Stray "critical hit" thought

[Supreme Serpent]

As I said, stray thought.

Ok, we've all seen various house rules about a to-hit roll of 3 being max damage, etc. Can at times be unpleasant in superheroic games if you didn't want to hit the target that hard. ("What do you mean I just did 24 body to that VIPER agent?!?")

Instead, for such a "perfect" hit, allow the character to choose any damage in the range possible - they hit exactly as hard as they wanted to. So, for example, a hero w/a 12d6 attack who doesn't want to seriously hurt an opponent, and having figured out that their defenses are at least 15, could choose to do 15 BODY and 63 STUN (3 sixes, 9 fives).

[austenandrews]

Sounds reasonable to me. Heck, why not let him do 72 STUN/0 BODY?

[Supreme Serpent]

Well, I just liked the "anything possible with the dice used" idea. Take your dice, lay them down however you want them, that's the result.

[RDU Neil]

As I said, stray thought.

Ok, we've all seen various house rules about a to-hit roll of 3 being max damage, etc. Can at times be unpleasant in superheroic games if you didn't want to hit the target that hard. ("What do you mean I just did 24 body to that VIPER agent?!?")

Instead, for such a "perfect" hit, allow the character to choose any damage in the range possible - they hit exactly as hard as they wanted to. So, for example, a hero w/a 12d6 attack who doesn't want to seriously hurt an opponent, and having figured out that their defenses are at least 15, could choose to do 15 BODY and 63 STUN (3 sixes, 9 fives).

I've always done something similar.

A "3" is the perfect shot... so I back up to what the player stated was the "intent" of their attack.

"I gotta take down Dr. D!" Ok... sounds like double damage to me!

"I need to hit the button at just the right angle to trigger it, without wrecking the machine and setting off the failsafe!" Ok... a 3 then means they pulled it off perfectly!

So... yes, I agree. William Tell rolling a "3" doesn't mean he put it right between his poor son's eyes... it means he split the apple perfectly.

I dunno about the "change the kind of damage" but I wouldn't be totally against it. Willing to try it, at least. (My Luck/Fate Chit system factors this kind of thing it, already... so stretching it to rolling a natural "3" isn't too much of a stretch... or just may be unnecessary in my game.)

Essentially... I would almost never make a natural "3" be a negative thing for the player who rolled it. THAT is the crit rule I would stand by.

[prestidigitator]

Oh, abosolutely! I don't think I'd ever make a character take the results of a critical hit (s)he made. As I usually only do criticals on a natural 3, and this occurs so rarely, I often just make up some interesting effect anyway. I just fall back on the max damage (or double rolled damage) as a default.

[Dust Raven]

I like it. Actually, I love it! I must adopt this immediately.

The only "restriction" I'd put on it is that the result must be something that can be rolled on the dice, modified by whatever maneuver it might have been. Which brings me to...



Sounds reasonable to me. Heck, why not let him do 72 STUN/0 BODY?

If you are rolling 12d6, there is no way you can get this result. You'll have to roll all sixes and that's 24 BODY. However, if the attack was a pulled punch, I'd still let the BODY go at half. In this case that's still 12 BODY. Of course, doesn't matter much if you are using a STUN Only attack.

Perfect is one thing, Impossible should require a different Power.

[austenandrews]

Perfect is one thing, Impossible should require a different Power.
I look at it this way - if the character had attempted an improbable no-Body, Stun-only attack, and had rolled a 3, in most cases I'd give it to him without hesitation. Hence, not impossible, just improbable. :)

[Dust Raven]

I look at it this way - if the character had attempted an improbable no-Body, Stun-only attack, and had rolled a 3, in most cases I'd give it to him without hesitation. Hence, not impossible, just improbable. :)

That's just it, I wouldn't allow the attempt.

Bob: I'm gonna hack at him with my katana, but I only want to stun him without doing any damage.

GM: Hahahahahahhahaaaah... yeah right.


I would allow someone to buy, for example:

Stunning Slash: EB 6d6 NND No Range

or make use of a Power: Swordsmanship Skill, if they had it.

