From: Burton Choinski (burt@ptltd.com)
Date: Thu 24 Jun 1993 - 01:23:22 EEST
George W. Harris notes:
------------------------------------------------------------
| DAMAGE BONUS & NATURAL ARMOR
|
| Personally, I think the revised damage bonus chart as in
| the v2.0 draft is nearly ideal. The jumps aren't as large, and
| they're at more natural places.
Personally, I would be happier if they chucked the d2 or d4, and just had
d6 or d3. So real large creatures might have 10d6+d3... use a different
color die for the half die. :)
Given: each +5 adds +2 to the average damage done, and 1d3 has an average
of 2 hows about:
STR + SIZ Damage Bonus Average
01-05 -2d3 -4
06-10 -2d3* -3
11-15 -1d3 -2
16-20 -1d3* -1
21-25 0 0
26-30 +1d3* +1
31-35 +1d3 +2
36-40 +2d3* +3
41-45 +2d3 +4
46-50 +3d3* +5
51-55 +3d3 +6
56-60 +4d3* +7
61-65 +4d3 +8
each +10 +1d3 +2
What is a d3*? Simply subtract 1 from the roll before adding the results.
Since the averages are correct, one can simply use the averages for speed
A little cleaner looking then "+3d3-1" or "-(1d3-1)". A general formula
for figuring high values would be (STR+SIZ-21)/10 in d3's, with fractions
ranging from .5-.9 indicating d3*.
of play, or roll if getting high damage is a "make-or-break" situation.
The good thing about it is, everyone has a d3 if they have d6's :)
| As to having some form of natural armor or resistance to
| damage based on some combination of SIZ, STR or CON, well, I
| think it would cause more problems than it would solve. We would
| have to address how it's cumulative with worn armor, how does it
| affect slashing, crushing and impaling weapons, etc. etc.
Like I posted earlier, I don't think it would help too much against blades.
I dunno. I like the idea of fist fights or brawls where the PC
slams a chair on the big guy and he just turns and smiles. :)
| THE COMBAT ROUND
|
| Am I the only one who really detests the new combat
| round? I find the flat ceiling of two actions for every
| character regardless of speed or ability to be repulsively
| democratic.
I'm not sure how this could be done within reasonable rules and without
lots of exceptions to memorize to prevent High-dex or High-Melee characters
from rolling over normal people.
| Basically, you have three options. You can take two
| attacks, one attack and one defensive action, or just two
| defensive actions.
Okay so far.
| If you are taking two attacks, you cannot dodge or parry.
| You take whichever attack you choose to first. Your second
| attack comes three strike ranks after that. If you have
| sufficient strike ranks left in the round, you could move (if
| unengaged), or cast a spell (taking three strike ranks in
| addition to the time to cast the spell [this isn't as absurd as
| it sounds. A Siz 20 Dex 20 character with a Pike could attack
| twice by SR4, giving enough time to cast a 2-point spirit magic
| spell])
How many SR does the move take? With this case you have a person use a
Pike and lickity-chop some poor bastard twice, then do a double move.
Seems a tad extreme, especially if you are the one facing the pike. :)
But since Nick hates strike ranks, let me suggest another alternative for
him to grouse about. :)
Way back with Traveller there was a product called "Snapshot" which was
designed for general Melee and ranged combat. What this system did was
give each combatant a number of action points based on Dexterity (and I
think Endurance as well). You then spent those action points. It took
X amount to move once, A certain amount to aim, an amount to fire, etc.
This is just a suggestion...I have no idea on how to figure the allocation
or such that Low Siz and Dex people are also not overrun by their bigger
and faster opponents.
| MISCELLANEOUS
|
| Of course I like the new Strike Rank table, since I'm the
| one that suggested it. However, I don't think Dex and Siz should
| both be limited to contributing 20; I think it should perhaps be
| more flexible. What I would prefer would be limiting the
| contribution of Siz to 25 and that of Dex to 30, but for
| simplicity's sake I could see limiting them both to 25.
Hrrrm. I think limiting it at 21 (3d6, low 3 plus high 18) makes better
sense. But I like the new break points...much cleaner looking.
-- Burton
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:04 EEST