Re: Big

From: Mikael Raaterova <ginijji_at_...>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 19:22:59 +0200

>On Sat, 1 Apr 2000 23:13:45 +0200, Mikael Raaterova
><ginijji_at_...> wrote:
>
>>>The Large numbers are lower than I expected: they
>>>seem to mean that a notably big starting PC (Hefty 13) is almost as
>>>large as a gorilla
>
>>A human with 'big' 2ww is bigger than an ordinary human but still
>>nowhere near as large as a rhino. The trait rating merely means that
>>he's very good at putting his size to good and effective use.
>
>I don't know about that, if you use Strong to lift a creature, you can
>only match it against a rating like Large/Big. Likewise, if you use a
>size Ability like Large/Big as an augmentation , say as a defensive
>Edge (big things are harder to hurt), it has to be one rule for all.

You can also have 'large' as a _flaw_ which means you can't have one rule for all anyway.

I don't think you have to quantify objective size as an _ability_. Differences in objective size can, ruleswise, be tabled as modifiers usable in appropriate situations.

Having no rating in traits like 'large' or 'big' means you can't use your size effectively to your own advantage (except as an unlisted ability of 6). A giant is objectively bigger than a human, but if it has no 'large' rating it means that the size difference becomes a non-mod since the giant's relative clumsiness and relative toughness cancel each other out. Unless the Narrator decides that the diff in size gives the giant an edge in flattening the puny human.

-- 
-
Mikael Raaterova        [.sig omitted on legal advice]