Hello,
Max Skibinsky wrote:
> This is correct, but not relevent here. You explaining why AC of small objects is
>higher. It is. But
> its reflected by size modifier to AC. My question is about *attack* *bonus* for
>*ranged* attack -
> why its easier for halfling to hit a barn from 200 feet then for giant to hit the
>same barn with
> same weapon from 200 feet.
Relative size. The barn is relatively larger to the halfling, and relatively smaller
to the giant. The
assumption is, if the object is relatively larger than you it will be easier to hit,
while a relatively
smaller object is harder to hit.
> > The size modifier reflects that it's easier to hit something that's big,
> > and if you're smaller, that big thing looks a LOT bigger.
>
> In melee - yes. Barn from 200 feet looks pretty much the same for halfling and
>giant. Even from 50'.
> <MathMode> As Delta(Size)/Distance starts to be less then say 0.1 size difference
>can be safely
> ignored. Angular width of object has nothing to do with observer size, its function
>only of observer
> distance from the object and size/height of the object. However, for low-height
>halfling
> melee-distance objects takes much bigger parts of his view frutsum, thus they seem
>bigger. This
> beneficiary effect for halfling dispates very quicly with distance.</MathMode>
> <Ballistics>Giants really should have *bonus* versus halflings while trying to hit
>the barn from
> 200', because they have effective elevation for their ballistic trajectories.
>Elevation at the
> begning of parabola is roughly the same as if Giant is throwing/shooting slightly
>closer to barn
> then halfling</Ballistics>
GM's call. D&D tries to be simple in most areas, and as such abstracts things out.
This just happens to
be one of the casualties.
> I meant dwarves in common world term - as very short humans. Str modifier won't help
>with ranged
> weapons attacks under discussion - its Dex based. Following your logic - real world
>dwarf playing
> basketball should have much better luck then his large adversaries because the
>basket looks much
> bigger to him from down below?
Yet another casualty of abstraction. :-)
Have Fun,
Darren