[CourtFool]

I implemented a 'Steal the Scene' concept for a critical roll. If a player rolled a 3 I would allow them to describe, within reason, whatever it is that they wanted to happen. Obviously 'within reason' is open to a lot of interpretation and this requires mature players. It also requires the GM being willing to roll with the punches. This is fun for narratists and is the bane of gamists.

[rjcurrie]

To be honest, I treat a three just like any other hit -- and an 18 like any other miss, but then I'll admit I'm not much of a rule tinkerer.

[Blue]

The rule in my campaign for Critical Hits has been that on a "3", you get either Armor Piercing on top of your attack, or two levels of luck. (And if the target has unluck or the attacker has luck, both roll them on the spot to modify this further).

Only problem is that most players opt for the AP purely because I'm not quick enough at improvising the effects of luck. It's funny but this was WAY easier before I joined a group that use miniatures. When it was all in our heads, I could make up anything and that was simpler.

[Silbeg]

Well, I just liked the "anything possible with the dice used" idea. Take your dice, lay them down however you want them, that's the result.
That is definately something to consider for my game. Interesting...

I ahve been using the "3" means max damage, and there has been at least one situation that this meant unexpected fatalities...

Was quite humorous, actually...

Grenadier was flying the team's hoverjet, in pursuit of a villain team's Humvee. He was trying to swoop over the Humvee, so that the team's brick could jump out and stop the vehicle.

AS this was a combat manuever, he needed to roll his Combat Piloting skill... the dice came up "18"... oops!

I thought for a moment, what would the likely effect of such a miscalculation in piloting be? Hmm.. Why not say he went to low... of course, that meant that there was a chance to actually hit the Humvee... So, I had him roll "to hit"... and sure enough, that came up a "3". So, he accidently managed to critically hit the HMVV, causing rather severe damage to the vehicle.

I had all of the involved characters make PER rolls, then, to see if any/all escaped from the two vehicles. As it happened, one of the villains failed her PER roll (it was Esper, by the way), and took the full brunt of the damage herself... and got impaled... without any defenses... ouch!

[austenandrews]

I tend to rule a 3 as being the best possible outcome for the person who rolled it. Often as not that's max damage for an attack, but not always. In any event I find 3's to be a glorious random element in a game that I'd never want to part with. :)

[Sean Waters]

I'm with rjcurrie. Criticals and fumbles: bad. Well, critical and fumble RULES bad, anyway.

Criticals are not necessary, but rolling a 3 is a bit of an event: not really, in a superhero combat between two teams of 6 with an average speed of 6 it happens every 3 turns.

Think about it.

If you can attain maximum BODY damage just by throwing enough punches the already flimsy world of Hero becomes as paper. There's nothing the characters can't break with enough time. Just don't like it.

Moreover if you are going to have max damage for the Heroes, you really need to use the same rules for the villains, and having a PC suddenly taken out by a ludicrously improbably max damage hit is not good for storytelling, plot, enjoyment, or any of that other stuff that makes it a role playing game and not a wargame.

I'm not entirely heartless: if a player rolls a 3 I'll usually craft some advantage for them, something fortuitous happens (like Blue suggested), but I'm not about to make a rule that you can max the damage: the perfect punch is a matter of skill, not luck.

[NuSoardGraphite]

I've always allowed this option in my games ever since I started running Hero. No one has yet used it.

[prestidigitator]

I'm with rjcurrie. Criticals and fumbles: bad. Well, critical and fumble RULES bad, anyway.

Criticals are not necessary, but rolling a 3 is a bit of an event: not really, in a superhero combat between two teams of 6 with an average speed of 6 it happens every 3 turns.
72 actions per turn? Ouch! I should hope that something happens every few turns to shake things up a bit. ;)


If you can attain maximum BODY damage just by throwing enough punches the already flimsy world of Hero becomes as paper. There's nothing the characters can't break with enough time. Just don't like it.

