Combat - a Targeting Approach

Paul DuPont

Chronic RPG Creator
Validated User
#1
I'm evolving a combat mechanic that is more complex than I'd like, but removes the need for several other rules. I believe the net effect can be a real simplification overall. I'm looking for feedback to clarify my vision and smooth out the mechanic. The setting is high fantasy where characters gain exponentially more and more power from the gods till they have the potential to become divine entities in their own right.

Here is the concept:
Each combat action relies on accuracy, power and wits. Mechanically, all three can impact how likely your combat action is to succeed. Most attacks fit into Precision, Force or Trickery categories. Defenses line up against those categories pretty much as expected. Armor absorbs and converts force easily, parrying and dodging are effective against precise attacks. Trickery uses deception and surprise, it is less likely to be effective against perceptive or quick witted opponents. I convert all these factors are converted into a likelyhood of accomplishing the combat action and it's effect. This can be done in one die roll because each defense has it's own value and an attached consequence if the roll does not beat that defense value. To keep it to one die roll per attack, damage is not rolled, rather, damage is a static number which is modified by how well you rolled compared to the defenses. In this system, the variability in damage to an opponent is more about whether you got past the defenses or not.

For each combat action, roll one die, add your modifiers, and compare to the defense values. A typical attack would determine if you affect them at all(a physical attack may get deflected or dodged), if your action is mitigated by defenses (armor absorbs or converts damage), or if the action completely bypassed the opponents defenses (sliding the knife between armored plates).

Combatants learn combat stances and choose weapons and armor that impacts how well they defend themselves against different types of attacks. Choosing different types of combat actions may ignore certain types of defense. Armor, for instance, does not impede a grappling at all. To the players, this is nothing but a simple die roll after choosing a strategy, but with multiple difficulty levels determined by circumstances instead of a single target number.

For example, a quick and lightly armored gladiator fighting aggressively might have a dodge value of 4, and an armor coverage of 3. He gets no parry or block values since he is fighting aggressively and has no shield. His opponent must roll over 4 to have any effect on the gladiator, but must roll over 7 (4 doge + 3 armor) to bypass the armor. If the opponent rolls 5, 6 or 7, the action succeeds but damage is mitigated by the armor. If the gladiators opponent can get close enough to grapple the gladiator, he can do so on an attack value of 5 or above, since armor does not have any impact on grapples.​
Here is where it gets complicated:
Size and Armor Coverage (per body part): Each creature has a size value, and armor has a coverage value. Armor that fully covers a creature has the same value as their size. Including body parts (only used for called shots, sneak attacks, and when characters wear partial or mixed armor, like roman breastplate for instance). If someone makes a 'general' attack, they simply roll for accuracy as usual to demonstrate that they are simply taking the opportunities that present themselves. Taking strategic choices to maneuver on the battlefield or use combat actions that ignore or bypass an enemies particular defenses will make it easier to complete the action effectively. Basically, it increases targeting capacity.
The larger the creature, the bigger target it is. Ranged attacks are more accurate at closer ranges for the same reason, the target gets effectively smaller when it is further away. Size value makes a creature easier to target, while armor coverage reduces that advantage. Full coverage means the armor cannot be bypassed, at least not without a strategy. Armor typically converts damage (from lethal to fatigue for instance), so you can still take down an opponent if you can outlast him, even if you lack strategy.

Damage is inversely proportional to targeting: In other words, the size of a creature increases it's physical damage potential. This means that opponents significantly smaller or larger tend to either have 'invulnerable' armor or 'non-functioning' armor compared to the attacker in question. Characters of similar size only have slight advantages. Characters of significant difference have to use different tactics. Since most creatures have about 6 body parts (Head, Torso, 2 legs, 2 arms), comparing the full size of the smaller character with the largest and smallest body parts quickly indicates just how much they need to change tactics. Attacking a giant whose biggest body part (torso if humanoid) is bigger than your total size value means you can only target specific body parts at a time. You simply can't threaten multiple body parts without doing ranged attacks. If the giants smallest body part is bigger than your entire size value, even weak armor becomes incredibly effective vs. your damage potential. By the same token attacking someone way smaller than you becomes difficult since their target size makes precision attacks nearly impossible.

