Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 6:00:39 GMT -5
I normally don't use critical hits, though there have been times that I will allow double damage or roll in an Arms Law book and interpret the result. Using Arms Law is very different than adjusting damage rolls, since there is always the chance of killing the defender outright, no matter how many hit points are left. I also like Chainmail & Original Warhammer combat, where hits are generally kills.
I just had a thought about how to merge all of these together without having to reference anything outside of the normal D20 combat matrix or keep track of detailed critical effects: on a critical hit (natural 20), the opponent must also save or die.
First level characters could expect an instant death blow roughly 1%-4% of the time, Death Saves depending. Someone with stellar save of 3+ is has a 0.1% chance of instant death when attacked. Low level characters now also have that fool's chance of pulling a David vs Goliath against foes normally too hit-dicey for them.
What do you think? Has anyone tried something similar?
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 11, 2017 7:10:21 GMT -5
I have never used anything precisely like that. We ruled that a natural 20 always hit unless magic or silver was required and you did not have it. On a natural 20 we always rolled again and on a second natural 20 your opponent died regardless of hit points. Since we ran combat as simultaneous and did not use initiative this sometimes resulting in two opponents killing each other on the first round of melee. The most memorable time was when my one friend's 8th level fighter and a balrog met in a doorway and took each other out on the first round. The double twenty is a 1/400 or 0.25% chance, bitd we always had at least three of those in a single game session and I have see as high as ten in a single game session.
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Apr 11, 2017 8:39:55 GMT -5
Since I play OD&D and all damage is 1d6, I make a natural 20 do the maximum of 6 damage, unless you are wearing a helmet, in which case damage is rolled normally. Gives a reason for those pesky helmets without overcomplicating anything
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Apr 11, 2017 10:51:54 GMT -5
I like makofan's method. Also like the method described in the OP.
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Apr 11, 2017 13:32:28 GMT -5
As some of you might or might not know (well now you do), I am not actively playing the game; haven't been for years. So, i spend most of my time trying to intellectualize the whole affair of it, jot down some notes, post them, and have gronan or rob kuntz quickly respond to chew my ass out for being so silly; which in most cases, I deserve. In regards to this subject (CH = S or D?), it is an element of fantasy gaming that I believe should be included and embraced by all. What is the concept of heroic, after all? The fact that Bard took down a dragon (Smaug) with a single (large and black) arrow, is stupendous. But in game terms, there has to be a mechanic simple enough not to slow down combat to a crawl, and yet be within the capability of the characters; and not so remote as to be, moot. The 20/20 (roll a 20, then roll another 20) is great for simplicity and swiftness. I would go even further with it, however, and allow fighters (only) to add 1 to their 2nd roll for each level they have attained to reach that second 20. It's what fighters do--fight. But that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 11, 2017 15:16:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 11, 2017 19:17:37 GMT -5
I do what makofan says, following pholotomy. Crit = full damage. I have very little save or die. Even my poison is save for half damage.
|
|
|
Post by magremore on Apr 11, 2017 21:20:21 GMT -5
Also using 20 = max damage (using d6 for damage). But a lot of great/fun ideas in this thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 8:59:23 GMT -5
I really like both critical = max damage, and critical + another critical = death. Both are easy to remember, are the same for all characters and monsters.
My thinking on criticals = Save vs Death was that it has the advantage of allowing characters the benefit of using improved saving throws as they gain ranks (and it also makes Dwarves and Hobbits tough nuts to crack!). However, it doesn't reflect better chances to inflict mortal wounds as characters gain in fighting level as easily as Crit + Crit = death. Giving Fighters +1 to the second roll has to become either -1 per level to the save roll, or +1 per level to the save's target number. I'm not too happy with either option. But, using Crit + Crit means getting rid of the gradual increase to the save across levels/HD, which I'd like to keep if possible, so that the probability of instant death isn't exactly the same for a 2HD character as it is for a 12HD character.
It's a tough one. Knowing me, I probably won't be happy until I calculate the death probabilities for both methods plus Arms Law 1e, then compare all three to see how they scale across levels.
