A variant of standard effect damage

[Kari]

Hi,

My first post here. I have recently discovered Hero and the system seems to be pretty much what i´ve been looking for. However the amount of dice one rolls for determining damage can get quite staggering, especially in superheroic and highpowered heroic games.

The Combat Handbook suggests using standard effect damage, however the method suggested does minimum of standard effect. There are a couple of threads on these boards that discuss other methods of diceless damage but the methods suggested did not seem very simple.

So I thought of a couple of variant methods of determining damage/effect.

1. Use standard effect but when you roll 3 you get maximum damage/effect, and when you roll maximum needed to hit you get minimum damage. When the roll is between 3 and max needed to hit you do standard effect.

For example you need to roll 10 to hit and have a 10d6normal attack:
-roll is 10 you do 0 body and 10 stun
-roll is 9-4 you do 10 body and 30 stun
-roll is 3 you do 20 body and 60 stun

2. Partial standard effect, so that you only roll the last 3 dice.

For example you need 10 to hit and have a 10d6normal attack:
-roll is 10 you do 0 body and 10 stun
-roll is 9-4 you roll 3d6 and add standard effect for 7d6 ie 7bod/21stun+3d6
counted normally
-roll is 3 you do 20 body and 60 stun

Method 1 would eliminate the need to roll for damage and yet gives three levels of possible damage.:thumbup:

Method 2 does not seem offer any benefit over the common method other than reducing the amount of dice needed.:nonp:

What do you think?

[Robyn]

1. Use standard effect but when you roll 3 you get maximum damage/effect, and when you roll maximum needed to hit you get minimum damage. When the roll is between 3 and max needed to hit you do standard effect.

I like the Pendragon (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1034252) approach; you get rewarded for rolling in the middle. If you just make your attack, barely, then you get maximum damage.

But this wouldn't work the same with HERO's bell curve; 3d6 gets 10 a lot more often than 1d20.

Of course, if you want players to do extra damage more often . . . :)

[ghost-angel]

For example you need to roll 10 to hit and have a 10d6normal attack:
-roll is 10 you do 0 body and 10 stun
-roll is 9-4 you do 10 body and 30 stun
-roll is 3 you do 20 body and 60 stun

2. Partial standard effect, so that you only roll the last 3 dice.

For example you need 10 to hit and have a 10d6normal attack:
-roll is 10 you do 0 body and 10 stun
-roll is 9-4 you roll 3d6 and add standard effect for 7d6 ie 7bod/21stun+3d6
counted normally
-roll is 3 you do 20 body and 60 stun

Method 1 would eliminate the need to roll for damage and yet gives three levels of possible damage.:thumbup:

Method 2 does not seem offer any benefit over the common method other than reducing the amount of dice needed.:nonp:

What do you think?

What happens if your attack roll is a 12 and still hits? Or any number above 10?

[CrosshairCollie]

I've already figured that if I ever run a game where attacks can be expected to exceed 15d6 on a regular basis (Galactic Champions, Star HERO seem most likely), I'll use the 'standard damage base + a few dice' method, probably a 2/3 split. So, a 15d6 attack would be 10 Body, 30 Stun + 5d6, 18d6 would be 12 Body, 36 Stun, +6d6, etc.

[Ockham's Spoon]

The second approach you describe seems perfectly reasonable to me, although there are those that would argue that rolling massive quantities of dice is part of the fun. To each their own.

The first method you describe, in which if you roll exactly what you need to hit you do minimum damage, does have a drawback. That is most of the time you will need somewhere in the range of 10 to 12 to hit. Statistically speaking it is much easier to roll a middling number than an extreme, like the 3 you would need to get maximum damage (darn that bell curve). Consequently you will have lots of minimum damage rolls compared to the number of maximum damage rolls under this system. If you like that, great. Otherwise, I would go with the second method to reduce the number of dice.

__________________________________________________ ____________
"Some people spread joy wherever they go. Others, whenever they go." - Oscar Wilde

[Kari]

What happens if your attack roll is a 12 and still hits? Or any number above 10?
Well if I understand your question correctly it does not matter what the number required to hit actually is could be anything from 17 to 4.
Ie you need to roll 17 to hit and you get 17=minimum damage for the attack, you roll any number between 16 and 4 you get standard effect and 3 you get maximum damage. 18 of course automatically misses. Or otherwise if you need to roll 4 to hit your target when you roll four you get minimum damage and 3 you get max damage. (speaking of the attack 3d6 roll) These numbers presume all modifiers ect. are accounted for.