Armor Coverage vs. Damage Conversion: Armor has 2 primary traits during combat. Coverage and Damage Conversion. Coverage is essentially how much of the creature is protected by the armor. This means armor coverage maxes out at the wearer's size value. Damage Conversion determines what happens if a certain type of damage is mitigated by the armor. Full armor coverage means the armor covers the entire body, a regular attack against an aware and mobile opponent has no chance of bypassing the armor. Aside from obvious issues like weight and cost, this keeps shopping for armor pretty straightforward while maintaining some good options even before adding magical options. My focus in this thread is Armor Coverage, which is simply a number from 1 up to the creatures size value, also called full coverage.

Weapon Qualities: Some weapons offer a bonus to parrying, others to forceful attacks, and may have enough penetration to damage armor. I mention this for context. This doesn't really change how the die rolls function, mostly just offers tactical choices, especially when you know your opponents tactics.

Rules this replaces: (net simplification overall?)
  • No need for rules to indicate better chances to hit/affect opponents that are larger or smaller than you. It's already incorporated in the size and coverage values.
  • Less need for range limitations, those are a simple side effect of the character's effective target size shrinking to the point where only highly difficult called shots will hit.
  • Less sneak attack rules needed, this is mostly covered by strategic movement(focus on opponents weakest defense), stealth (ignores dodge/parry), etc.
  • Touch attack, ambush rules, etc... Characters simply lose some of their defense options.
  • Circumstantial stealth modifiers are partially identical to the size/targeting rules
My current conundrum: (size vs. armor coverage)
My system adds the die roll to a skill value. Before I included size, I added armor to difficulty. This was simple and effective. However, size has an inverse relationship to armor coverage. In a sense, it 'shrinks' the target, the unarmored portion of the target anyways. I could have size reduce all defense values, even down to the negative values. This would realistically represent large things being impossible to miss but it feels strange to me.

I could reverse the target numbers by using a roll under system and use the size as the starting target number minus other defense values. I don't mind using subtraction here because the die rolls themselves would still only be number comparison, but that requires some major changes to how the dice work.

I feel like I'm missing an obvious solution to smooth this out.

In the end:
Can I get this mechanic smooth enough to make it worthwhile? If not, I may shift to narrative mechanics like challenge scenes.
 

John Out West

Registered User
Validated User
#2
You were right with the "This is where it gets Complicated" part. I think at some points you fail to define your terms. I just noticed at a certain point I started getting confused, and i think that was the problem.

I'm usually quite good at reading rules, but this fatigued me. I don't think its the complication of the system, but the way in which you explain it. I read that thing fully and slowly, and currently remember nothing from it. That is not good a good thing.

I would rewrite it. I would break everything down further, put your terms in bold, and in-general simplify your language.

You also have a problem with "Word Tonnage." You use too many words to get across a single idea, which increases complexity without increasing value.

An example:
"Taking strategic choices to maneuver on the battlefield or use combat actions that ignore or bypass an enemies particular defenses will make it easier to complete the action effectively. Basically, it increases targeting capacity."

Which actually says:
"Making effective choices in battle can exploit an enemies weak-spot."

Specificity is good, especially in a "Full Rules" section that is designed for players who are already familiar with all the concepts and want to get more specific. However, for introductory rules, as i assume this is, you want to be simple, written in plain English.

I think the mechanics are fine. The idea of targeting weak spots, both in the enemy's armor or in their wits/dexterity is good. Its a good way to keep characters well rounded, while balancing characters who want to be powerful in a single field. You just need to work on the way its written, as far as i am concerned.
I have two good friends i play FPS games with, where one is an extremely good tactician and the other is an extremely accurate shot, but I can take both of them 1v1, because I am more well rounded. Your system reminds me of that, which may be why i like it so much.

I Hope this Helps!

Also: Spiked or razor armor would deter grapple checks. Just saying.
 

Paul DuPont

Chronic RPG Creator
Validated User
#3
You were right with the "This is where it gets Complicated" part. I think at some points you fail to define your terms. I just noticed at a certain point I started getting confused, and i think that was the problem.

I'm usually quite good at reading rules, but this fatigued me. I don't think its the complication of the system, but the way in which you explain it. I read that thing fully and slowly, and currently remember nothing from it. That is not good a good thing.
Glad I was right, LOL. Sorry that my words were a jumble, it's a side effect of my thoughts being a jumble. :cautious: I was writing this to get clarity and get feedback to smooth it out after all. Thanks for going through it... despite the confusion.

I would rewrite it. I would break everything down further, put your terms in bold, and in-general simplify your language.
I agree, I definitely need to rewrite it. I like your thoughts about definitions. I'll make a short list.

