Re: What about luck?
There are no giants in Dominions that'd be JUST bigger humans.
Firbolgs probably come closest, and they have 26 hp and 17 str, as well as nat. protection 2.
Cavemen have 23 hp, 17 str, but cold/heat resistance and lower magic resistance. And natural protection 2.
Jotun seem to have 32 or so hp, 21 or so str and natural protection 5.
However, I doubt you meant big humans in the size 3-4 sense. I, at least, understood you meant a big human in an Ulmish warrior, the best of the best, with natural talent for killing without being killed, burly and strong and not really slowed down by his mass. Your examples made it sound as if he had natural protection instead of more hp. I'll write down some numbers and compare things:
A tough human using a spear:
11 str, 3 dam from weapon == 14 damage per hit
A tough guy A being hit by the said spear:
18 hp
A tough guy B being hit by the said spear:
12 hp, nat prot 5
A) would take 14 damage (out of 18 hp), and could easily die from the first straight hit.
B) would take 9 damage (out of 12 hp), and could easily die from the first straight hit. But, as you can see, the increase in hp and in nat prot have about the same effect.
If the attacker had better weapon, both A and B would probably die.
Now, let's give misters A and B some light armor. Leather Cuirass and Cap, say. Protection 6 for body and head for Guy A, prot 10* for Guy B.
Guy A would take 14-6 or 8 points of damage, out of his 18. Half of his hp before random factor.
Guy B would take 14-10 or 4 points of damage - a third of his 12! Random factor would have a slightly bigger effect here.
If they had better protection, like, say, Plate Cuirass (14) and Iron Cap (15), like a hero-type might have in MA or LA...
With 14 dam attack, Guy A would take about 0 damage, but with the randoms he would still rack up damage pretty fast, few points at a time, with his protection being only 14/15.
Guy B would have 17 body, 18 head protection (rounded down), so he'd be much less likely to get actually damaged.
If the attacker had a better weapon, and dealt 16 damage... Guy A would be taking damage almost every turn. Guy B would often take a point or two, sometimes a little more, but more than that would be uncommon. I'm not going through that math right now, so let's say they're about equal.
If both had armor with prot 20/20... Guy A would be better off against most guys. Guy B would have actual prot 22.5 (22 or 23, I'm not sure), and the difference wouldn't be that important at this point, as the biggest danger would be armor-piercing and negating attacks, like crossbows and spells.
With no armor, more hp and more nat prot gives us about the same effect. With light to medium armor, nat prot is better. With heavy armor, natural protection matters less and less. The guy with nat prot might get away with a little lighter armor, and thus lower encumberance, but would be more suspectible to AP and AN damage.
* Total prot = Natural prot + Armor prot - (Np*Ap/40) = 5+6 - (30/40) = 10
|
Threaded Mode