[Kari]

The second approach you describe seems perfectly reasonable to me, although there are those that would argue that rolling massive quantities of dice is part of the fun. To each their own.

The first method you describe, in which if you roll exactly what you need to hit you do minimum damage, does have a drawback. That is most of the time you will need somewhere in the range of 10 to 12 to hit. Statistically speaking it is much easier to roll a middling number than an extreme, like the 3 you would need to get maximum damage (darn that bell curve). Consequently you will have lots of minimum damage rolls compared to the number of maximum damage rolls under this system. If you like that, great. Otherwise, I would go with the second method to reduce the number of dice.



So would it be better to use the system so that rolling exactly the number needed to hit results in say 3d6+standard effect for the rest of the dice plus max damage for critical hit ie.3? Or how would you get minimum damage for the attack?

The original idea was to allow for the attack roll to provide a method to gain the full range of possible damage for the attack ie.min and max with most commonly average damage, without having to roll a lot of dice.

Or if going for diceless damage should I just discard the minimum damage and accept that any roll that hits does standard effect and 3 does maximum effect?

[Kari]

To continue with my rambling on possible methods of reducing dice rolling:

How about a house rule that allows the player to switch between standard effect and normal damage/effect rolling at will?

So that when fighting "mooks" you just do standard effect but when fighting "named" opponents you either use method 2 in my first post or roll the bucketload of dice per the rules in the book?
(concepts of mook and named borrowed from Feng Shuei)

[Shaft]

Added in to the debate is that an average dice rolls 3.5 on average, so it can argued that standard effect shortchanges the result, a little.

MLG

[Kari]

I've already figured that if I ever run a game where attacks can be expected to exceed 15d6 on a regular basis (Galactic Champions, Star HERO seem most likely), I'll use the 'standard damage base + a few dice' method, probably a 2/3 split. So, a 15d6 attack would be 10 Body, 30 Stun + 5d6, 18d6 would be 12 Body, 36 Stun, +6d6, etc.

So you don´t like too many dice either?

I wonder if it would be possible to have a system that allows for the full range of damage ie. minimum and maximum and in between with out extra rolling? Ie. to hit roll determines damage but whithout the danger of producing the min or max damage out of proportion to each other. Maybe if you just roll 1d6 for damage and multiply by dc?

[Kari]

Actually I just hit an epiphany.

A normal attack roll that hits either does standard damage or roll 1d6Xdc to get variable damage at the players discretion.

This approach would seem to combine the best of both worlds ie you get the certainty of standard effect or the possibility to roll minimum to maximum damage if the situation requires it. What do you think?

I must say you are quite a helpfull bunch. Thank you

[Robyn]

What happens if your attack roll is a 12 and still hits?

Then you're cheating, or the GM is applying "hidden modifiers"; if the former, expect your GM to notice ;)


A normal attack roll that hits either does standard damage or roll 1d6Xdc to get variable damage at the players discretion.

Too much like a very powerful attack that has Limitations piled on it to reduce the cost. Past discussions on this board have covered the difference in efficiency; for comparison, imagine a 10d6 EB for 50 points, and another Energy Blast at 30 dice with "Activation Roll: 8-" for a -2 Limitation, also costing 50 points. If defenses are sufficient that only a little damage gets through each time with the average 10d6 roll, it may not add up enough to balance out the 30d6 roll - which most of the time does no damage, but occasionally pays off and does a lot of damage.

Your multiplier idea makes it all too easy for characters to roll too high or too low; too low is essentially a "no damage" attack (Activation Roll failed), whereas too high is the critical that does not obey a bell curve.

[CrosshairCollie]

So you don´t like too many dice either?

I wonder if it would be possible to have a system that allows for the full range of damage ie. minimum and maximum and in between with out extra rolling? Ie. to hit roll determines damage but whithout the danger of producing the min or max damage out of proportion to each other. Maybe if you just roll 1d6 for damage and multiply by dc?