You also have a problem with "Word Tonnage." You use too many words to get across a single idea, which increases complexity without increasing value.

An example:
"Taking strategic choices to maneuver on the battlefield or use combat actions that ignore or bypass an enemies particular defenses will make it easier to complete the action effectively. Basically, it increases targeting capacity."

Which actually says:
"Making effective choices in battle can exploit an enemies weak-spot."
More agreement from me.

Specificity is good, especially in a "Full Rules" section that is designed for players who are already familiar with all the concepts and want to get more specific. However, for introductory rules, as i assume this is, you want to be simple, written in plain English.
I always struggle writing post on this forum, lol. People come from such varied backgrounds and perspectives. :unsure: Upon considerartion, it is easier to explain missing details as a response to questions than to give too much detail/jargon. I'll err on the side of simplicity.

I think the mechanics are fine. The idea of targeting weak spots, both in the enemy's armor or in their wits/dexterity is good. Its a good way to keep characters well rounded, while balancing characters who want to be powerful in a single field. You just need to work on the way its written, as far as i am concerned.
I have two good friends i play FPS games with, where one is an extremely good tactician and the other is an extremely accurate shot, but I can take both of them 1v1, because I am more well rounded. Your system reminds me of that, which may be why i like it so much.

I Hope this Helps!
Yes, it helps. I thrive on feedback. Thank you very much. Also glad you like the mechanics... at least the parts I wrote clearly enough not to confuse. I look forward to your opinion after I rewrite it. :cool:

As for character balance, one of the core ideas behind this system is derived from posts from this forum, in particular, a mechanic that balances magic equipment, magic, and stats(skills & Attributes). Wish I remember who posted that thread, but its been so long now.

Also: Spiked or razor armor would deter grapple checks. Just saying.
LOL... :ROFLMAO: Ouch!
 

Paul DuPont

Chronic RPG Creator
Validated User
#4
****EDIT -- for clarity and simplicity****

To Hit, or Not To Hit
I'm evolving a combat targeting mechanic that is more complex than I'd like, but removes the need for several other rules. I hope the net effect can be a real simplification overall. This thread is mainly about the success of an attack, not the damage and other consequences.
Note: I'm looking for feedback to clarify my vision and smooth out the mechanic. The setting is high fantasy where characters gain exponentially more and more power from the gods till they have the potential to become divine entities in their own right.​
Here is the basics: (one roll, different levels of success)
Attacks fit into Precision, Force or Trickery categories. Defenses line up against those categories pretty much as expected. Armor absorbs and converts force easily, parrying and dodging are effective against precise attacks. Trickery uses deception and surprise, it is less likely to be effective against perceptive or quick-witted opponents. This represented in one die roll because each defense has its own value, attacks determine the bonuses used and the defenses that apply. To keep it to one die roll per attack, the damage is a static number.

For each combat action, roll one die, add your modifiers, and compare to the defense values. A typical attack would determine if you affect them at all(a physical attack may get deflected or dodged), if your action is mitigated by defenses (armor absorbs or converts damage), or if the action completely bypassed the opponent's defenses (sliding the knife between armored plates).

Combatants learn combat stances, choose weapons, and armor. This impacts how well they attack or defend themselves against different types of attacks( some attacks ignore certain types of defense). Armor, for instance, does not impede a grappling. To the players, this is nothing but a simple die roll after choosing a strategy, but with multiple difficulty levels determined by circumstances instead of a single target number.

For example, a quick and lightly armored gladiator fighting aggressively might have a dodge value of 4, and an armor coverage of 3. He gets no parry or block values since he is fighting aggressively and has no shield. His opponent must roll over 4 to have any effect on the gladiator, but must roll over 7 (4 doge + 3 armor) to bypass the armor. If the opponent rolls 5, 6 or 7, the action succeeds but damage is mitigated by the armor. If the gladiators opponent can get close enough to grapple the gladiator, he can do so on an attack value of 5 or above, since armor does not have any impact on grapples.​
Definitions:
  • Size: a number that indicates the total size (tactically) of the creature. Size makes it easier to hit, meaning smaller characters are more likely to hit larger characters.
  • Armor Coverage: a number that indicates how much the armor covers (and therefore protects) a person(or body part).
  • Body Parts (aka. Target Locations): Each body part has a size value and an armor value. (Armor may only cover certain body parts).
  • Damage Conversion: how armor changes or absorbs damage when a 'hit' is mitigated by the armor (like from lethal damage to fatigue damage, or if it absorbs the first 2 points of impact damage). Size increases damage conversion, meaning attacking larger creatures through force may be pointless.
  • Damage Type: how the damage affects the target, common types of non-magical damage include Lethal, Impact, and Fatigue.
  • Called Shot: when the player declares they are aiming at a particular body part. Reduces accuracy but applies damage to that particular body part.

