🚀 go-pugleaf

"Peter F. Delaney" <pd1x+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Set each weapon a "multiplier" for damage.  Multiply this by the result
>of the combat roll comparison.  For example, a knife could be x2, ...
>Strength is implemented as a bonus to the multiplier...
>
>Each time you are hit, WR is reduced by one level for every point that 
>came out of the multiplication above.  Whenever it drops below Poor, it 
>"wraps" back to its original level, but you take an Actual Wound.

	I think this messes with the relative difference between the levels, 
however. There is a *huge* (factor of 2) difference between Terrible and 
Poor in this system, while there is only a 16% difference between Great 
and Superb, for example. If you are going to use levels like this, I suggest 
you do not call them by the same names as the attribute levels, since they 
work very differently - it is confusing to have to remember that 'Terrible' 
in Wound Resistance means something different than, say 'Terrible' in Health. 

>
>Advantages:
>This allows larger creatures to have a very high (superhuman) score
>in Wound Resistance, a normal attribute. 

	Note, however, that this does not allow for beings of sub-Terrible 
Wound Resistance. You can say, for example, that for Terrible - 1, the being 
takes two wounds for every hit. Still, the level of detail here is very 
different than at high WR. 

>
>Armor is easy to implement as a bonus to WR that does not go away
>from hit to hit.

	I assume by this you mean that armor subtracts a certain amount 
from each hit - so each hit is reduced by two, for example? 

>
>Disadvantages:
>c)  There are three steps to this.  (1)  Roll and compare, which is sort
>of slow; (2) multiply, which is quick; (3) subtract through your Wound
>Resistance, which will be slow unless you translate the Wound Resistance
>to a number.  The old system has only two steps, roll and compare and
>then *simple* subtraction. 

	Note that it also requires additional tracking of WR *and* wounds 
as separate quantities. This is good for those who want greater detail in 
their 'hit points', but bad for those who want additional simplicity. 

	I would like to make a comment about this as compared to my 
suggested 'Wounding-as-a-Contest-between-Damage-and-fixed-Wound-Resistance', 
where you track wounds separately from WR, which remains constant. This has 
the same advantages of handling large creatures and armor simply. 
	It also handles small creatures with as much detail as large, and 
uses *no new mechanics*. 

Disadvantages are: 
1)	It is impossible to track these 'small-scratches-to-large-creatures' 
represented by the sliding WR scale. Instead, if you attack a large creature 
many times, you have (obviously) an increased chance of causing a light 
wound. If you want additional detail in your wounds, you can add 'super-
light wounds' which would have no immediate effect, but can combine to form 
light wounds. 

2)	Another disadvantage is that it does not distinguish between being 
bigger, being tougher, and having armor. This is just part of the simplicity 
of FUDGE: WR represents as one quality how tough you are to hurt, representing 
both size/toughness and hardness of skin. 
	Someone might complain that a large creature can be nickel-and-dimed 
to death, whereas armor can *completely* negate some attacks: mostly light 
edged weapons (i.e. razors, etc.). This is to some extent true, but for most 
purposes I think this is not important, and can be handled on a case-to-case 
basis for the exceptions. For example, armor does *not* completely negate 
blunt attacks, heat attacks, etc. It should be possible to nickel-and-dime 
an armored fighter with these. 
	If you want to try to distinguish between these attacks, that's 
fine, but I think the system will be a bit too complex for FUDGE. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "ALERT: /Earth is 75% full - please delete 
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | all extraneous people."
Columbia University         |