Should creatures that take up more than one square / space on the battlefield take additional damage from AoE attacks?

If inertia is a big enough factor, I suppose.  In other instances, such as an ogre quaffing a potion, I don't see why it would suffer more damage.  For the sake of the system, the realism factor doesn't seem great enough to warrant a decrease in calculation speed.

Potion isn't AoE damage.  I'm taking about an Ogre that takes up 4 squares getting hit with a Fireball like attack.  Since they are much larger, they have more skin and body parts to burn. Or something like falling icicles.  The larger creature has a greater chance to be hit by additional icicles.

This would probably make more sense in a game system that assigns greater durability to creatures based on size.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about attacks of opportunity.

Hi,

As far as I'm aware, there is no 'should' in terms of this.

If you want to get a feel that it should take more damage, it's better to build up this feeling it should amongst your entire gaming group, because really it's just a feeling and the people you want to feel it are them.

perhaps the balance would be in having more chance of being hit by but not absorbing more damage from the attacks. Stacking up both factors would make larger creatures weaker anyway...

a way to fix this is to dictate that damage is done to an area.  if a creature takes up more than one space than more damage is delivered.

a shotgun blast should not do more damage assuming all the shot hits the target.  at close range all the shot would hit a smaller target and a longer range all the shot could hit a larger target.  in essence its the same damage.

some weapons will deliver damage cross a larger area.  napalm or example would do 5 points of damage to every square so if you are in 2 squares it makes sense that you cold take 10 damage.

I was thinking that the attacker should make an attack roll for each square that is occupied.  So if they attack an ogre and goblin, the attacker would roll five attacks.  One for the goblin, four for the ogre, and then roll damage as required by the rules.  If two of the four attacks hit the ogre, it takes damage twice, whether it's static or rolled.

Wouldn't the attack cover a greater surface area of a smaller creature in proportion to a larger one? 

Let's say the attack covers a volume of 2 cubes total.  A creature of 2 cubes would be completely covered whereas a 4 cube creature would be covered 50%.  Let's say the creature was an enormous dragon.  Would it makes sense that it take tons of damage because a fireball immolated its foot whereas it chars a human's body completely?

I'm going under the assumption that all damage is based on medium size creautres taking up one square.  The damage they take is the maximum the spell can do per square.  A larger creature takes up more squares and is affected by a greater portion of the damage.  This also assumes that size plays a part in determining durability, which I am contemplating doing for my monsters in Monsters & Mayhem.  Using your 50% cubes example, it's proportional if the 4 cube creature has twice as many hit points as the 2 cube creature.

If you do that I'd suggest having a corresponding mechanic for scaling down the image of normal sized attacks.  Let's use the shotgun example posted earlier.  If you're twice normal size you take 4 times the frontal area and are thus easier to hit with all shots.  However, each shot will leave a wound that only half as deep and one quarter the area relative to your size.  Many AoEs can work in a similar manner.  If there's written to do "X damage per unit area" then the bigger creature can be hit by more of those unit areas.  However, their resistance to each unit will be greater.  This makes AoEs a good equalizer against larger opponents.  Those without AoEs can instead exploit the fact that vulnerable area are significantly easier to target as increases.

Hello,

This thread must be ended. It is not a First Thoughts topic nor suitable for any forum at the Forge, in its current form.

There is one possible solution beyond simply closing it. Luminous, provide a brief account your personal and actual experience with this mechanic, for instance, whether it was enjoyable or not enjoyable for some reason. If you do this, I will move the thread to Actual Play and it may continue there. Otherwise, it will be closed.

Everyone else, I expect you to recognize when a thread topic isn't eligible here at this site, and not to respond if it isn't. I don't care if it's an exciting opportunity to chit-chat about a game. There are other sites for that.

No one else post until Luminous does.

Best, Ron

"This forum is for working through early drafts and posing design questions about the fundamental concepts for new games. If you have thought about, begun to design, or even extensively designed a game that has never been playtested, then it may be discussed here in First Thoughts. All degrees of development are welcome: the seed of an idea, a mostly finished game with some loose ends, or something in between. Again: as long as it has never been playtested."

It's a first thought. never been playtested and is just the seed of an idea with some loose ends.

Ya know what... forget it. Fuck you and your stupid ass rules and bullshit about every damn little thing.  You're obviously incapable of seeing a thread for what it is and this is a thread about a new game mechanic that can apply to any number of existing and currently in-design games, such as the one I posted about in another thread.

"[...] posing design questions about the fundamental concepts for new games. [...]"

That's from your own hand.  In your own thread.  In this very forum.  This thread was a design question about a fundamental concept for my Monsters & Mayhem game.  Have fun trying to run your own little fiefdom filled with sycophants bowing and scraping their knees to stroke your ego.  It's not worth trying to spark any kind of lively discussion when there is a blind asshole trying to micromanage every thread.

Closed now for real.
Ron