Actually, I don't think it'd be that much of an hassle.
Usually, you know, before the roll, what you're adding to the die.
For example, your attack is not 1d10 + 3 (stat) + 7 (skill) + 1 (speciality) + 1 (item of quality), it's 1d10+12.
So if rolling an explosion, you'd know beforehand that your maximum bonus from the dice would be 12, and, more importantly, that your maximum total is 24.
If rolling, say, 1, 1, 8, you wouldn't even need to do 2x2x8 + 12, which would be a little faster than computing it on the fly
But I recognize that dice rolls and such are very much a personal taste issue
So you're saying you check once with full Soak and once by removing the non-Protection Soak. That would be two different calculations. They're not hard ones. But don't give me "not really" when you show what I said is true.
I said the difference shows up with little Size. You didn't use little Size. So how do you expect this to show up? Try using Size -10, for example, and see if you get the same result. You won't. Your conclusion is erroneous and could have been avoided if you read what I wrote more carefully.
To add clarity to my giant example above, let's put those grogs against the Size 0 knight. This is just to show what I was pointing out about how Size actually works.
Our good knight: Init +5, Att +20, Def +15, Dam +10, Soak +25. Our grogs: Init +1, Att +8, Def +6 (boosted slightly for not dodging), Dam +5, one with Leadership 5 (after specialty), Soak +8. (Again, they're weak.) The knight probably wins initiative. For direct comparison, I'll have them fight the same way as above first. Round 1 a vanguard probably takes an Incapacitating Wound, but only slightly more likely than a Heavy Wound. The other group (and maybe this group) attack and do nothing unless with a really luck roll. Continue until the grogs are dead or they get a really lucky roll very early in the combat.
What is going on? Even without Wound Penalty being applied forever, bigger Size makes it much easier to take a Light Wound. When we push this to the extremes where people are worried, where that final blow is hard to land because the Size is big enough that the instant kill is beyond reach of all but really lucky rolls, including Wound Penalty beyond that -10 for not defending actually makes it easier to kill things with big Size in regular combat. It may generally require a few rounds, but outside of a medium-lucky roll on the normal-Size target it is easier.
A relatively easy fix is that any situation with automatic recurring damage may have a stress die on the first roll but all subsequent rolls will use simple dice.
I stand by what I said and disagree with you on this, but that's ok.
Sorry for misunderstanding you. Since you didn't point out an exact Size, I assumed you just meant smaller (in comparison) than the +10 or bigger creatures that were the focus of the discussion.
Could you kindly provide an example for a -10 Size creature? I will do better for the discussion than me failing to understand what you mean, providing a example that doesn't conform with your thoughts, and you just stating I'm wrong and sidestepping the issue.
applying cumulative wound penalties to soak does so as well, but in a more realistic manner, in that it will worsen until it dies instead of simply having minor wounds until it suddenly dies.
About the knight, I can't see how a knight with 25 Soak is a good comparison. It's the base creature you used before increasing the Size, sure, but again, it's an creature built in an arbitrary way.
When designing big creatures, there are virtues and qualities you might take to compensate for the reductions to quickness, or to increase soak. Using arbitrary creatures doesn't make sense as a basis of comparison to me.That's why I picked the hunter to elaborate on my example about Minimum Wounds, and previously mentioned Stellatus when describing bigger creatures. This helps to eliminate some of the bias, since these two were actually designed with their combat effectiveness in mind.
In my view Size works as it's supposed to: bigger creatures hit harder, but are generally easier to hit.
If anything, we could question if the attack advantage should carry to damage (if it didn't, part of this issue against big targets would also be solved). But if we head in this direction we are leaving 5e errata discussion and talking Ars 6e.
Which one? What you said agreed with me: check against Protection for the toxin rather than full Soak for damage.
Let's say we have an Attack Advantage of +1 and +4 Damage against Antman with Size -10, Soak +10. So that would be no damage, missing doing any by 6 points. If there is an extra Wound Level, it's erased because below Size -4 you start removing Wound Levels (until only Dead (1+) remains). Antman would have Dead (1+) either way. But Soak prevents the damage. If, however, you apply Size to Soak, then Antman is dead, overshooting Dead by 4 points.
The point is that I only changed Size, nothing else. Therefore the difference you're seeing is 100% due to Size. If I change other things, then it is hard to see what one thing does v. the other thing. This is why scientists, programmers, etc. try not to vary lots of things simultaneously.
Yes, I can do all those other things when building creatures. But if I had done so here, I would have been dishonest (not accidentally deceptive since I well understand the confounding that results). Since I'm trying to be honest here, I had to keep everything but Size the same.
You see, I'm not actually proposing to add Size to Soak. This is a mechanical equivalent of a Minimum Wound. You add a buffer of 5 damage to the creature if it's size is 0, 6 if it's size is +1, etc, because Size modifies the wound range. The point I'm making is this: mechanically these two things are the same, and this holds true from Size -4 to Size +infinity.
