (relative SM +7 or more, p. B400) In addition, higher SM can be justification for some traits, but you'd have to actually pay for the traits themselves: + "Realistic" larger creatures have higher ST (p. BIO64) + "Realistic" larger creatures have longer lifespans (p. S159) + "Realistic" larger creatures might more easily see low wavelengths (p. S162) – "Realistic" larger creatures might have a penalty to their sense of touch (p. S162) / "Realistic" larger creatures have higher weight (FEATURE, p. BIO64) Lower SM + Harder to be hit (p. B19) + Harder to be noticed (p. B19) by Vision (p. B358) or Vibration Sense (p. B96) + Immune to Parasitic Possession (relative SM +0 or less, p. B76) + Undetectable by Radar (SM -1 or less, p. B81) + Simpler to grapple a prone, kneeling, or sitting opponent (relative SM -2 or less, p. B370) + Eat less food† (pp. BIO62-63) + Require less space and life support (p. BIO62) + Smaller equipment costs less and weighs less (p. DF3:8, p. HT10, p. UT16) + Attacks require Vision roll to notice (OPTIONAL, relative SM -10 or less, p. P76) + Easier to target armor chinks (OPTIONAL, p. P76) + Easier to get inside armor/body (OPTIONAL, relative SM -13/19 or less, p. P76) – Vulnerable to Constriction Attack (relative SM +0 or less, p. B43) – Harder to intimidate, easier to be intimidated (p. B202) – Harder to pin, easier to be pinned (p. B370) – Shorter poison delay (p. B438) – Eat more frequently (p. BIO63) – Smaller armor provides less DR, smaller weapons do less damage (p. DF3:8) – Impossible to target out-of-reach hit locations (OPTIONAL, p. P76) – "Realistic" smaller creatures eat proportionately greater amounts of food† (p. S149) / Reduces the size of a Jumper Tunnel (p. B64) or Permeation Tunnel (p. B75) / Less likely to block line of sight (p. B389) In addition, lower SM can be justification for some traits, but you'd have to actually pay for the traits themselves: + "Realistic" smaller creatures can carry heavier proportional loads (p. F51) + "Realistic" smaller creatures might have a bonus to their sense of touch (p. S162) – "Realistic" smaller creatures have lower ST (p. BIO63) – "Realistic" smaller creatures have lower IQ (p. BIO63) – "Realistic" smaller creatures have shorter lifespans (p. S159) / "Realistic" smaller creatures have lower weight (FEATURE, p. BIO63) Anything else? * So a human punching a mouse would be inflicting Large-Area Injury (STBY, mouse). I think all that means is that you average the mouse's DR (which is likely zero anyway). † The notes about food consumption might be confusing. Larger creatures eat more food, but the amount of food is smaller proportionate to their weight. Smaller creatures eat less food, but the amount of food is larger proportionate to their weight. However, if you follow the rules from Bio-Tech (pp. 63-64), which provides detailed numbers, you'll find that the weight of food consumed is roughly proportionate to BL at most sizes. Last edited by munin; 09-10-2020 at 03:23 AM. |
04-03-2009, 03:09 PM | #22 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
|
Re: relative size modifier
Quote:
|
|
04-03-2009, 03:20 PM | #23 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: relative size modifier
Quote:
|
|
04-03-2009, 03:51 PM | #24 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
|
Re: relative size modifier
Quote:
|
|
04-04-2009, 08:05 AM | #25 | ||||
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Torino, Italy
|
Re: relative size modifier
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The Basic Set sometimes is so "general" and abstract, it seems it has been intended for collectors, rather than for players. Dungeon Fantasy not only changes some things for genre/style reasons, it also "corrects" and simplify many Basic Set rules that are too clumsy / too vague to be actually used in play. In Dungeon Fantasy it looks like the author was actively thinking about "how will this rule be used in play?" "How will this work, in practice, for GMs?" The Basic Set rarely gives that impression. And this is not a good thing, obviously...
__________________
Last edited by Lupo; 04-04-2009 at 08:09 AM. |
||||
04-04-2009, 08:31 AM | #26 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: relative size modifier
Quote:
|
|
04-04-2009, 01:33 PM | #27 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Medford, MA
|
Re: relative size modifier
Quote:
With GURPS it has always been that the Basic rules are just that. The basics. Then, if you want, you can go pick up more specialized books and incorporate the extra rules there...or not. There are a LOT of extra rules and rules changes in Martial Arts, but that doesn't make the combat rules presented in the Basic set faulty...and it doesn't make Martial Arts required for play. The basics give a baseline, and then indications about outliers. SM-6 and SM+6 people are not really baseline. So there are some rules about them in the Basic, and more in the DF line...which, as a Dungeon Fantasy line often deals with creatures such as Pixies and Giants...so you can go there if you are interested in some enhancements to what was presented in the Basic set. |
|
04-04-2009, 02:27 PM | #28 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, Ontario
|
Re: relative size modifier
the trickiest thing about the relative rules, as realistic as they are.. is the addition that someone with gigantism (which could be a regular human) will have -1 to hit his normal sized opponents in melee combat. that's a pretty big penalty, and i'm not sure the bonus to grapple balances that out. Though I guess you could say that large characters *should* grapple more often as it makes sense for them as characters. (the main reason i'm thinking about this is that in our current game i'm playing a sm -1 girl, and the other character is a sm+1 beast of a knife fighter; it would probably be not kosher to introduce these rules midway through an adventure, but they do make slightly more sense)
__________________
..my campaign.. |
04-04-2009, 02:32 PM | #29 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Medford, MA
|
Re: relative size modifier
Quote:
|
|
04-04-2009, 03:33 PM | #30 | ||
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, Ontario
|
Re: relative size modifier
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
..my campaign.. |
||
Tags |
scaling rules, size modifier |
|
|