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Apr 19, 2017 18:55:28 GMT -5
I believe the key to understand why Fighting Men (and only them) would gain a +1 bonus to their 2nd roll to achieve a 20 for a Death Blow, is to apply the same understanding (and acceptance) most of us have for why a 7th level MU throws 7 dice for a fireball, and a 5th level MU only throws 5 dice. The idea of getting better at it should be something all the classes (one is using) are equally afforded; at least in one mechanic intrinsic to their field of expertise.
But, that's just me.
TEHO
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 19, 2017 19:15:31 GMT -5
I believe the key to understand why Fighting Men (and only them) would gain a +1 bonus to their 2nd roll to achieve a 20 for a Death Blow, is to apply the same understanding (and acceptance) most of us have for why a 7th level MU throws 7 dice for a fireball, and a 5th level MU only throws 5 dice. The idea of getting better at it should be something all the classes (one is using) are equally afforded; at least in one mechanic intrinsic to their field of expertise. But, that's just me. TEHO I think that is an excellent point!
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Apr 23, 2017 22:42:04 GMT -5
A lot of good ideas and variations here, good examples too. Maybe we should start an ongoing brainstorming thread?
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Apr 24, 2017 11:59:12 GMT -5
Personally, unless I wanted to get really thick into simulated melee, I wouldn't go too far beyond a simple "Crit-hit". *
One need only look back at what Dave Arneson proposes in the Blackmoor** supplement (pages 7-12) to see how things can get out of hand quickly; I can't imagine that doing anything but grinding the game to a halt--but perhaps Rob Kuntz could comment on whether he experienced using that mechanic, and how it affected the game.
* Lots of issues arise with the inclusion and use of the severing specialty swords. For example, how many HP does a character lose per turn when an arm or leg is severed? And what kind of remedy is required to stop this loss? Does a simple "CLW" work? I would think not. Nothing up to and including Greyhawk describes the power of reattaching limbs, fingers or whatever; even the Ring of Regeneration does not describe such--merely that anyone wearing it "will recover damage at the rate of 1 point/turn." Though it does go on to state, "unless treated as a troll and destroyed as explained thereunder".
Is the description of the R.o.R. thus giving us a hidden mechanic for losing HP/Turn associated with severed limbs? Well, one can wonder.
** Assuming the mechanic is, actually, entirely Arneson's, or some kind of interpretation of the editor (Tim Kask, it says.)
|
|
|
Post by Bartholmew Quarrels on May 11, 2017 11:35:54 GMT -5
I really like both critical = max damage, and critical + another critical = death. Both are easy to remember, are the same for all characters and monsters. My thinking on criticals = Save vs Death was that it has the advantage of allowing characters the benefit of using improved saving throws as they gain ranks (and it also makes Dwarves and Hobbits tough nuts to crack!). However, it doesn't reflect better chances to inflict mortal wounds as characters gain in fighting level as easily as Crit + Crit = death. Giving Fighters +1 to the second roll has to become either -1 per level to the save roll, or +1 per level to the save's target number. I'm not too happy with either option. But, using Crit + Crit means getting rid of the gradual increase to the save across levels/HD, which I'd like to keep if possible, so that the probability of instant death isn't exactly the same for a 2HD character as it is for a 12HD character. It's a tough one. Knowing me, I probably won't be happy until I calculate the death probabilities for both methods plus Arms Law 1e, then compare all three to see how they scale across levels. I like this, it sounds like a great alternative way to run it.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 15, 2017 7:24:17 GMT -5
Personally, unless I wanted to get really thick into simulated melee, I wouldn't go too far beyond a simple "Crit-hit". * One need only look back at what Dave Arneson proposes in the Blackmoor** supplement (pages 7-12) to see how things can get out of hand quickly; I can't imagine that doing anything but grinding the game to a halt--but perhaps Rob Kuntz could comment on whether he experienced using that mechanic, and how it affected the game. * Lots of issues arise with the inclusion and use of the severing specialty swords. For example, how many HP does a character lose per turn when an arm or leg is severed? And what kind of remedy is required to stop this loss? Does a simple "CLW" work? I would think not. Nothing up to and including Greyhawk describes the power of reattaching limbs, fingers or whatever; even the Ring of Regeneration does not describe such--merely that anyone wearing it " will recover damage at the rate of 1 point/turn." Though it does go on to state, " unless treated as a troll and destroyed as explained thereunder". Is the description of the R.o.R. thus giving us a hidden mechanic for losing HP/Turn associated with severed limbs? Well, one can wonder. ** Assuming the mechanic is, actually, entirely Arneson's, or some kind of interpretation of the editor (Tim Kask, it says.) robkuntz, have you seen this comment above? With the severing swords I would run it like this. If a limb is severed, then within 2 rounds you will have had to reposition the limb and cast Cure Serious Wounds to reattach the limb. Or Cure Light Wounds to stop the bleeding and heal the stump. Failure to do either and no tourniquet and you would bleed out, continuing to accrue damage each round.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 15, 2017 11:53:18 GMT -5