Moreover if you are going to have max damage for the Heroes, you really need to use the same rules for the villains, and having a PC suddenly taken out by a ludicrously improbably max damage hit is not good for storytelling, plot, enjoyment, or any of that other stuff that makes it a role playing game and not a wargame.
This is why I like to keep it my perogative to determine exactly what interesting effects happen on a critical success or failure. I don't think this sort of thing should be easily predictable and quantifiable. It is like a Disadvantage: an opportunity for the GM to stick his fingers in and stir things up in an interesting way now and then. Incidentally, I do the same kind of thing with other rolls, like for Skills.


...but I'm not about to make a rule that you can max the damage: the perfect punch is a matter of skill, not luck.
Don't kid yourself, man. Skill helps a lot, but in real life situations (especially combat, and especially combat between many opponents), luck accounts for a lot more that skill! Of course, I do understand that we are playing a game which is in great part about the abilities of our characters, but let's not completely discount the effects of luck. We could just compare OCV vs. DCV to determine whether someone hits, and compare DCs to defense levels to determine damage, after all. Boooorring!

[rjcurrie]

Don't kid yourself, man. Skill helps a lot, but in real life situations (especially combat, and especially combat between many opponents), luck accounts for a lot more that skill! Of course, I do understand that we are playing a game which is in great part about the abilities of our characters, but let's not completely discount the effects of luck. We could just compare OCV vs. DCV to determine whether someone hits, and compare DCs to defense levels to determine damage, after all. Boooorring!

Well, of course, the luck comes in when the player makes an above average damage roll.

Rod

[Sean Waters]

Don't kid yourself, man. Skill helps a lot, but in real life situations (especially combat, and especially combat between many opponents), luck accounts for a lot more that skill! Of course, I do understand that we are playing a game which is in great part about the abilities of our characters, but let's not completely discount the effects of luck. We could just compare OCV vs. DCV to determine whether someone hits, and compare DCs to defense levels to determine damage, after all. Boooorring!

Watch, or play, any combat sport. Not boring, but you don't get the newbie KOing the pro every few matches.

Any game has to be a balance between predictability and randomness. We're not playing chess and we're not playing coin toss, so where you pitch the balance point is a matter for you, naturally, and those you play with in an effort to maximise your enjoyment of the experience.

My view is that chance plays enough of a part in determining whether you hit at all, and how much damage you do if you manage to hit.

Allowing an 'automatic' application of maximum damage skews the probability curve ridiculously and, in my view, unacceptably. Now I don't mind if the GM controls critical effects, but you run the risk of getting caught out fluffing it if the critical falls at a bad time for you.

Hell, you'd be better off saying that every time you roll a 3 or an 18 you gain an XP: you've learned something - how to do it or how not to. There's a tangible reward for rolling the dice so magnificently, but it doesn't have a disproportionate effect on the game.

[austenandrews]

I don't know about anyone else, but I rarely award crits to NPCs no matter what they roll. So it skews in favor of outmatched PCs but not vice-versa, which seems to mimic various heroic genres well.

[Sean Waters]

I don't know about anyone else, but I rarely award crits to NPCs no matter what they roll. So it skews in favor of outmatched PCs but not vice-versa, which seems to mimic various heroic genres well.

You're Heroes, so the rules favour you. Don't like it. I mean, yes it matches all of heroic fiction, that I'll give you, but kind of spoils it for me if I think I've won because the game was rigged in my favour. I'd rather win, or lose, on a level playing field, at least as far as the games go. In real life, I'll take any advantage I can get :D

[prestidigitator]

Watch, or play, any combat sport. Not boring, but you don't get the newbie KOing the pro every few matches.
That one doesn't hold water with me. Combat sports are constructed to be just that: sports. The matches have little to do with how you would actually fight if your life depended upon it. The rules are set up to make things "fair" and "sportsmanlike." For example, usually if someone falls down, they are allowed to get back up without repercussion. Usually if things get too heated, the game is paused, the fight broken up.


