I think I prefer Damage vs CON on resistance chart rather than straight CONx5%, since a more devatating injury should be more lethal.
BTW, I looked over the CoC 5th eidition damage rules, and I have to argree with Joseph Paul, they are outta whack. First edition damages were better. While the .45 vs 9mm thing is debatable (although it does cause a problem with armor, since anything that will stop a 9mm WILL STOP a .45), but I can't accept that a .44Mag is doing the same damage as a 5.56 round, and only 1 point less that a Browning .30 cal.
IT looks like the CoC tables stressed bullet diameter a bit too much.
I messed around with 3G and the CoC damage scale, and used a nonlinear progression for damage (roughly based on the square root of the rounds ability to penetrate) and came up with:
Round CoC(Revised)
.22 1D6(2D3)
.25 1D6(1D6-)
.32 1D8(1D6)
.38 1D10(1D6+)
.38S -- (1D8)
9mm 1D10(1D8)
.357M 1D8+1D4(2D4)
.45 1D10+2(2D3 or 1D8)
.44M 2D6+2(1D10)
.22LR --(1D6+2)
.30car 2D6+2(1D6+1D4)
.30-06 2D6+4(1D10+2)
Barrett M82 (.50cal) 2D10+4(1D10+1D8)
5.56N 2D8(2D6)
7.62R 2D6+1(1D10+2)
7.62N --(1D10+2)
BTW, If we use that "survival roll" thing I came up with, then we can give the .45 the lower damage roll (2D3), but apply a +3 modifier to it's damage for the survival roll, and for "stun/shock" roll.. This would keep it's stopping power while giving it a lower penetration ability.
|