Re: alternative wounding rules

From: Stephen McGinness <stephenmcg_at_...>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:58:21 -0000


simon_hibbs wrote:
> I also think wound sshould be cumulative, i.e. there should be a
> single 'Wounded' rating. The main reason is that if you take a bad
> wound, if subsequent injuries don't add to the rating they only
> augment. That means subsequent wounds are only penalising you at
> 1/10th the rate the original wound did, so once you've taken a
> wound later wounds aren't that big a deal any more.

Hmmm. It does depend on how much book-keeping you want to do. As you pointed out earlier a variety of wounds would not just apply to general activity as a 'Wounded' category would do but would hinder particular abilities by giving them higher resistances.

I can see the attraction of the single wounded rating but I could also see that the it might simply be the biggest wound you have taken augmented by any others...thus later wounds aren't a big deal unless they are worse than the previous one.

> Other factors such as disease and poison should have their won
> ratings though, so a Scorpion Man's poison could augment the wounds
> he inficted, etc.
 

This would be a good way to get that element of colour into special attack such as a scorpion man's poison into the narrative. If the scorpion man attacked with his sting and got a major success you might strip the character of AP bid and give them a poisoned flaw at the AP bid (or the rating of the poison??) rather than stripping 2x AP.

The poison could then work against the poisoned character for the rest of the combat - and after.

Powered by hypermail