Allowing an 'automatic' application of maximum damage skews the probability curve ridiculously and, in my view, unacceptably. Now I don't mind if the GM controls critical effects, but you run the risk of getting caught out fluffing it if the critical falls at a bad time for you.
Well, I usually do critical hits in Heroic campaigns. For a 2d6+1 KA, the chances of rolling maximum Body and Stun damage is exactly the same as rolling the 3 on the attack roll. For a 3d6+1 KA, the chances for max Body but not necessarily Stun is the same. Of course this will happen on average every 216 hits, not every 216 attacks, but that's not a whole lot different. The chances for rolling max damage for smaller attacks is actually greater, and for bigger attacks, which are somewhat rare, the chances are a bit less. I don't think it is totally out-of-line for this kind of game. Of course, as I have said, this is not the only effect I produce on criticals, but I wouldn't sneer at someone who went with that choice.

[Supreme Serpent]

You're Heroes, so the rules favour you. Don't like it. I mean, yes it matches all of heroic fiction, that I'll give you, but kind of spoils it for me if I think I've won because the game was rigged in my favour. I'd rather win, or lose, on a level playing field, at least as far as the games go. In real life, I'll take any advantage I can get :D

Make sure you don't have better defenses, attacks or CV than those VIPER agents then! Anything else would be rigged! :D

Hey, I gotta give my snakes every chance they can get... :eg:

[prestidigitator]

You're Heroes, so the rules favour you. Don't like it. I mean, yes it matches all of heroic fiction, that I'll give you, but kind of spoils it for me if I think I've won because the game was rigged in my favour. I'd rather win, or lose, on a level playing field, at least as far as the games go. In real life, I'll take any advantage I can get :D
Well, whatever floats your boat. Some people approach roleplaying as they would a game of Warhammer, and some enjoy the story, the comradery, and have fun whatever happens. I think Zornwil made a good post about this in one of the threads.

[Sean Waters]

Well, I usually do critical hits in Heroic campaigns. For a 2d6+1 KA, the chances of rolling maximum Body and Stun damage is exactly the same as rolling the 3 on the attack roll. For a 3d6+1 KA, the chances for max Body but not necessarily Stun is the same. Of course this will happen on average every 216 hits, not every 216 attacks, but that's not a whole lot different. The chances for rolling max damage for smaller attacks is actually greater, and for bigger attacks, which are somewhat rare, the chances are a bit less. I don't think it is totally out-of-line for this kind of game. Of course, as I have said, this is not the only effect I produce on criticals, but I wouldn't sneer at someone who went with that choice.

...and of course there you clearly identify one of my major objections to the killing attack mechanic, but we've done that one to death.

Pun intended, obviously. :D

[Sean Waters]

Well, whatever floats your boat. Some people approach roleplaying as they would a game of Warhammer, and some enjoy the story, the comradery, and have fun whatever happens. I think Zornwil made a good post about this in one of the threads.

When I'm running a game, I give the players all sorts of advantages.

What I don't do is tell them I'm doing that: it is all about perception, which is why I strongly dislike any rules that say, however tacitly, THE PCs WILL WIN.

They will, but it's no fun if they know it, for any of us.

[Dust Raven]

I've been using critical hit rules for several years now and all it's done is make the game more exciting. I do have them apply to NPCs as well, but only the major characters. Basically I consider the ability to make a critical hit a perk of being a major character. So far my players haven't complained about having been hit by a critical, and I certainly don't complain when they lucky punch a bad guy because of a critical. One critical, even one per combat (which doesn't happen as often as Sean would lead you to think), will rarely tilt the balance.

[Silbeg]

I've been using critical hit rules for several years now and all it's done is make the game more exciting. I do have them apply to NPCs as well, but only the major characters. Basically I consider the ability to make a critical hit a perk of being a major character. So far my players haven't complained about having been hit by a critical, and I certainly don't complain when they lucky punch a bad guy because of a critical. One critical, even one per combat (which doesn't happen as often as Sean would lead you to think), will rarely tilt the balance.

I agree... I have not had a player complain, either way. And I do allow agents to get the "perfect hit" in... if they roll it.

In my previous campaign, one of the players realized that if his character (Impulse, who had a DEX 53) was actually hit by many of his opponents , they would probably kill him (he had low defenses, other than DCV). This was especially true for a side-kick of the team, who had a massively powerful energy blast (but mostly only good for one shot).

However, it was an observation... not a complaint.