From: johnjmedway (jjm@zycor.lgc.com)
Date: Tue 15 Jun 1993 - 03:17:07 EEST
ARMOR:
------
>> From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" <ROBERTSON@delphi.intel.com>
>> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 13:24 PST
>>
>> I think you need to have a Material modifier to determine AP,
>> rather than size. There is a great difference between a traditional
>> ...
>>
>> Armor Points/Encumbrance/Cost
>> Material Small Medium Large
>>
>> Leather (1 Ply) 3/0.5/1 4/1.0/3 5/1.5/5
>> Wicker 5/1.0/5 7/2.0/10 9/3.0/20
>> Wood 8/1.5/25 10/3.0/50 13/4.5/75
>> Wood/Leather 12/2.0/50 14/4.0/75 16/6.0/100 (standard)
>> Reinf. W/L 15/2.5/60 17/4.5/90 20/6.5/125
>> Bronze 15/2.0/110 17/4.0/140 20/7.0/150
>> ...
I'd say the AP range was too extreme, but this seems like the way to
I'd also like to get back to armor and helms being described more like
go. Shields have always seemed funny because they did not vary with
material.
they were in RQ2. The old chart described typical pieces of armor, and
helms, and their effects on the wearer (the AP, Encumberance, Move Quietly
& Scan adjustment, etc.).
I think this is a far cry better than the Full Suit of Bezainted = ...,
with the afterthought of "and for those who don't like D&D armor classes,
the by the piece prices use the following formula ..." descriptions in RQ3.
That part is made worse in RQ4, as the price % for a hauberk is at one %,
yet the encumberance is at another%. Yuk. Put it on one table.
Ditto for helmits and other head coverings. We had different _styles_ of
helmits in RQ2, and in RQ3 we had different materials, but never the two
did meet.
I think we should develop a hybrid table, like the older RQ2 table, or like
I have most of this table worked out, and will post if anyone asks.
that for shields above with values for the likely helm/hood styles, and
likely materials.
>> With such a system, more Cultural differences could be introduced
>> (Sartar Orlanthi use Wood, Wood/Leather, or Reinforced Wood/Leather;
>> Sun Domers use Reinforced Wood/Leather or Bronze; Ducks use Wicker or
>> Leather; etc.).
Has anyone made a serious dent in listing what arms, armors and shields
are culturally appropriate? or is this virgin territory?
( I'd recommend that this last part be followed up on the digest. )
DAMAGE, FATIGUE AND FUMBLES:
----------------------------
>> From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu
>> Subject: Re: COMMENTS ON COMMENTS >IMO< LONG
>> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 93 14:32:18 EDT
>>
>> None of the proposed changes seem different enough (to me) from RQ3
>> to warrant promulagation. If you're keeping bascially the same damage
>> bonus for a given strength, why not keep the old system? If you want
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I think that STR and SIZ should give base damage as in PENDRAGON and that
>> weapons should modify this.
>> If we are not willing to make this basic change then I don't think that
>> tweaking the weapon damege+modifier system is worth the investment it takes
>> for thousands of players to unlearn one table and learn a new one. Make
>> the big break to base damage on the person, modified by the tool she is using,
>> or don't bother. I for one would find it easier to memorize a new system
>> than minor changes in a table of the old one.
I agree wholeheartedly. The simplest, and most closely compatible, system would
probably be something like the following:
Keep weapon dice the same, and have the character's STR + SIZ multiply the
damage:
STR + SIZ DAMAGE STR + SIZ DAMAGE STR + SIZ DAMAGE
01 - 04 50% 21 - 24 100% 41 - 44 150%
05 - 08 60% 25 - 28 110% 45 - 48 160%
09 - 12 70% 29 - 32 120% 48 - 52 170%
13 - 16 80% 33 - 36 130% 53 - 56 180%
17 - 20 90% 37 - 40 140% 57 - 60 190%
The reverse, having strength determine the dice, and the weapon, the multi-
plier ( number rolled, whatever ) is appealing, but the weapon tables look
and feel unfamiliar.
Also, if opting for this latter Pendragon-esque form, the Pendragon modifiers
This system can also be used to determine damage from Bows, etc., by counting
of "add a die" or "subtract a die" for various weapon types is as much a glitch
in the machine as the RQ-style damage mods independant of weapon type.
2 x STR and ignoring size altogether.
>> I have fought for sixteen years, I think that fumpble may go up a bit but
>> not by a factor of dozens. Exhausted people don't 'hit nearest friend'
>> twenty times more often, they're much more likely to just get hit
>> because they can no longer parry. Thus I think increasing the Autofailure
>> gives a much better picture of what happens - you're just too tired to get
>> that block or attack in. Many of those fumbles stem from people attacking
>> ...
>> I feel pretty strongly about this.
I'd like to second, or by now, third the motion.
1. It's unrealistic in how sloppy it makes fatigued fighters
2. Keep it simple and consistent. Modifiers always affect base chance of
success, and the Critcal/Special/Fumble numbers are derived from this
base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:27:45 EEST