Primarily due to the long time it can take to add up ... if it didn't take so infernally long to count up, say, 30d6, I wouldn't have a problem with it. :)

[Kari]

Too much like a very powerful attack that has Limitations piled on it to reduce the cost. Past discussions on this board have covered the difference in efficiency; for comparison, imagine a 10d6 EB for 50 points, and another Energy Blast at 30 dice with "Activation Roll: 8-" for a -2 Limitation, also costing 50 points. If defenses are sufficient that only a little damage gets through each time with the average 10d6 roll, it may not add up enough to balance out the 30d6 roll - which most of the time does no damage, but occasionally pays off and does a lot of damage.

Your multiplier idea makes it all too easy for characters to roll too high or too low; too low is essentially a "no damage" attack (Activation Roll failed), whereas too high is the critical that does not obey a bell curve.

Ok, what would the effect be in just allowing players to swich between standard effect and rolling a truckload of dice at will? This is not a restriction that I understand. It states in 5ER that you must choose one or the other. Why?

[Robyn]

Ok, what would the effect be in just allowing players to swich between standard effect and rolling a truckload of dice at will?

Very little. I'll use a 2d6 bell curve to demonstrate the distribution, though the effect becomes more pronounced (and is therefore more visible) when dealing with more dice:

1,1: 0 Body, 2 Stun
1,2: 1 Body, 3 Stun
1,3: 1 Body, 4 Stun
1,4: 1 Body, 5 Stun
1,5: 1 Body, 6 Stun
1,6: 2 Body, 7 Stun
2,1: 1 Body, 3 Stun
2,2: 2 Body, 4 Stun
2,3: 2 Body, 5 Stun
2,4: 2 Body, 6 Stun
2,5: 2 Body, 7 Stun
2,6: 3 Body, 8 Stun
3,1: 1 Body, 4 Stun
3,2: 2 Body, 5 Stun
3,3: 2 Body, 6 Stun
3,4: 2 Body, 7 Stun
3,5: 2 Body, 8 Stun
3,6: 3 Body, 9 Stun
4,1: 1 Body, 5 Stun
4,2: 2 Body, 6 Stun
4,3: 2 Body, 7 Stun
4,4: 2 Body, 8 Stun
4,5: 2 Body, 9 Stun
4,6: 3 Body, 10 Stun
5,1: 1 Body, 6 Stun
5,2: 2 Body, 7 Stun
5,3: 2 Body, 8 Stun
5,4: 2 Body, 9 Stun
5,5: 2 Body, 10 Stun
5,6: 3 Body, 11 Stun
6,1: 2 Body, 7 Stun
6,2: 3 Body, 8 Stun
6,3: 3 Body, 9 Stun
6,4: 3 Body, 10 Stun
6,5: 3 Body, 11 Stun
6,6: 4 Body, 12 Stun

Standard effect is much simpler; 2 Body, 6 Stun. But there's no chance of doing more or less damage.

Rolling the dice will tend to hover around the center (notice how 2 Body was an extremely common result in the table above?), and only very rarely will all dice be low or all high.

Past threads have discussed similar ideas to what you suggested. Here are a few:

3d6 chart (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14318)
Using d20 instead of 3d6 (DON'T KILL ME!) (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20203)
3d6 Dice Roll Probabilities (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22822)
Set Distribution by Rolling 3d6 (or 1d6, 2d6, 4d6, etc.) for All Damage/Effect Rolls (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33102)
Equalizing Probability Distributions of Different Attacks (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41723)

[ghost-angel]

Ok, what would the effect be in just allowing players to swich between standard effect and rolling a truckload of dice at will? This is not a restriction that I understand. It states in 5ER that you must choose one or the other. Why?

I never figured that out. So I ignore that rule in any game I run. The player can choose which to use. It may have something to do with always knowing how mcuh you'll do vs that chance you'll do extraordinarily well.

Some times you feel like adding, sometimes you don't.

[Trebuchet]

Ok, what would the effect be in just allowing players to switch between standard effect and rolling a truckload of dice at will? This is not a restriction that I understand. It states in 5ER that you must choose one or the other. Why?There's no real reason except making keeping track more difficult in what is already a pretty complicated combat system. I would think the optimal compromise would be for heroes to use Standard Effect for mooks and other normal; and roll the dice normally for the nastier villains. (In a big enough fight, I might just have heroes roll to see if they hit the mooks and simply assume any hit takes one out.)

Standard Effect sacrifices 0.5d6 of damage on average for more predictability of results. Personally I like rolling dice, but when I'm GMing I usually use a die-rolling program on my PDA to speed things up since I'm usually running multiple opponents at once.

