From: Burton Choinski (burt@ptltd.com)
Date: Mon 21 Jun 1993 - 16:10:19 EEST
Graeme notes about the damage bonus:
------------------------------------------------------------
| The current table isn't broken? I think it is one of the most broken
| parts of RQIII, there's no way of working out the bonus without
| consulting the table. Going from no bonus to +1d4, from +1d6 to +2d6
| etc produced gross minimaxing.
|
| I welcomed the RQIV draft table as being a simplification, and a
| much smoother progression. Though I argued against a straight integer
| bounus for damage as reducing the effectiveness of larger characters,
| I welcome it as an added simplification.
Personally, I would prefer if it were simplified to use d6 and d3 for
values, or converted to straight adds.
| Burton: I'm not a real fan of the layered armour rules you give. One
| of the reasons I suggested natural armour for big people is to give
| them an advantage, since the current are prejudiced against large
| combatants IMHO. I preferred SIZ+STR since I see muscle bulk and
| hardness as being more important than overall health. In your rules,
| the advantage dissappears when people are wearing heavy armour (ie in
| most battles).
Well, is the armoring system supposed to represent a linear or exponential
protection? If it is linear, then sure, you would just add protections
for a total armor. If exponetial, then the Value of leather under plate
(1 or 2 under 8) is negligable.
Looking at the draft rules again, it says that "lesser armor is halved before
adding", which makes me think it is somewhat exponential. But, to be fair,
and mulling it over, I think it should be exapanded just a bit (this post
modified my suggestion:
High >= Low > High/2 = add Low/2 (round nearest)
High/2 >= Low > 0 = add Low/4 (round nearest)
Thus, A guy adding heavy leather to his light chain (2 to 6) adds 2/4,
rounded to 1.
This is just an expansion of the existing draft rules to cover the low armor.
| Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing HP based purely on SIZ, with con
| as just the stat used to determine recovery and functioning while
| damaged; I'm not advocating this as a change, I just think it's a
| better mechanic.
Well, it is as Size increases.
| One thing that has struck me about the straight damage bonus idea:
| can very small creatures hurt each other at all? I think they have
| a -3 to damage now, which make most 1d3 and 1d4 attacks pretty futile.
| An idea that just rose to the surface of my mind (the cesspool
| analogy seems apt) is to take Siz + Str 1-5 as the base like so
Table trimmed...you've all seen it :)
Well, it has an advantage for those smaller creatures. But I have problems
with "natural armor" anyways.
Certain animals have "Natural armor" in the way of having armored scales or
very thick hides. I would classify the armor that big people have as more
a "Toughness". Now Toughness is great for fending off non-lethal blows
(punch, kick, etc), but I don't know how realisitically it can help against
a bladed weapon. If "Toughness" is allowed, I think the following guidelines
should be used:
Crush Attacks: Full value
Slash Attacks: Half value
Impale Attacks: Not counted
Now, one can say that since this is toughness and not another layer of
armor, you may add the value directly instead of calculating like above.
The result? Well, in fist fights it counts as you would expect it. Big
guys take a lot of punishment and don't seem to feel it. You cannot punch
out horses. But add a blade to the mix and things even out. Remember, it
only takes one Shiv between the ribs to ruin your day, be you big or small.
Since large people have lots of HP, this "loss of armor" against blades seems
realistic.
| Well, I'm about to eat my words. Burton suggested that we use
| Str + Con for armour. This might have an advantage:
As you mentioned in a later message, I stated that CON+SIZ be used. But
in thinking over the idea of Toughness, a factor of CON (health) and STR
(How tight you can bunch up your muscles) seems better. SIZ is a factor
in seeing how much you can take, but this seems a better way of determining
resistance to losing it.
Way back when, someone mentioned...
| Incidentally, has anyone considered using this system for combat rolls?
| It seems to me that combat is the only case where this is not proposed to
| be used. Perhaps even the same mechanics as Dodge i.e. a Critical Attack vs
| a Special Parry reduces the hit to a normal? Or some other tweak?
This is how we handle it. Parry is handled the same way as Dodge in this
case, but every successful parry (i.e. reducing a successful attack to
"miss" due to a successful parry) can still result in damage to the item
doing the parrying.
-- Burton
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:00 EEST