Personally, unless I wanted to get really thick into simulated melee, I wouldn't go too far beyond a simple "Crit-hit". * One need only look back at what Dave Arneson proposes in the Blackmoor** supplement (pages 7-12) to see how things can get out of hand quickly; I can't imagine that doing anything but grinding the game to a halt--but perhaps Rob Kuntz could comment on whether he experienced using that mechanic, and how it affected the game. * Lots of issues arise with the inclusion and use of the severing specialty swords. For example, how many HP does a character lose per turn when an arm or leg is severed? And what kind of remedy is required to stop this loss? Does a simple "CLW" work? I would think not. Nothing up to and including Greyhawk describes the power of reattaching limbs, fingers or whatever; even the Ring of Regeneration does not describe such--merely that anyone wearing it " will recover damage at the rate of 1 point/turn." Though it does go on to state, " unless treated as a troll and destroyed as explained thereunder". Is the description of the R.o.R. thus giving us a hidden mechanic for losing HP/Turn associated with severed limbs? Well, one can wonder. ** Assuming the mechanic is, actually, entirely Arneson's, or some kind of interpretation of the editor (Tim Kask, it says.) robkuntz , have you seen this comment above? With the severing swords I would run it like this. If a limb is severed, then within 2 rounds you will have had to reposition the limb and cast Cure Serious Wounds to reattach the limb. Or Cure Light Wounds to stop the bleeding and heal the stump. Failure to do either and no tourniquet and you would bleed out, continuing to accrue damage each round. I have covered this here, somewhere, before. Generally speaking it does not add "realism" (the ongoing Realism vs. Playability debate) and can create massive imbalance. Gary and I never used it (Barker, I believe, either introduced it in EPT or borrowed it for same, I am not sure). But a "fellow" (play on words, as it was James Goodfellow) in our LG group used it which in this case created a huge imbalance in the game. Dave LaForce and I were adventuring in his game when we encountered the insane Lord of the ruined castle. He would have slain us easily, but James had a back to back d20 roll instant kill rule in place, and guess what? I rolled 20s btb. We looted ill gains which we could never have gotten at that level, thus unbalancing the game in that sense. Besides, even a toned down version (fumbling or crit on either side of the 20 roll) is statistically absurd. Imagine two armies squared off for a thirty minute fight with those odds automatically occurring and you will get the gist of why it is absurd as it does not compare to ANY battle description ever recorded in history with that much fumbling and/or crits. If filmed it would no doubt look like a scene from Monte Python. My two cents.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 15, 2017 12:48:51 GMT -5
Seems a good example of why you play-test rules throughly.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 15, 2017 13:02:35 GMT -5
Seems a good example of why you play-test rules throughly. True. And historical simulations, though indeed abstractions, should convey the closest possible approximation of the historically-derived abstraction within the rules that are used.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2017 13:52:17 GMT -5
"Cutting mistakes - In a thirty minute Runequest battle (Chaosium) involving 6000 armored, experienced warriors using Great Axes, more than 150 men will decapitate themselves and another 600 will chop off their own arms or legs."
-- Murphy's Rules, "Space Gamer"
Crom's hairy nutsack, you'd almost think Gary didn't include critical hit rules in the original three little books on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 15, 2017 14:05:20 GMT -5
"Cutting mistakes - In a thirty minute Runequest battle (Chaosium) involving 6000 armored, experienced warriors using Great Axes, more than 150 men will decapitate themselves and another 600 will chop off their own arms or legs." -- Murphy's Rules, "Space Gamer" Crom's hairy nutsack, you'd almost think Gary didn't include critical hit rules in the original three little books on purpose. As I was noting... Monte Pythonesque.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2017 15:28:37 GMT -5
It's only a flesh wound!
