relative size modifier

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by munin

EDIT: If it matters, I have no problem with others re-posting this list anywhere to aid discussion (and re-discussion).

Here's another attempt at the list (+ = Pro, – = Con, / = Situational):
<snip>
Anything else?

What about the rule where you add SM to resistance rolls vs Afflictions (Powers, p. 40)? According to the rule as written, this only applies to unliving, homogenous, and diffuse targets (which may be animate, and even characters, hence the value of including it here, I think), and they add their absolute SM to the resistance roll.

This will be a positive for Higher SM and a negative for Lower SM.

Although to me it makes more sense if the rule:
(1) applied to living targets as well; and
(2) used the relative SM to modify the resistance roll (e.g. Earth is SM +43. If a human (SM 0) tried to Afflict it, it'd add the full +43 to resistance. If a SM +4 giant did the same thing, Earth would add +43 - +4, or +39 relative SM to its resistance).

The latter is my suggestion and house rule, of course, but I've never been quite sure why (1) and (2) above weren't included in the original version of the rule.

[munin]

I think the intent is that only large inanimate objects add their SM to their roll ("To prevent those with low levels from zapping planets..."). "...the GM should let..." means it's a choice of the inanimate object, so smaller objects would choose not to add their negative SM to their roll. Requiring that they add their SM would be a reasonable house rule then.

Relative SM makes sense to me too (Galactus!).