From: Graeme A Lindsell (gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au)
Date: Wed 16 Jun 1993 - 04:11:56 EEST
Re-reading my suggestion for natural armour based on SIZ + STR, I
realized that I hadn't clearly stated what I meant ny it being
natural weapons: I meant against punches, kicks etc, not claws,
teeth, firy breaths etc. It might still count against those if
the person was wearing armour as well: you only get the natural
armour points equal to the armour you are wearing.
On second thoughts it would be simpler to use OJ's damage bonus
table as natural armour as well ie +2 damage = 2 points natural
armour. The formula is (SIZ + STR)/5 - 5 round up, I think.
Why do I think Size and Strength are underrated in RQ? I've
been playing a size 18 character for a year now (Orlvald Grimsson,
styled "Ice-eyes", my Humakti), and I haven't noticed any great
advantages in combat compared to the rest of the party, the largest
of whom is Size 14 (the average size of the party, excluding my
character, is about size 12). Extra damage bonus is OK, sure, so
is the +1 strike rank and 3-4 extra hit points, but these are offset
by extra encumberance for armour and terrible modifiers for agility
and stealth (My GM has the RQIV draft: he liked the new agility
modifier, and adopted it, but didn't like the new stealth one). The
poor agility mod is quite crippling in the long run as it cuts back
experience increases.
Most of what I've read about combat says that height, strength and
mass give great advantages in combat, especially unarmed combat. I
just don't see these advantages in the RQIII rules: the designers
seem to have wanted to penalize size as much as reward it. From
my reading of the RQIV draft, one of size's other advantages has
gone: it is no longer the training limit for strength and con.
Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:27:48 EEST