From: Graeme Lindsell (gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au)
Date: Fri 25 Jun 1993 - 04:00:56 EEST
Burton notes:
(Gives new damage bounus table)
> Since the averages are correct, one can simply use the averages for speed
> of play, or roll if getting high damage is a "make-or-break" situation.
Or the GM can choose to one or the other at the start: the integer
averages are a good idea.
>George W. Harris notes:
>| 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.
Not necessarily. I don't like the armour layering rules at all: why
should leather be less effective if it is under another suit of armour?
I don't think positing armour is exponential like the stats works:
if it was, then 2 points of armour should take only 1 point off a 10+
damage hit, rather than reducing 2 points off, and would have no effect
on a 21+ damage hit. The problem with armour layering should be corrected
by encumberance rules rather than mathematically complex layering rules:
it should be less effective to wear two light forms of armour than one
heavier set. The main problem natural armour will solve is natural combat
IMHO, which is way too deadly right know once people get damage bonuses.
Obviously yes, it will require more playtesting.
As for Burton's point that it shouldn't work against blades etc: I think
this will generally come out in the wash. Most bladed weapons do more
damage than natural weapons anyway, so I think this is already factored
in. Compare Fighting Fit (Str=Con=Siz=13) vs Humongous(all 18): Fit gets
+1 to damage, +1 to armour, Humongous gets +3 to both. With fists, Fit
will almost certainly lose, as he does an effective d3-2 damage vs d3+2.
With daggers, he also is at a disadvantage: 1d4 vs 1d4+4, but he has a
chance, and should win if he is significantly better. With broadswords, it
comes to 1d8-1 to 1d8+3, and with poleaxes to 3d6-2 to 3d6+2: Humongous has
an edge, but little more. Skill will win.
If we were to make lots of conditions on the natural armour, I don't think
it would really be worth the trouble . I don't even like the "soft armour vs
crushing weapons=0.5" rule either: if I wanted that, I can start playing
Harm-master, with its different armour values for 5 different attacks.
As for basing it on Str + Con rather than Siz + Con: one of the reasons
I suggested this is to give an advantage to Size. I always thought that RQ
had an advantage over other games when it came to handling Siz as a PC
characteristic. Having rolled up a Siz 18 character for the first time a
year ago, I have found that they actually went out of their way to penalize
big characters, while making the advantages pretty small. In my current
game, there is an elf in the party, Str 16 Con 16 Siz 9. On the old RQIII
size
equivalency table she weighs ~50 kg, vs my character's ~125 kg. Yet she is
nearly as strong as my Str 18, Con 14, Siz 18 (obviously we've done a fair
bit of training) Humakti, has a 1d4 damage bonus vs a 1d6 under RQIII, and
has 13 hp vs 16, and has 1 less SR. Weighing 2.5 times as much seems to have
very little combat advantages, but is given very strong disadvantages in the
way of experience gains (crap stealth and agility bonuses), armour which
weighs more without any corresponding strength advantage, and many
situations in cramped circumstances.
Everything I've seen and heard has indicated that Size is a very big
advantage in combat, especially unarmed combat. I'm worried about this
not because I want my character to be all destroying , but because RQ has
added a Size charactistic and has then been pretty unrealistic in how
it has used it.
OK I'll admit it, I'm actually a raving powergaming munchkin on an ego
trip. My character won't last forever though: he is a Humakti! :-)
>| 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.
Yes, I agree with this: it helps the nonhuman creatures not to base SR
completely around the huaman limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Graeme Lindsell Email: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au
---------------------------------------------------------------------
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:05 EEST