Here is where it gets complicated:

Armor Coverage vs. Damage Conversion: Armor has Armor Coverage and Damage Conversion. Coverage is essentially how much of the creature is covered by the armor. Damage Conversion determines what happens to damage if the armor gets 'hit'. My focus in this thread is Armor Coverage.
Weapon Qualities: Some weapons offer a bonus to parrying, others to forceful attacks, and may have enough penetration to damage armor. I mention this for context. This doesn't really change how the die rolls function, mostly just offers tactical choices, especially when you know your opponent's tactics.
Size and Armor Coverage (per body part): Size value makes a creature easier to target, but armor coverage reduces that advantage BY mitigating damage. Each body part is a portion of the total size and can have that much armor. Body parts typically only come into play for called shots, sneak attacks, and significant size differences.

Damage is inversely proportional to targeting: Size affects both the chance to hit and the resistance to damage. Characters of similar size only have slight advantages. Most creatures have about 6 body parts [Head(1), Torso(3), 2 legs(1 each), 2 arms(1 each)], for a total size of 8. Comparing the full size of the smaller character with the body parts of a larger character can provide useful limits. This might limit the amount of damage or require ano the attempt toi make sue of the combat action.

Rules this replaces: (net simplification overall?)
  • No need for rules to indicate better chances to hit/affect opponents that are larger or smaller than you. It's already incorporated in the size and coverage values.
  • Less need for range limitations, those are a simple side effect of the character's effective target size shrinking to the point where only highly difficult called shots will hit.
  • Less sneak attack rules needed, this is mostly covered by strategic movement(focus on opponents weakest defense), stealth (ignores dodge/parry), etc.
  • Touch attack, ambush rules, etc... Characters simply lose some of their defense options.
  • Circumstantial stealth modifiers are partially identical to the size/targeting rules
My current conundrum: (size vs. armor coverage)
My system adds the die roll to a skill value. Before I included size, I added armor to difficulty. This was simple and effective. However, size has an inverse relationship to armor coverage. In a sense, it 'shrinks' the target, the unarmored portion of the target anyways. I could have size reduce all defense values, even down to the negative values. This would realistically represent large things being impossible to miss but it feels strange to me.

I could reverse the target numbers by using a roll under system and use the size as the starting target number minus other defense values. I don't mind using subtraction here because the die rolls themselves would still only be number comparison, but that requires some major changes to how the dice work.

I feel like I'm missing an obvious solution to smooth this out.

In the end:
Can I get this mechanic smooth enough to make it worthwhile? If not, I may shift to narrative mechanics like challenge scenes.
 
Last edited:

John Out West

Registered User
Validated User
#5
Good job, much clearer, much easier to read.

First thing, i'm stealing some of this. I have "Elementals" in my world, and i was trying to think of how to represent their mastery of elements. Having them resist the effects of oncoming elemental attacks (No speed reduction from cold attacks, no loss of reaction from Lightning attacks) is what going to do now, replacing what i currently had, which was a reduction of total damage. Thanks for that.

For Rules you Replace:
-Yep, looks good.
-You're going to need one hell of a formula for Range x Size = Accuracy, and it had better be easy to memorize. I look forward to reading it.
-I don't believe it replaces Stealth rules. It just augments the check.
-Fair Enough.
-See point 3.

Trying to Smooth Out
Okay so the current formula is:
Attack Roll + Mods => (Defense + Active Defense) - (Size - Coverage)
Aka
15+3 => (10+2) - (6 - 4) = 12 - 2 = 10 = Hit
If it were the foot of godzilla, it would be
7+2 => (10+2) - (999 - 0 ) = -999 = Automatic Hit

Yeah that seems to check out. There's a reason barns are easy to hit, and its because their big. No shame in automatic hits or automatic misses. That being said it would deal zero damage to him because hes so big. If you wanted to hurt Godzilla you're going to need a weapon that mitigates size, like a penetrating Rifle, a bomb, or a jaeger. It shouldn't add too much time to the game, as Size & Armor are already determined, so when I say i got a 15, you look at your defenses and can tell if it hit or not, and this includes armor coverage.
I'm working on a similar system, where one player can be on foot while the other is in a 30 tonne mech suit. I'm balancing that with a couple of mechanics, including Penetrating Plasma Rifles that turn mechs into butter. You're going to have to use magic. Your issue is probably going to be the same as mine, and that would be: how to work out damage resistance of the different sizes. Right now I'm working on Penetrating Ratings, although i'm really dissatisfied with it so far as a system. Haven't playtested it yet tho.