Now, unless I'm missing something, from Size -4 or less, all creatures have –1 (1), –3 (2), –5 (3), Incapacitated (4), Dead (5+). If this was changed by errata or another book, I'm unaware.
Adding an wound category changes this to 0 (1), –1 (2), –3 (3), –5 (4), Incapacitated (5), Dead (6+). The mechanical equivalent of adding 1 to Soak (or add 5+Size, to a minimum of one). A slight adjust to the formula is enough to keep consistency.
Even if wound ranges for small creatures had some update I'm unaware it still doesn't change my key argument: adding a Minimum Wound level equals a boost to Soak (ok, possibly with provisions for very small creatures under SIze -4). It doesn't solve the underlying issue, because the underlying issue isn't really about how many types of wounds there are, neither about Soak.
But it is actually a dishonest comparison (not on purpose, I'm aware), because it ignores that you won't use a creature with Size +20 and Defense Total -5 in actual play. In this case you can't simply dissociate the way Size changes the characteristics (and therefore the Combat Totals) from the whole picture, not when you want to achieve a result that is valid for the whole picture.
That's why scientists make experiments within context, and why programmers code taking into account the behavior of the whole system, not just one of the functions.
(And it's inaccurate that you change only one thing at a time in experiments, that depends heavily on the case under study... but I digress.)
Once more, to me the thought experiment of changing Size and nothing else shows exactly what it's supposed to show: a bigger creature is easier to hit.
Anyway, the discussion has strayed far from the original point.
It's not in the errata, except for where -11 what accidentally written as -1. Look at RoP:F p.49. I Size tables are elsewhere, too, but I know it's there, though I could be off by a page or two as the table of contents was originally off so I always get confused on those page numbers.
You seem to have missed this. Yes, big creatures are easier to hit. I think we all agree this is good. But why are big creatures so much easier to hurt? Big Size leaves Medium Wound at the same starting threshold, though even Medium Wound is slightly more likely on bigger things because there may be scenarios where it's just a miss against a smaller thing. Why is it so easy to cause significant damage (any Wound Penalty) to something bigger rather than something smaller?
Then the bigger creature would be easier to hit but not easier to cause significant damage to. And then you could apply Wound Penalty without the same sort of accidental explosion because piddly things (ice, hot sun, etc.) would now tend to repeatedly cause penalties of 0 rather than -1. That way you could get the final blow people want for the huge beast without making it so that big Size is just easier to kill.
I was displaying how only Size works in combat. Changing anything else, as you're asking, would obscure it. Since I'm aware of that, I would be intentionally obscuring things, which is being dishonest.
When you have a bug that isn't obvious, you don't go changing half a dozen things at once. You do one at a time to see. Similarly, you don't write a whole big program and then see if it works only at the end. You test little bits in isolation.
I didn't say scientists change only one thing. I said, "try not to vary lots of things simultaneously." Ideally you do only change one thing at a time. But commonly you just cannot. But this is why, for example, it took so long to figure out G even though we had the old formula. You have to be able to separate things somehow to know. Let's say you have something that is proportional to AB and every time you change A in the lab you change B by the same factor, even though A and B are not inherently proportional to each other. You cannot tell the difference between being proportional to AB, A2, B2, A3/B, B3/A, etc. You cannot even tell if it increases or decreases with A! How to you figure this out? You get rid of this accidental correlation between A and B. The best way is to hold B consant while you vary A, if you can.
So how do I properly show the effects of only Size? I vary only Size. Doing anything else is just poor analysis.
Then you should reread. It doesn't just show that. They're not just easier to hit. Didn't everyone already know that? They're easier to damage significantly (Wound Penalty). It's easier to get a Light Wound. It's actually just barely easier to get a Medium Wound, too, but only under certain circumstances; otherwise the Medium Wound is equally likely. And if Wound Penalty is applied, this also makes bigger creatures easier to kill. Yup, current rules -> bigger = easier to cripple; applying Wound Penalty -> bigger = easier to cripple and kill.
Edit: I should specify this is for standard Size. If you can decouple Size from Str/Qui this changes.
Yes, everyone does. Easier to hit, because of the attack advantage mechanism, means easier to damage. I am assuming Rafael did not feel the need to spell that out as it is so obvious.
I know I keep going to the same point, but you keep bringing up the same counter. There are mechanics for sizing up or down monsters. At the extreme ends like -5 and +10 or more it doesn't work well. If the rules work for most cases, great.
When the rules don't work, the SG intervenes. Maybe up the soak even more than the size change suggests to represent the arrows bouncing off. Give combat penalties of -10 for anyone with a quickness of under +3 as they are having problems getting close enough to hit while trying to avoid the giant club. If group combat destroys the big monster, give the monster an attack option where any tightly grouped formation, he can attack multiple targets with one attack roll.
