Re: Does size really matter?

From: Wulf Corbett <wulfc_at_...>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:03:55 -0800

"hibbs, philip" <philip.hibb-_at_...> wrote: original article:

> I disagree - Big can make you harder to kill, so surely this could be
> considered to balance out the easier to hit factor. I think it's
unfair to make
> a character significantly, and permanently, disadvantaged in combat
just for
> being big. I can't see Conan's player being happy that the referee
rolls a
> couple of dice to find out how disadvantaged he is going to be in
each combat.

I think we're working with fundamentally different ideas of 'Big'... While I'll agree that Conan (or anyway Arnie) is Impressive or Intimidating, I wouldn't allow 'Big' for anything within human size limits - in RQ3 terms, nothing below SIZ 20 or even 25. Likewise 'Tiny' means nothing above SIZ 5 (sorry, Andy, your Praxian doesn't quite cut it). I was thinking of Giants, Minotaurs, etc.

Having said that, although I still think there should be a game mechanism to make bigger creatures easier to hit (Maybe there is...) to allow non-deadly attacks to be useful (magic, poisons, etc), I've thought about it more, and must admit, although a Giant should be easier to hit (Big), but harder to hurt (Tough), he should also be harder to wear out (erm... Hard Wearing?) since otherwise low-skill Giants will have too few AP and will be beaten too easily... It all gets too complicated!


Powered by hypermail