It is a common conceit that when something is larger, it is easier to see and hit. However, some but not all games (such as 3.X that I know of) allow a bonus to attacks on the grounds of relative size: so a halfling gets a +1 when he attacks humans, because from his perspective, they are larger.
Properly, the same reasoning should apply to things like stealth: all giants shouldn't be able to instantly find one another because from a human perspective, they are larger. What do they can about what the human perspective is? However, although I can see the logic behind getting a bonus on attacks if you are smaller than your target, the concept of gnome snipers doesn't quite sit right with me. It's not a balance question, rather a realism one (although of course the system of size would be balanced within the hypothetical system). Is it realistic for things to work this way? Does only relative size, not absolute, matter when you are shooting at something?
Size and Perception
Moderator: Moderators
-
Josh_Kablack
- King
- Posts: 5318
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Online. duh
3.x D&D justifies the mechanics using relative size, but applies the modifiers in an absolute sense
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/moveme ... esInCombat
All small creatures receive a +1 attack modifier REGARDLESS of the size of their target.
Likewise, they receive a +1 AC modifier REGARDLESS of the size of their attacker.
Likewise, they receive a +4 to hide, REGARDLESS of who is looking for them.
That said, 3.x D&D tries to overcompensate with attribute modifiers, and at both ends of their size scales it falls down on both verisimilitude (carrying capacities related to body weights) and the breaking RNG (+8 to -8 is a 16 point range all on the same table in a system that uses a d20 roll and also other modifiers is problematic enough, but then the Grapple and Hide modifiers go from -16 to +16, yielding a 32 point divergence, which exceeds the entire RNG all by itself)
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/moveme ... esInCombat
All small creatures receive a +1 attack modifier REGARDLESS of the size of their target.
Likewise, they receive a +1 AC modifier REGARDLESS of the size of their attacker.
Likewise, they receive a +4 to hide, REGARDLESS of who is looking for them.
That said, 3.x D&D tries to overcompensate with attribute modifiers, and at both ends of their size scales it falls down on both verisimilitude (carrying capacities related to body weights) and the breaking RNG (+8 to -8 is a 16 point range all on the same table in a system that uses a d20 roll and also other modifiers is problematic enough, but then the Grapple and Hide modifiers go from -16 to +16, yielding a 32 point divergence, which exceeds the entire RNG all by itself)
Last edited by Josh_Kablack on Wed Sep 15, 2010 3:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
I'm pretty sure the attack bonuses/penalties for size are all to do with balance and nothing to do with reality.
There's no good reason to assume that midgets make better shots afterall. In fact larger people probably are more successful at ranged attacks if only because they have a longer reach or range with thrown weapons and can put more power into their attacks either throwing something faster so it is harder to dodge, or using bigger guns to shoot bigger bullets. I'd frankly be more concerned about a big guy with a big bow being able to tag me with an arrow than a little guy with a smaller bow.
Now defense-wise I can seen being larger still being a penalty realistically. Being bigger does make you a bigger target either to be hit or to be seen if you hide, so your touch armor class or hide penalty ought be worse the larger you are.
There's no good reason to assume that midgets make better shots afterall. In fact larger people probably are more successful at ranged attacks if only because they have a longer reach or range with thrown weapons and can put more power into their attacks either throwing something faster so it is harder to dodge, or using bigger guns to shoot bigger bullets. I'd frankly be more concerned about a big guy with a big bow being able to tag me with an arrow than a little guy with a smaller bow.
Now defense-wise I can seen being larger still being a penalty realistically. Being bigger does make you a bigger target either to be hit or to be seen if you hide, so your touch armor class or hide penalty ought be worse the larger you are.
Actually, since attacker and defender are equally affected by size categories, the size difference is the only contributing factor to AC or accuracy nerfs and absolute size doesn't matter.Josh_Kablack wrote:3.x D&D justifies the mechanics using relative size, but applies the modifiers in an absolute sense
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/moveme ... esInCombat
All small creatures receive a +1 attack modifier REGARDLESS of the size of their target.
Likewise, they receive a +1 AC modifier REGARDLESS of the size of their attacker.
Example:
Monster A is 3 size categories over medium and gets -3 accuracy and -3 AC. Monster B is 4 size categories over medium and gets -4 accuracy and -4 AC.
When Monster A attacks B, Monster A effectively has a +1 accuracy bonus. In reverse, Monster B has a -1 accuracy bonus.
I could have used that example for a halfling and a human and gotten the small results. Thus, only size difference matters for AC and accuracy nerfs.
Edit: This doesn't make sense because image resolution depends on lens size. A bigger creature should get a +4 spot modifier because it has bigger eyes.Likewise, they receive a +4 to hide, REGARDLESS of who is looking for them.
Last edited by Saxony on Wed Sep 15, 2010 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
So because I have bigger eyes than a cat or hawk my sight should be much better than theirs right? And elephants have rocking eyesight, right?
Oops. No, that's not how it works in reality, if that's what we're talking about.