Hope this helps!
 

Paul DuPont

Chronic RPG Creator
Validated User
#6
I'm stealing some of this. I have "Elementals" in my world, and i was trying to think of how to represent their mastery of elements. Having them resist the effects of oncoming elemental attacks (No speed reduction from cold attacks, no loss of reaction from Lightning attacks) is what going to do now, replacing what i currently had, which was a reduction of total damage. Thanks for that.
Your welcome. Glad to hear it's useful.

Trying to Smooth Out
Okay so the current formula is:
Attack Roll + Mods => (Defense + Active Defense) - (Size - Coverage)
Aka
15+3 => (10+2) - (6 - 4) = 12 - 2 = 10 = Hit
If it were the foot of godzilla, it would be
7+2 => (10+2) - (999 - 0 ) = -999 = Automatic Hit

Yeah that seems to check out.
Very useful feedback. How about this?
  1. Base Defense Value = 10 -Size
  2. Add Active Defense
  3. Then add Passive Defense
An attacker would need to beat the Active defense to hit, and would need to beat the passive defense to bypass armor.

Examples: (relatively accurate values based on current system):

Young Career Soldier(Human) = Size: 10, Shield and Sword Stance: 3, Medium Shield: provides +3 block as an active defense, or any attempt to strike the arm holding it. Mail Shirt and iron helmet: armor coverage is 6.​
  1. Base Defense Value = 0 (base 10- size 10)
  2. Active Defense Values = 6 if facing opponent (both stance and shield), 3 if flanking (shield can only be used to protect from one direction)
  3. Passive Defense = 12 (if facing), 9 (if flanking
A well prepared soldier with good training. A formation of such men can be very dangerous.​
Stout Defender (Dwarf) = Size: 7, Heavy Stance: 4. Full Mail with iron helm: armor coverage 7.​
  1. Base Defense Value = 3 (base 10- size 7)
  2. Active Defense Value = 7
  3. Passive Defense = 14
An experience combatant wearing heavy armor and weilding a large heavy weapon. He may not move fast due to his short stature, but he has a long weapon that can deal grave wounds. He would surely have a short sword, mace or dagger at his belt for opponents that manage to close with him. His full armor makes him very hard to damage.​
Sneaky Thief (Halfling) = Size: 5, Dual Weapon Stance: 2, The dagger and rapier have a combined parry bonus of: 3. Brigandine Shirt: armor coverage is 3. Hooded Cloak: provides bonus to stealth in some circumstances.​
  1. Base Defense Value = 5 (base 10- size 5)
  2. Active Defense Values = 10 if facing opponent, 5 if flanking
  3. Passive Defense = 13 (if facing), 8 if flanking
Though this thief prefers to use stealth and guile, he is nonetheless prepared for battle with a sword and dagger that can both be drawn at a moments notice. The Brigandine is inexpensive and durable, and absorbs damage very well for the cost. He lives by his wits, if someone snuck up on him they could do him in quickly. He should know, he's done the same himself.​

Traveling Wizard (Elf) = Size: 9, Barehanded Stance: 2, Enchanted Robes: armor coverage is 7.​
  1. Base Defense Value = 1 (base 10- size 9)
  2. Active Defense Values = 3
  3. Passive Defense = 10 (enchantment only has 3 charges)
This wizard provides magical rituals in exchange for food and lodging, he is looking for ancient ruins to uncover new knowledge and power. If attacked, he relies on his magic to get him by, his enchanted robes will absorb a few lethal strikes before losing their enchantment. Traveling companions that can protect him would be more useful.​

I've set the average size at 10 and add a flat 10 to minimize how often players have to add negative numbers. Attacks have the same Base Attack Value(10-size). Meaning average sized characters will have a net 0 to their defense and attacks. This also provides the same modifiers characters would get when fighting a larger or smaller opponent, but it's all pre-calculated in the base attack and base defense.

I think I am happy with this now.

