From: johnjmedway (jjm@zycor.lgc.com)
Date: Mon 12 Jul 1993 - 22:07:43 EEST
Since everyone else is doing it...
>> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 22:45:11 CDT
>> To: jovanovic@cuccfa.ccc.columbia.edu (oliver jovanovic)
>> Subject: RQIV Survey (Damage)
>>
>> >> Feel free to simply reply:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Yes (or No)
>> >> 2) No (or Yes)
>>
>> Was this intended as a hint?
>>
>>
>> My votes (with accompanying disclaimers/backpedalling/alterations/etc.)
>>
>> >> 1) In your opinion, are the proposed changes to damage bonus, weapon damage
>> >> and armor values worth making?
>>
>> NO
>>
>>
>> >> 2) In your opinion, is the proposed change of using a single merged hit
>> >> location table worth making?
>>
>> YES YES YES YES
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Now for the other stuff:
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >> To give you some background, these changes were made in response to
>> >> a number of comments on the RQIII damage system. The comments
>> >> included complaints regarding the sudden jumps in the damage bonus
>> >> table, and the odd mathematical progression of the current damage
>>
>> If the same damage modifier paradigm (pardon the grad-speak) is to be
>> retained, I believe that this system is _acceptable_, though it is not
>> _desirable_. I like the more variable damage of the die roll for damage
>> modifier.
>>
>> I am more in favor of a revolutionary approach to damage modifiers here.
>> Either:
>>
>> 1) Percentage Modifiers: (personal favorite)
>> Basic die roll for each weapon, and the character has a % modifier
>> to the total (preferably two, one for swing and one for thrust)
>> This should not be very intrusive, and requires no other major
>> changes. I've played with this in the past, and though it requires
>> a bit of math, it works well and shouldn't put off too many.
>>
>>
>> 2) Pendragon-esque: (I'm less fond of this one)
>> Basic die roll for each weapon, and the character rolls a certain
>> number of dice (or simply multiplies, if the handful of dice idea
>> isn't appealing). Since this is normalized at 4, current HP and AP
>> need to be scaled, each point of healing yields d6 points healed,
>> etc. I haven't tested this, hence it wasn't in my previous post on
>> the subject. These numbers _will_ need to be worked on. This is a
>> _rough_ example.
>>
>> Rough Examples of each follow: ( Numbers _will_ have to be tweaked )
>>
>> Gang-o-4 % Scheme Dice Scheme
>> STR+SIZ System Swing Thrust Swing Thrust
>>
>> 01-05 -4 50 40 1 1/2
>> 06-10 -3 60 50 1 1
>> 11-25 -2 70 60 2 1
>> 16-20 -1 90 80 3 1
>> 21-25 0 100 90 3 2
>> 26-30 +1 110 100 4 3
>> 31-35 +2 120 110 4 4
>> 36-40 +3 130 120 5 4
>> 41-45 +4 140 130 5 5
>> 46-50 +5 160 140 6 5
>> 51-55 +6 180 150 7 6
>> 56-60 +7 200 160 8 7
>>
>> The first scheme should be obvious enough. As I said, it can be put in place
>> with few other changes.
>>
>> Here's an example of the second:
>>
>> Examplus with a broadsword (d8). STR + SIZ = 30, therefore, he rolls
>> 4d8 when swinging, 3d8 when thrusting, and his healing 3 spell heals 3d6.
>> His backup dagger is 4d4/3d4, etc. His cuirboilli cuirass is worth 12 pts.
>>
>> Monstrous, with a maul (d10). STR + SIZ = 44, therefore he rolls
>> 5d10 for the maul. There's no thrusting equivalent.
>> His disruption spell causes 4d4, and his plate armor is worth 24 pts.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >> A second set of comments came from a number of people that found
>> >> keeping track of two hit location tables (Melee and Missile/Spell)
>> >> an unnecessary complication.
>>
>> Yes!
Further notes:
Besides, anyone care to tell me, based on the RQ{1,2,3} Melee Hit location
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like the old tables in principle, but felt that the melee table was a
'limb-fest' as someone else recently termed it. The tables are too coarse
( using a d20 ) to make splitting the tables work in a clean realistic
fashion. They're not good enough to be worth the fuss of two charts.
chart, why the area which was first armored in antiquity, and last shed of
it's armor in modern times was the chest?
>>
>> >> MELEE WEAPONS
>> >>
>> >> Damage AP A% P% SR ENC STR DEX Cost Notes
>> >>
>> >> 1H Swinging
>> >>
>> >> Scimitar 2d4 8 10 10 2 1.5 7 9 60
>> >>
>> >> 1H Thrusting
>> >>
>> >> Scimitar 2d3 8 10 10 2 1.5 5 9 60
>>
>>
>> This is going to be a mess. I have people who can't keep two hit location
>> charts straight, and now we're going to give them 2 different damage dice
>> for each weapon? Argh!
>>
>> I suggested, and still think that there should be a difference between swinging
>> and thrusting damage, but this mechanism ain't it.
>>
>>
>> >> 2H Thrusting
>> >>
>> >> Swordstick 1d8 8 5 15 1 2 7 13 75
>> >> Great Sword 1d10 9 5 5 1 3.5 11 13 250
>>
>> Why no Bastard Sword?
>>
>>
>> >> SHIELDS
>> >>
>> >> Damage AP A% P% SR ENC STR DEX Cost Notes
>> >>
>> >> Small 1d3 8 5 15 3 2 5 7 50 Assumes wood.
>> >> Medium 1d4 10 5 20 3 4 7 7 75 Leather: -1 AP
>> >> Large 1d6 12 5 25 3 6 9 7 100 and 1/2 cost
>> >> Bronze: +1 AP
>> >> and 2x cost
>>
>> There should also be modifiers to ENC and STR/DEX.
>>
>>
>> >> Using a 1H weapon 2H adds 2 to effective STR.
>>
>> This is so trivial, as to be useless. Either make the gain reasonable (i.e.
>> larger) or ignore it.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >> ARMOR
>> >>
>> >> Area Protected Type Material AP ENC Cost
>>
>> Trews should protect Abdomen as well.
>>
>>
>> >> Abdomen Skirts Leather 1 .5 5
>> >> Heavy Leather 2 1 10
>>
>> Cuirboilli should also be an option.
>>
>>
>> >> Head Hood Leather 1 .5 4
>> >> ...
>>
>> Thankyou.
>>
>> Now to add the % modifiers to Move quietly and Spot Hidden, and we're there.
>>
>>
>> >> Overlapping armor has little effect normally - if the lighter of the
>> >> overlapping armors has at least 3 AP, add 1 AP to value of the heavier armor,
>> >> but make sure to count the full ENC of the overlapping armor. Two pieces of
>>
>> Reasonable, and simple. I like it.
>>
>>
>> I still feel that partial armor need to be addressed, but nobody else seemed
>> to care when I posted my system to the playtest list last week.
One further bit. Why package the armor changes, the damage changes and the
damage bonus changes as one unit? You might have gotten finer stats on what
portion of you package went down well, or poorly, if theey were individually
voted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:23 EEST