From: Loren J. Miller (MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu)
Date: Tue 20 Jul 1993 - 17:37:55 EEST
"Roderick Robertson" <ROBERTSON@delphi.intel.com> wrote:
> Loren Miller writes:
> >Personally I'd like to see a system that went something like:
>
> >hand-sized blade 1d4
> >fore-arm sized 1d6
> >arm sized 1d8
> >blade as tall as you 1d10
>
> Whose hand/fore-arm/etc are we talking about here?
>
> If a six-meter giant uses a "Fore-arm sized" sword (~1.5 meters long),
> it still only does 1D6 damage? Even though its the size of a
> Bastard Sword to Joe Average? (Between Arm and Body length). Likewise,
> if a 1.5 meter Duck uses a "Blade as tall as you" it does 1D10 damage?
> Even though its the same size as above?
I hate it when people interrupt. It *really* steams me. Roderick, read
the rest of my message to see my answer to your predictable objection.
I include it below so that you don't ignore it *twice*.
> >And used damage bonuses to differentiate between the damage that a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >sword swung by a giant and one swung by a duck would do. This would
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >tie weapon descriptions and damage directly to SIZE, which I think is
> >more important than STRENGTH for all the important leverage questions,
> >wouldn't add any complexity to the game, and would add flexibility for
> >those who don't like being tied down to weapon names that are
> >inappropriate for their campaign (kukri, katana, sarissa, or naginata
> >anybody?)
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
"Science" does not remove the terror of the gods.
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:33 EEST