I may need to tweak the average size to modify just how useful armor is, but I've got lots of other ways I can tweak armor, so I'll probably stick with the 10 (a nice round number) for average size. This means reliably bypassing full armor on a regular basis would require both strategy and a lot of skill(most skills won't even reach 10). I guess that is historically accurate. Knights trained for decades to fight on the battle field and late mediaval weapons included many specialized weapons for dealing with armor.
Full coverage armor is head to toe protection with occasional gaps to maneuverability, vision, breathing, etc. However, no armor can offer complete protection unless magic is involved. There will always be a need to remove armor, for instance. Although the concept is that armor can't provide more coverage than your size value, I think particularly well designed armor should provide bonuses against precision attacks designed to bypass armor(by minimizing the remaining gaps). This opens up the road toward armor values that are higher than a character's size.

For Rules you Replace:
-Yep, looks good.
-You're going to need one hell of a formula for Range x Size = Accuracy, and it had better be easy to memorize. I look forward to reading it.
-I don't believe it replaces Stealth rules. It just augments the check.
-Fair Enough.
-See point 3.
Good feedback, here are my thoughts on rules consolidation.

Stealth: There will be a stealth skill with a description but stealth is a combat stance in most respects, even out of combat. Stealth is a Defense Value, Size is a negative modifier, movement speed would usually also be a negative modifier most of the time, cover and camouflage provide a passive bonus up to the character's size value (like armor), etc. Observers have to roll their perception(like an attack roll) to exceed the hidden character's Stealth Defense Value. Here is an example, a thief is being pursued into a dark alley(actually dark, not like the movies) and starts to move for maximum stealth. His pursuer can see him, but not easily. At this point, the thief gets a Stealth Defense Value since it makes it harder to pin down his position, motions and reactions. Out of combat, or if the thief can get fully out of sight during combat, the thief's stealth is modified by the amount of cover he has, which mitigates his negative size modifier. Stealth is pretty useless in an open, well-lit area (assuming visual observation).
Sneak Attacks: There would be no option called sneak attack, but anyone could do a 'sneak attack' by choosing the correct strategic choices. These are just combat actions based on trickery and precision. Using Stealth as a combat stance, using precision weapons designed to bypass armor, moving into a strategic position, etc. For instance, if the opponent fails to notice you (he rolls his perception but fails to exceed your stealth defense value), any attack will ignore his active defenses (like dodge or parry), but passive defenses(armor coverage) will still be a problem. So using precision based attacks will be important to get past armor. Daggers, for instance, are very good at this, and should provide a precision bonus to bypass armor. There are daggers designed specifically for jabbing between plates of armor (they were used when grappling mostly). Lastly, getting behind your opponent, or having someone draw their attention away from you and focus on another threat is pretty much a requirement, unless the person is incapacitated (in which case sneaking up on them isn't needed).
Range is a passive defense: Assuming a magic wand that has endless range, distance would reduce target's effective size, it would work like Armor Coverage mechanically. Unlike Armor Coverage, missing due to the range increment means the attack lands somewhere else. Also, the farther your target, the more your attack deviates if you roll badly. Other types of ranged attacks may have other negative modifiers as range increases and simple range limits of effectiveness. A war-bow can shoot an arrow upwards to 400 or 500 yards, but it simply won't have penetration power if your shooting to the edge of your range. This type of ranged attack would lose damage potential as range increases. A character who is moving, and especially one that is moving erratically, is also harder to hit. This would be an active defense that would also affect targeting, just like dodge.

There's a reason barns are easy to hit, and its because their big.
Barns also don't dodge, parry or block, LOL. We should give the barn spiked armor, to protect it from grappling.

If you wanted to hurt Godzilla you're going to need a weapon that mitigates size, like a penetrating Rifle, a bomb, or a jaeger. It shouldn't add too much time to the game, as Size & Armor are already determined, so when I say i got a 15, you look at your defenses and can tell if it hit or not, and this includes armor coverage.
I'm working on a similar system, where one player can be on foot while the other is in a 30 tonne mech suit. I'm balancing that with a couple of mechanics, including Penetrating Plasma Rifles that turn mechs into butter. You're going to have to use magic. Your issue is probably going to be the same as mine, and that would be: how to work out damage resistance of the different sizes. Right now I'm working on Penetrating Ratings, although i'm really dissatisfied with it so far as a system. Haven't playtested it yet tho.
Godzilla is too big for sure, a smaller giant (say only about 2 or 3 times bigger than the characters) could be handled by doing called shots against specific body parts and using the techniques to bypass armor, strike at weak spots, etc. You would not be able to topple a giant by bashing it hard.
 
Top Bottom