[Sean Waters]

First off standard effect is OK if you want to beuild a power that always drains a certain number of points for conceptual reasons, but it is utterly useless as an alternative to standard damage in combat unless everyone is using it: Hero uses thresholds - defence values - and so a small reduction in avarage damage makes a huge difference in practice.

Here's what I'd do if you don't like rolling all those damage dice, and I'm assumin it is a superheroic game - or you wouldn't have all those damage dice:

Use standard damage for N-3 of your damage dice, for an Nd6 attack, then add the roll you made to hit.

You still get a bit of variation - quite a lot in fact as you are rolling a relatively small number of dice - and it allows more skillful opponnents to score slightly higher on damage without always doing so - but requires no damage roll at all.

So, for a 10d6 attack (30 stun, 10 body standard effect normally), you do (10-3)x3=21 stun and 7 body as BASE DAMAGE, and, say you roll and hit with 3,3,6, you do an additional 12 stun and 4 body damage, for a total of 33 stun and 11 body. Still not worth it unless everyone is doing it though and characters are designed appropriately - i.e. with slightly lower defences.

Alternatively you could use average damage for the 'base damage' i.e. 3.5x(N-3). Personally I would be happy to allow a player to do that if I were GMing.

[Kari]

Ok,

Thank you for your input. I think I´m going to test the following method:
A player can choose between rolling normally or just using standard effect or if they feel like gambling they can just roll 1d6 times dc which allthough loses the bell curve in this case is meant to do exactly that.

I think I will prefer using standard effect against mooks and minions and use the rolling methods against the major baddies.

[Kari]

Set Distribution by Rolling 3d6 (or 1d6, 2d6, 4d6, etc.) for All Damage/Effect Rolls (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33102)
Equalizing Probability Distributions of Different Attacks (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41723)

Ok I missed these when searching the forums and I will denifinitely have to try the methods esp. the 3d6 one.

Thank you!!! (now how do I give rep?)

[Kari]

Um, yesterday I also tried to post a reply Robyn`s post on last page where he linked a variety of threads that had relevance to this discussion but those posts never seemed to appear?

Anyway in one of those threads there was Prestiditators method of 3d6 rolling that appeared to be very interesting. I will have to test that one as well.

[DavidToomey]

Use standard damage for N-3 of your damage dice, for an Nd6 attack, then add the roll you made to hit.

So, for a 10d6 attack (30 stun, 10 body standard effect normally), you do (10-3)x3=21 stun and 7 body as BASE DAMAGE, and, say you roll and hit with 3,3,6, you do an additional 12 stun and 4 body damage, for a total of 33 stun and 11 body. Still not worth it unless everyone is doing it though and characters are designed appropriately - i.e. with slightly lower defences.


So, the better your roll to hit, the less damage you do?

If I read this right, if you can hit on a 15- and you roll 15, you do 10 pts *more* damage than if you roll a 5....:confused:

[Sean Waters]

So, the better your roll to hit, the less damage you do?

If I read this right, if you can hit on a 15- and you roll 15, you do 10 pts *more* damage than if you roll a 5....:confused:

Absolutely right, but you have to stop thinking of rolling a '3' as the best you can get - it always hits - but not necessarily hard.

The point is that only someone who is very skillful, compared to their opponent, COULD hit on a roll of 15, and it seems logical to me that the more skillful opponent should be the one to do more damage - at least potentially. Almost anyone can hit if they roll a 5, and the fact that you landed a blow is probably reward enough, if you NEEDED a 5 to hit.

[DavidToomey]

Absolutely right, but you have to stop thinking of rolling a '3' as the best you can get - it always hits - but not necessarily hard.

The point is that only someone who is very skillful, compared to their opponent, COULD hit on a roll of 15, and it seems logical to me that the more skillful opponent should be the one to do more damage - at least potentially. Almost anyone can hit if they roll a 5, and the fact that you landed a blow is probably reward enough, if you NEEDED a 5 to hit.


How about using margin of success?

Add one or two points of damage per point you made your to hit by...thus that 15- who rolled a 5 does 10 or 20 extra damage, where if he rolled 15 exactly, he just barely hit, thus no bonus damage...:p

[Robyn]

How about using margin of success?

Add one or two points of damage per point you made your to hit by...thus that 15- who rolled a 5 does 10 or 20 extra damage, where if he rolled 15 exactly, he just barely hit, thus no bonus damage...:p

Involves an extra step of math, where you subtract the roll from the "number needed to hit"; also, it means telling the players what DCV their opponent had, which may be undesirable ;)

[Sean Waters]

How about using margin of success?

