From: Nick Brooke (100270.337@CompuServe.COM)
Date: Fri 18 Jun 1993 - 10:46:33 EEST
OJ said of the Damage Bonus table in my Comments:
> There is an error in that table on the far end.
No, there's a deliberate discontinuity that makes it far easier to
calculate huge creatures' damage bonuses. Not an error, though I
understand if you don't like it. I just thought being able to divide
STR+SIZ by six, round up, divide that by four (replacing each +4 with a
1D6) and keep the remainder as fixed adds was easier and cleaner than the
existing system, with its crude breakpoints every 16 points of STR+SIZ
above 56. I also thought that when a SIZ 100 creature hits you, you're
unlikely to be too bothered about whether it does more or less damage than
it would under RQ3 rules. It'll do enough, no?
The earlier part of the table was designed to keep rough parity with RQ3,
while not getting fiddly with the averages. Remember when assessing my
rules that under them a sword would do 1D8 base damage, not 1D8+1 (the "+1"
is the average user's damage bonus adding on).
But, honestly, I'm not bothered. Let's get these rules to *feel* right,
not frot ourselves away arguing about numbers that only need to balance
against each other...
Nick
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:27:54 EEST