Anywho, the only case I could see for large creatures not being penalized for hiding is if they were in likewise large environments (say like giants in a giant castle). But in a normal sized environment without large cover, a giant is going to have a hard time trying to hide their large frame and anyone will be able to spot them, because whether someone is well hidden is not dependent upon the size of the observer.
Oops. No, that's not how it works in reality, if that's what we're talking about.
Anywho, the only case I could see for large creatures not being penalized for hiding is if they were in likewise large environments (say like giants in a giant castle). But in a normal sized environment without large cover, a giant is going to have a hard time trying to hide their large frame and anyone will be able to spot them, because whether someone is well hidden is not dependent upon the size of the observer.
Hawks have better crafted eyes to adjust for their smaller size. That's what racial bonuses are for.erik wrote:So because I have bigger eyes than a cat or hawk my sight should be much better than theirs right? And elephants have rocking eyesight, right?
Oops. No, that's not how it works in reality, if that's what we're talking about.
Here's Wikipedia's quote
.They also have extremely keen eyesight which enables them to spot potential prey from a very long distance.[2] This keen eyesight is primarily contributed by their extremely large pupils which ensure minimal diffraction (scattering) of the incoming light.
Look up the Rayleigh Criterion, you ignorant fuck.
Last edited by Saxony on Thu Sep 16, 2010 3:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Attack penalties for size are pretty dumb. I have a much easier time hitting a mouse than the mouse does hitting me, similarly mosquitos and cockroaches.
If anyone wants to challenge this, feel free to imagine how a fight between you and a 6 inch tall version of you would work out, the size change of of course being magical in nature.
If anyone wants to challenge this, feel free to imagine how a fight between you and a 6 inch tall version of you would work out, the size change of of course being magical in nature.
Saxony, you were wanting to base spot bonuses on creature size not pupil size. Not my fault you're shifting the goalposts.
I think racial bonuses can entirely resolve any concerns about spot bonuses for differently sized critters. Afterall, if you gave size bonuses to spot then you'd just have to go back and give racial spot penalties to big critters like elephants to knock them back down. And you'd have to give even larger racial bonuses to the tiny creatures with awesome eyes to keep them where they are. Why bother?
Really, hiding is pretty borked in DnD anyway, so I'm not too concerned that giants cannot hide well and other critters can hide from them pretty well. That seems pretty up to par for giant tropes anyway.
But if you want to skip right to the ad hominems go ahead.
Vnonymous, I totally agree. I am pretty sure the attack bonuses/penalties were only included as a balancing factor rather than a realism factor.
I think racial bonuses can entirely resolve any concerns about spot bonuses for differently sized critters. Afterall, if you gave size bonuses to spot then you'd just have to go back and give racial spot penalties to big critters like elephants to knock them back down. And you'd have to give even larger racial bonuses to the tiny creatures with awesome eyes to keep them where they are. Why bother?
Really, hiding is pretty borked in DnD anyway, so I'm not too concerned that giants cannot hide well and other critters can hide from them pretty well. That seems pretty up to par for giant tropes anyway.
But if you want to skip right to the ad hominems go ahead.
Vnonymous, I totally agree. I am pretty sure the attack bonuses/penalties were only included as a balancing factor rather than a realism factor.
Last edited by erik on Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
erik wrote:Saxony, you were wanting to base spot bonuses on creature size not pupil size. Not my fault you're shifting the goalposts.
I was pretty upfront and never changed the goalposts. Does "depends on lens size" or "has bigger eyes" exclude pupil size from my argument?Saxony wrote:Edit: This doesn't make sense because image resolution depends on lens size. A bigger creature should get a +4 spot modifier because it has bigger eyes.
You're totally right about this. It's needless complexity.I think racial bonuses can entirely resolve any concerns about spot bonuses for differently sized critters. Afterall, if you gave size bonuses to spot then you'd just have to go back and give racial spot penalties to big critters like elephants to knock them back down. And you'd have to give even larger racial bonuses to the tiny creatures with awesome eyes to keep them where they are. Why bother?
I got angry because you were being using sarcasm to tell me I was wrong about a well established physics concept. Also a bit antagonizing. Being sarcastic and slightly antagonizing when you are telling someone they are wrong when they are indeed right will get you insulted. That's how the world is. However, that's not the right thing to do and I apologize for being unnecessarily mean to you just because I felt intellectually threatened.Really, hiding is pretty borked in DnD anyway, so I'm not too concerned that giants cannot hide well and other critters can hide from them pretty well. That seems pretty up to par for giant tropes anyway.
But if you want to skip right to the ad hominems go ahead.
Next time look up what someone is talking about before you decide to declare them wrong. I stop writing over half my posts because I realize I'm just talking shit to talk shit and don't actually have any supporting evidence. My "Yes, but what about this?!" impulse is a bit too strong.
I wasn't really talking about D&D. Looking back, the examples I used may have given that impression. I'm not trying to fix any published game. rather, to resolve a problem for a hypothetical one.erik wrote: Really, hiding is pretty borked in DnD anyway, so I'm not too concerned that giants cannot hide well and other critters can hide from them pretty well. That seems pretty up to par for giant tropes anyway.