Add one or two points of damage per point you made your to hit by...thus that 15- who rolled a 5 does 10 or 20 extra damage, where if he rolled 15 exactly, he just barely hit, thus no bonus damage...:p

Because I like the idea of being able to do more damage if you are lucky AND skillful than if you are just lucky.

[Kari]

A new crazy idea:

How about instead of having 1 level of standard effect you could have 2 levels? For example level 1 is normal standard effect 1bod 3stun per dice, and level two is 1bod 4stun per dice(killing damage would be 3bod*3stun and 4bod*3stun respectively).
This will require use of the critical hit rules from the Combat handbook.

So when you roll to hit if you need say 14 to hit and you roll between 14-8 you do level 1 standard effect and when you roll between 7-4 you get level 2 standard effect. When you roll 3 you roll 1d6 and multiply per dice of your attack/effect.

This would seem to have a very good range of possible damage without becoming unwieldy and it would seem to mimic the propabilities of the bellcurve of a large effect to some extent.

What do you think?

[Kari]

Just after I posted my last idea I had another idea on that same rule that does not require critical hits.

In this you still have level 1 and level 2 of standard effect but regardles of what the number needed to hit is when your attack roll is an uneven number you get level 1 effect and when your attack roll is an even number you get level 2 effect as long as you hit the target. Rolling 3 still gets the 1d6 method.

In this way the gm does not need to reveal the opponents dcv and there is an almost even chance of scoring either level of damage/effect.

Am I completely nuts or what??

[Sean Waters]

Just after I posted my last idea I had another idea on that same rule that does not require critical hits.

In this you still have level 1 and level 2 of standard effect but regardles of what the number needed to hit is when your attack roll is an uneven number you get level 1 effect and when your attack roll is an even number you get level 2 effect as long as you hit the target. Rolling 3 still gets the 1d6 method.

In this way the gm does not need to reveal the opponents dcv and there is an almost even chance of scoring either level of damage/effect.

Am I completely nuts or what??


You see I like this.

Roll odd and your standard effect per die is 4, roll even and it is 3. Average damage is 3.5, which is what it should be.

Good idea.

[Sean Waters]

Why standard effect is rubbish unless everyone is using it:

The chance rolling more than 36 on 12d6 (i.e. of beating the standard damage) is over 82%. The risk of low rolls is comparatively small: 4 times out of 5 you will do better just rolling the dice.

The chance of getting anything less than 36 gets small vey quickly: 35 or less comes up less than 14% of the time, 34 or less is less than 11% and 33 or less is less than 8%.

It is true that the odds are closer for smaller numbers of dice, but even on only 3 dice you have a better than 62% chance of exceeding 'standard' damage. Using average damage is sometimes awkward as there are those pesky halves, so the 'two levels of standard damage' works well for me.

[BNakagawa]

how I would use standard effect (plus a smallish random element) were I to use it:

Step 1: Get regular 6 sided dice (the kind where opposite sides add to 7). These are as common as dirt, but occasionally you find exceptions.

Step 2: Roll to hit. If you hit, flip your dice over and add them to your damage dice, minus three in body and three times that in stun. In other words, your attack (we're assuming the attack does more than 3d6 normal) does (N-3) x 3 + (a random number between 4 and 18) (it's between 4 and 18 because if you rolled an 18 to hit, you probably missed.

What this accomplishes: It makes an attack that just barely hit less dangerous than an attack that hit squarely. It rewards good rolls.

[Robyn]

If you hit, flip your dice over and add them to your damage dice, minus three in body and three times that in stun.

Do you subtract the STUN and BODY before or after you flip them? And the STUN is three times what, the three from BODY or some other number?

I'm so confused . . . :weep:


In other words, your attack (we're assuming the attack does more than 3d6 normal)

Does your method fall apart if it doesn't? Are we going to have to memorize another confusing method? :fear:


does (N-3) x 3 + (a random number between 4 and 18) (it's between 4 and 18 because if you rolled an 18 to hit, you probably missed.

I am surprised to say that I understand this even less than HERO's existing rules, and I haven't even read the Combat chapter.


What this accomplishes: It makes an attack that just barely hit less dangerous than an attack that hit squarely. It rewards good rolls.

