04-03-2009, 08:41 AM | #11 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: relative size modifier
Quote:
|
|
04-03-2009, 08:42 AM | #12 |
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ottawa, ON, CA
|
Re: relative size modifier
Large size:
-Makes it harder for you to hit small targets with ranged or melee attacks. -Makes it easier for you to grapple smaller targets. -Makes you easier to spot with Perception checks. -Makes it easier for small creatures to hit you in melee. -Gives a 10% discount on ST, up to -80% at SM +8. Small size: -Makes it easier for you to hit large targets with ranged or melee attacks. -Makes it harder for you to avoid being grappled by large creatures. -Makes you harder to spot with Perception checks. -Makes it harder for large creatures to hit you. -Realistically limits ST; any racial template that includes small Size will also include lowered ST. -Enforces the use of smaller tools, weapons, and armor (Dungeon Fantasy provides rules for this) that seriously hamper the character's ability to deal or resist damage. That last is a serious issue for small characters. They may be accurate as all get-out, but a pixie-sized bastard sword still has a min ST of 2, which means the maximum usable ST is 6. An ST 15 Pixie (their maximum) is getting virtually nothing from his ST. I don't think objections to the balance of SM are supported by actual play. Yes, you could design an ST 30 SM -6 creature that could use normal-sized swords, and it might have an advantage - but it would be unrealistic to the point of absurdity, and I can't ever see using it in an actual campaign. Relative SM definitely makes more sense than absolute SM, because Pixies shouldn't have trouble hitting other Pixies any more than humans should have trouble hitting other humans. |
04-03-2009, 09:47 AM | #13 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and some other bits.
|
Re: relative size modifier
Quote:
So large size makes it easier to be hit in melee or ranged combat, but only affects your chance to hit in melee (and vice versa, for small size). A giant shooting his crossbow at a pixie has the same chance to hit that another pixie at the same range (and the same skill, et cetera) would have. |
|
04-03-2009, 10:05 AM | #14 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
|
Re: relative size modifier
Quote:
|
|
04-03-2009, 10:14 AM | #15 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Medford, MA
|
Re: relative size modifier
Quote:
|
|
04-03-2009, 11:07 AM | #16 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vermont, USA
|
Re: relative size modifier
Quote:
Kromm once said: "SM applies as usual when grappling; if you try to grapple a mouse, you suffer its SM on your attack roll just as you would on any attack roll, and you grapple at -9 or so." Kromm came back and quoted the general rule about size modifier applying to attack rolls (p. B19), but didn't address the rule on p. B402. I'm not sure how to reconcile his statement with 402. I can't find him saying something different. I could almost read 402 as being a bonus to hit while grappling (hitting with one hand after grabbing them with the other) instead of to grapple, except for the very last sentence of the example (which says "... to grapple ..."). EDIT: I just want to say that I greatly prefer Kromm's answer to 402. It makes more sense to me. Trying to grab someone should take the same modifier as trying to touch or punch them. Last edited by munin; 04-03-2009 at 01:44 PM. |
|
04-03-2009, 11:44 AM | #17 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: relative size modifier
Quote:
|
|
04-03-2009, 12:59 PM | #18 |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: relative size modifier
SM also alters reach.
|
04-03-2009, 02:59 PM | #19 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
|
Re: relative size modifier
Quote:
|
|
04-03-2009, 03:03 PM | #20 | |
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ottawa, ON, CA
|
Re: relative size modifier
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
scaling rules, size modifier |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|