Topic: Size and OB bonus/penalty to hit

[Grimsouled]

I noticed that in section 9.4 Size it specifically states that smaller targets get a bonus to their DB of 5 per size smaller.
However, I don't see a mention of the reverse. It should be easier to hit something larger, IMO. Is there a reason this was omitted or was it just an oversight? Or have I missed something somewhere else?

Thanks.

[Thot]

That would seem logical, yes.

[Cory Magel]

Well, you're talking about something smaller than you vs equal sized or bigger than you.

So, my first thought on this line of reasoning is: If you're a roughly average adventurer, is it harder for you to hit, let's say, a 2.5 foot wide and 6' tall wall rather than a 5' wide and 12' tall wall?
Even taking into consideration that you're talking about a moving target I don't think it's really all that different from a basic size standpoint.

Now, from a mechanics standpoint, you also have consider that if you did have a bonus for both directions you'd essentially be doubling that bonus.  Because both combatants would be getting bonuses/penalties for size differential rather than just one.

[jdale]

Something bigger may also have better reach, so getting in to hit it might also be more challenging.

I don't know that I think it's much easier to hit a lion or a horse in melee. Seems more sensible with ranged weapons though.

[MisterK]

Something bigger may also have better reach, so getting in to hit it might also be more challenging.

I don't know that I think it's much easier to hit a lion or a horse in melee. Seems more sensible with ranged weapons though.

Indeed, while you can make a case of a large target with reach being effectively more difficult to hit, this would not apply to ranged weapons, so those should benefit from a size bonus ?

[Grimsouled]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Yes, I was talking about ranged combat. Seems that shooting an elephant should be easier that hitting a man. But all I found was the bonus to DB of smaller creatures.

[pastaav]

The difficulty of hitting a elephant in the eye and hitting a donkey in the eye is roughly the same since the eye is not too different in size. Not every bodypart scales the same for larger creatures so even while it is trivial to get a general hit on a elephant it is not given that larger size should translate into you attack making more damage because the target is large.

IMHO it is also worth to remember that the bonus for being small was introduced to make small characters a more viable choice rather than any effort to increase realism. Giving ranged attackers a boost in combat against large targets might be good or bad idea depending on the point of view. The important thing is to realize that giving such a boost will make ranged attacks more attractive so het more ranged attacks at the game table.

[Hurin]

IMHO it is also worth to remember that the bonus for being small was introduced to make small characters a more viable choice rather than any effort to increase realism.

Yes, this needs to be kept in mind. The addition of the bonus was not just for greater realism, it was also for balance reasons.

[Cory Magel]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Yes, I was talking about ranged combat. Seems that shooting an elephant should be easier that hitting a man. But all I found was the bonus to DB of smaller creatures.

lol... now THAT you would think would make it easier.  After all, it is going to be easier to hit a 60 square foot target vs a 15 square foot target (using my own size numbers from above).
But, as pastaav said.  It's really more about the balance between them than the realism in the end.  I mean, just look at my tag... Fun>Balance>Realism.  Realism does come last!