I can't think of any game, apart from maybe Amber (and it's diceless), which asks as much of the story guide to work out what is appropriate for the troupe. I consider that a feature not a bug. An errata, or even a 20th anniversary edition with a significant rewrite, is not going to change that theme.
That was the entire essence of many (not all, but many) complaints about not applying Wound Penalty. As I said before, if we want to throw out the extremely large Sizes, fine, but it needs to be done for both sides. Then we leave things as they are because the current rules work for most cases. I'm fine with that. I was just pointing out that the "fix" for large Size also breaks large Size.
I would disagree. It wasn't the huge +10 size monsters. A +3 or +4 size monster isn't an unreasonable opponent for an iconic enemy. +20 is the most damage bonus one can roll without two ones being rolled. When a second one on the die is required for the kill, we have gone to 1 in 100 chances. 100 turns, 10 minutes. Even after two ones, there's about a 60% chance of a better outcome than 20. About 40% of the time, the result is under 20.
A size 3 creature needs 8 soak to last 10 minutes (rough average) when fully engulfed in flame. A size 4 creature a soak of 4. That's the problem which is solved by wound penalties being applied to environmental damage.
Oh, really? We weren't discussing Size +10 monsters at all above, just like Size +3 or +4? Sure, often specific Sizes weren't stated, but let's see...
I have a storyteller who is fond of size + 7 to + 14 dragons. Now, a size 10 dragon - an average one...
"how do you kill a dragon/giant bad guy?" is a very relevant question for an RPG.
As for killing a Size +3, you need to reach 33+ for Dead. Why do you need to roll so high necessarily? Incantation of Lightning does +30 damage, with canonical Formulaic spells going up to +45 damage. Soak +10 isn't unusual for the examples of about that Size. With +45 you've got better than 50-50 odds, so about 2 rounds. With +30, getting 2x10 usually does it, and 2x9 and 2x8 have good odds, and you could get 2 1s as you suggested. Straight-damage spells can auto-kill a Size +3 or +4 creature in reasonable time, as long as you don't decide to try death-by-papercut. Meanwhile you can to straight-death spells on them or similar. If we're looking at combat, that -10 for defenseless along with the attacker's roll means a typical result of Attack + Damage + roll. If you have a Trained Group or just a good attacker (Bjornaer, Criamon, strong single Companion), this will only take a round to two. Quite clearly Size +3 and +4 do not result in the situations of nearly unkillable things without Wound Penalty being applied. Sure, maybe things are a little off, but they don't create unkillably large creature problem people are worried about. You need a bit more Size than that, which is why several people brought up dragons (averaging about Size +10).
Is that a problem being solved? You want things to work for typical Size, right? How about Size 0. I looked it up, and while it can be several seconds to a few minutes, the expectation is about 30 s-2 min. The game kills in 1-2 rounds with no Wound Penalty applied, so it's already killing extremely quickly, the average being an in-reality outlier. 8 Soak is way more than a typical person, so it should last more than a couple minutes, right? But if you use Wound Penalties your Size +3 creature will last 4ish rounds, toward the very short end of a typical person despite being much tougher than such a person. Much tougher should last a handful of minutes. 10 minutes may be a bit much, but it's much closer to the right scale than is under half a minute, which is still too fast for average for a human with Soak +0. So your "problem which is solved" seems to be a non-problem which including Wound Penalties now breaks. You might want to choose an example that doesn't support what I'm saying. Make the creature even bigger, and your argument starts becoming more reasonable, except that we're accepting that even bigger isn't a worry now?
Just casually drop a +45 spell? Taking in to account magic might we are looking at a casting total around 60 I imagine? I don't think expecting every group to have min-maxed death machines is the way to go.
I would be interested in your sources. +20 damage by fire requires being fully engulfed. Not just being put over a wood fire but, being in the middle of the conflagration. 30 seconds seems a long time for a person with fire all over their body to survive.
Actually, I go even further. I question if they are really that easier to damage, and since I haven't examined the question with the required depth for an answer, I refrained from making conjectures. But pulling a few numbers of the top of my head, this doesn't seem so straightforward. I'm willing to discuss this elsewhere if it seems interesting, this discussion has already drifted too far away from the original topic.
The rules currently make it easier to kill opponents (whatever the size) with physical damage than using spells. Any thinking to impose a cap to wound penalty requires two weird mental gymnastics, first of someone willing to be hit and second of assuming that wounds do not apply to helpless targets, and while this is (arguibly) RAW it surely doesn't seem to be the intention (or this would be stated in a clearer way on the core book).
At this point in the discussion I'm siding with David: it's better to do nothing.
I know which rules I am going to use in my games, and to me this is enough for now.
