On 10/8/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Tom Cantine</b> <<a href="mailto:tcantine@incentre.net">tcantine@incentre.net</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Oh, okay, I just thought of another objection: Why only the DEX SRM?<br>Shouldn't SIZ play a role, in the sense that a bigger opponent has<br>longer to go to get up? Also, how easy it is to get up depends on how<br>one fell: is one prone or supine? So, how about if it takes 1d6 + DEX
<br>SRM - SIZ SRM to stand up? Or is that too complicated?<br><br></blockquote></div><br>I think that's definitely arguable, but I'd go against it in terms of game speed as too complicated. It's the one penetrating flaw I've found in RQ's 'simulationist' combat system. Those of us (like myself) who are always considering details of systems can be paralyzed by adding a morass of accurate but trivial details; death by navel-contemplation, if you will.
<br><br>{if you want to go whole-hog, you shouldn't use simply SIZ, but also penalize people that are heavily encumbered. And if they have either a head wound or have lost more than 25% of their hp by slashing/bleeding attacks, they should have a CONx3% chance to be able to recover their feet, or go prone again from dizziness...}
<br><br>Or you could just bag it and say that it's just DEX SR as generally representative enough. :)<br>