[Rq-rules] Siz and Hit Points

[Julian Lord]

Paul Cardwell :

 --- Ashley Munday <aescleal at btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Why not use the old Gateway Bestiary suggestion that
> > you get two points of natural armour for every d6 of
> > damage bonus to represent the effect of high STR and
> > SIZ?
> >
>
> Because SIZ is not a good indicator of armor and STR
> is totally irrelevant to the subject other than that
> muscle thickness may give slight protection to vital
> organs below.  Turtles, armadillos, and almost any
> exoskeleton creature has high natural armor in
> relation to its size, while a rhino has high armor
> compared to a similar sized water buffalo which only
> has high armor on its forehead (19 in hit location).


Right, but relative Mass is a very good indicator of how easy/difficult it
is for larger/smaller creatures to damage each other... pussy cats, despite
their natural weaponry, will have a hard time damaging young ladies, simply
because of the Mass differential and related kinetic factors, whereas young
ladies can dispose of pussy cats with relative ease.

In fact this is the underlying principle behind the Damage Bonus rules, but
there is no corresponding damage resistance (natural armour) rule, in any
edition of the rules . ;)

If you care about accuracy (and I realize a
> substantial portion of FRPGs do not), then each
> species must be considered on its own features - even
> fabulous beasts should follow the laws of biophysics
> to a reasonable degree (large flying creatures being
> an exception in that regard only as they do not
> typically have two meter sternums to anchor the
> necessary flight muscles).



The presence of natural armour in the rules would not forbid providing
certain creatures with extra armour, either all over or just in certain hit
locations.

The trouble with Basic Roleplaying is that it was originally designed to be
a fairly realistic rules set centered on the characteristics of normal
humanity.

But in an environment where player characters can be ducks, trollkins, or
newtlings or whatever ; or dark trolls, or have thge ability to turn into
tigers, or elephants, or whatever ; relative Mass considerations should be
factored IMO far more closely into the game design, not by spot rules on how
much armour each different creature might have, but by a rules system such
as the one proposed by Sandy, and which incidentally I have independently
developed in my house rules (and I am pleased to learn that Sandy came up
with a basically similar system to my own).

Ideally, there should be no such thing as a negative damage modifier, all
creatures should have natural armour based on their SIZ + CON (for
simplicity' sake, using the same total as for HP determination), and the
damage bonus should be slightly improved to compensate.

What I have is (MRQ-era house rules) :

NATURAL ARMOUR

SIZ+CON / AP

1-5 / 0 AP
 6-10 / 1 AP
 11-15 / 2 AP
 16-20 / 3 AP
 21-25 / 4 AP
 26-30 / 5 AP
 31-35 / 6 AP
 36-40 / 7 AP
 each +5 / +1 AP

DAMAGE BONUS

STR+CON

1-5 / +0
6-10 / +1D2
11-15 / +1D4
16-20 / +1D6
21-25 / +1D8
26-30 / +1D10
31-35 / +1D12
36-40 / +2D6
41-45 / +2D10
46-50 / +3D6
51-60 / +4D6
61-70 / +5D6
each +10 / +1D6

Damage bonus increases at a higher rate than natural armour, as the purpose
is NOT to kill playability <g>

Human averages would be 4 AP and +1D10 damage, so in a fight between human
and human they would on average cancel out, but not so in human vs duck or
human vs elephant.

Julian Lord
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20061101/3081e9f9/attachment-0001.html