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 15, 2017 15:47:38 GMT -5
You and I and Debra saw its debut together!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2017 18:05:59 GMT -5
Heh.
Back on topic... Part of the problem in critical hit systems is often "tone mismatch." Losing limbs, instant kill, etc, are all things that aren't even in the base OD&D combat system, so at that point you're Scotch taping parts together. I use a critical hit system that Dave Arneson switched to later; "roll a 20, roll twice as many dice." Since I still use OD&D where all weapons do 1d6, a crit is a nice boost, but it doesn't completely break the assumptions of the combat system. Likewise, another crit resolution I've seen suggested is "roll a 20, roll normal damage twice, take the higher." So for 1d6 it would be "roll 2d6 use highest." Again, a nice little goodie, but nothing that's going to break the game.
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on May 15, 2017 18:12:07 GMT -5
Critical hits are a GREAT idea, and I won't have them belittled! Almost ALL critics should be hit!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2017 18:25:19 GMT -5
Now, now. As I quoted elsewhere, in C.S. Lewis' essay "On Criticism," he makes the point that a critic should write in such a way as to aid the author in doing better next time. "Constructive Criticism," as I said, is a redundancy; if it is not constructive, it isn't criticism.
"I don't like your two-weapon fighting rules" is an opinion.
"Our whole group felt that the two-weapon fighting rules are cumbersome and they took a long time in actual use" is a useful criticism, even if the author doesn't agree.
"Your two-weapon rules are Shoot and you're stupid" is asking for a punch in the nutsack.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 15, 2017 18:32:39 GMT -5
Critical hits are a GREAT idea, and I won't have them belittled! Almost ALL critics should be hit! And round and round we go... Critics hit back you know... I have had my recent share of that. As far as Gronan's views on how he implements it, OK. If I were to do so it would probably involve a larger range than 5-10% of 100 by stepping the base beyond 100 in relation to the percentages that can be derived from it and then progressing the percentages through additional game factors (ability scores, maybe spells, etc) The tonal variation is very true, however. And when you mismatch that with an add-on mechanic (as could be equatable to some of the powerful feats/combinations of feats in D&D 3/3.5) you can get a runaway game as I demonstrated above with killing an over the top opponent on a 1 in 400 chance. Such an example as I posed just extends from there and can get too complex, for given that chance in the past, how did this person survive that long through all of those combats to reach such a high level? And if he did, how does that history then factor into negating the 1 in 400 chance? This is where abstraction and "realism" butt heads and refer us back, in the long run, to playability instead.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 15, 2017 20:14:37 GMT -5
Critical hits are a GREAT idea, and I won't have them belittled! Almost ALL critics should be hit! And round and round we go... Critics hit back you know... I have had my recent share of that. As far as Gronan's views on how he implements it, OK. If I were to do so it would probably involve a larger range than 5-10% of 100 by stepping the base beyond 100 in relation to the percentages that can be derived from it and then progressing the percentages through additional game factors (ability scores, maybe spells, etc) The tonal variation is very true, however. And when you mismatch that with an add-on mechanic (as could be equatable to some of the powerful feats/combinations of feats in D&D 3/3.5) you can get a runaway game as I demonstrated above with killing an over the top opponent on a 1 in 400 chance. Such an example as I posed just extends from there and can get too complex, for given that chance in the past, how did this person survive that long through all of those combats to reach such a high level? And if he did, how does that history then factor into negating the 1 in 400 chance? This is where abstraction and "realism" butt heads and refer us back, in the long run, to playability instead. I never had anything even close to the unbalancing example that you gave, so perhaps that is why I did not think more deeply about it. I do like simple and how Gronan does it is pretty simple. I like for the choices to be many and complex, but the rules to be simple and fast. Of course not doing it at all is really simple.
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on May 15, 2017 20:18:48 GMT -5
Aw, it DIDN'T mean we should hit critics? Superamalgamated bummer!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2017 22:15:34 GMT -5
Okay, Johnny. Or was it Renny who used to say "I'll be superamalgamated!"
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 15, 2017 22:19:14 GMT -5
Aw, it DIDN'T mean we should hit critics? Superamalgamated bummer! Are you related to William Harper "Johnny" Littlejohn? I see @gronanofsimmerya beat me to it and no it was Johnny and not Renny whose favorite expression was "Holy Cow!"
|
|