I'll have to take your word on it ;)

[Kari]

You see I like this.

Roll odd and your standard effect per die is 4, roll even and it is 3. Average damage is 3.5, which is what it should be.

Good idea.

Thanks, so what do think about the random multiplier at attack roll 3?

[Kari]

Why standard effect is rubbish unless everyone is using it:

The chance rolling more than 36 on 12d6 (i.e. of beating the standard damage) is over 82%. The risk of low rolls is comparatively small: 4 times out of 5 you will do better just rolling the dice.

The chance of getting anything less than 36 gets small vey quickly: 35 or less comes up less than 14% of the time, 34 or less is less than 11% and 33 or less is less than 8%.

It is true that the odds are closer for smaller numbers of dice, but even on only 3 dice you have a better than 62% chance of exceeding 'standard' damage. Using average damage is sometimes awkward as there are those pesky halves, so the 'two levels of standard damage' works well for me.

You see this is partly why I insist on including some variance in the damage even though using standard effect.

My last suggestion ie two levels of standard effect and a "joker" multiplier at attack roll 3 is meant to be used in a high power confrontation whith lots of dc:s (15+) flying around. Basically it would be a 3-way battle between Destroyer, Menton and Arvad the betrayer instigated by the pc. Lowest normal effect there would be 16dc and highest around 25dc.

So I want a fastrolling method of dealing whith this amount of power flying around and this would seem to allow that aswell as the possibility of the full range of effects by everyone.

Now I wonder if this method would be acceptable whether everyone uses it or not? I played around whith the dice propability sheet in free stuff and it seemed to be very close allthough one does lose some granularity versus the basic method.

[Frenchman]

Added in to the debate is that an average dice rolls 3.5 on average, so it can argued that standard effect shortchanges the result, a little.

MLG
Have to agree with Shaft here...I always thought that taking standard effect was a sure way to get, well, shafted. The rare times we have used standard effect in our games, it has always been 3.5xdie.
If you commonly have a calculator at your table, you could make standard effect be 3.2+(1d6x0.1) - this gives some variation without taking damage very far from the middle...but I'd rather just roll my sackful of dice.

[Sean Waters]

Thanks, so what do think about the random multiplier at attack roll 3?

I'm not keen on 'critical' and 'fumble' rules as they tend to prejudice the players: the opponent's roll a lot more attacks, usually, so will get a lot more criticals, and whilst it is true they will also get a lot more fumbles, fumbles tend to be quite critical in themselves and the players only need to blow it once to lose badly. Mind you that particular implementation is so rare and not a 'max damage' rule (necessarily) so I would be happy with it, but would not feel a need for it (the vast majority of damage rolls fall between 3x and 4x DC anyway)

[Sean Waters]

You see this is partly why I insist on including some variance in the damage even though using standard effect.

My last suggestion ie two levels of standard effect and a "joker" multiplier at attack roll 3 is meant to be used in a high power confrontation whith lots of dc:s (15+) flying around. Basically it would be a 3-way battle between Destroyer, Menton and Arvad the betrayer instigated by the pc. Lowest normal effect there would be 16dc and highest around 25dc.

So I want a fastrolling method of dealing whith this amount of power flying around and this would seem to allow that aswell as the possibility of the full range of effects by everyone.

Now I wonder if this method would be acceptable whether everyone uses it or not? I played around whith the dice propability sheet in free stuff and it seemed to be very close allthough one does lose some granularity versus the basic method.


I would say the method would be acceptable across the board whether everyone used it or not, as the average damage does not change (although killing attacks may be a little more problematic). I would, however, require each character to decide which method they use and not swap back and forth, although that is purely a personal preference.

[BNakagawa]

A clarification and example of the method described above:

If your attack is 12d6, you roll 3d6 and see if you hit. If you hit and you rolled a 13, flip the dice and now you have 3d6 showing 8.

(this assumes your dice have opposite sides that add to 7. If you rolled a 3 and two 5s to hit, then after you flip your dice you have a 4 and two 2s)

Add that to your initial attack -3 using the standard effect, in this case (12-3) x 1 for body and x3 for stun. (9 body and 27 stun)

Your damage total is 9+3 body = 12 body and 27 + 8 stun = 35 stun.

If you had rolled much better, say you rolled a 1, 2, 3 to hit, then after flipping the dice, you get 6,5,4 and your total damage is 13 body and 42 stun.