Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

[Heimdallsgothi]

Quote 5ER, Page 7

Dice and Dice rolling, Paragraph 3

Whenever you attempt any 3d6 roll, whether an Attack roll, Skill roll, Characteristic roll, or other roll. A result of 3 (three ones) always hits or succeeds; a result of 18 (three sixes) always misses or fails. The GM sould consider giving a character some advantage when the player rolls a 3 and some disadvantage for rolling an 18.

Nowhere in the glossare is the word critical mentioned, no in the index

 

The Ultimate Skill P 16-17

The core dice mechanic description is changed to

A result of 3 on a skill roll always indicates a spectacular success, known as a critical success in game terms.

 

A result of 18 on a skill roll always indicates a spectacular failure, known as a critical failure.

 

This seems a stark change from the core mechanic, concidering specific bonuses and penalties, duration changes are listed.

 

I am well aware I could ignore said bonuses/penalties, but currently as I am new to the system as a whole, I am not aware of the changes it would do to the feel of the system as a whole.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

Critical Success/Failure is an optional rule. While a natural roll of '3' or '18' on 3d6 always indicates a success or failure respectively, the GM is under no obligation to make the result critical.

 

I'm adverse to the idea for the most part, especially when only those numbers would have created the desired result in the first place. In other words, if the only way a typical mook can hit Agility Lass with his rifle is by rolling a natural '3' then it makes no sense at all for that hit to be critical.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

I would always take into account the success rate or failure rate.

 

If the only way you can fail a task due to bonuses or pure skill is to roll an 18 I would never force a Critical Failure on someone. Likewise for Success as Trebuchet said.

 

If you roll a '3' by succeed by less than 5 I would likely call that too close to achieve a Critical Success. However if you roll a '3' and succeed by more than 10 (including all penalties and bonuses) you've achieved by a Critical Success and an Extraordinary Success, going for a truly awesome result.

 

adding or removing the concept of Critical Success/Failure completely (i.e. never using them) has very little impact on the game in my experience, 3s and 18s just become very rare dice rolls.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

I would always take into account the success rate or failure rate.

 

If the only way you can fail a task due to bonuses or pure skill is to roll an 18 I would never force a Critical Failure on someone. Likewise for Success as Trebuchet said.

Same.

 

Here are my default "Crit success" house rules, though I'll extemporize something appropriate to the tone in grittier or more over the top campaigns in either direction.

 

 

RULE OF THREE

if a character (PC or NPC) rolls a natural three on a 3d6 roll under type of check then they have the option of either taking "max effect" or an "epiphany".

 

MAX EFFECT

If the three was made for an Attack Roll max effect is the maximum possible damage or effect with that attack (treat all effect dice as having rolled 6's).

 

If the three was made for a non attack roll, not only does the character win any opposed roll (even if the opponent made their roll by more) or succeed at their task, but they do so in a stylish looked-cool-doing-it fashion which is also justification for gaining a "Display of Power" bonus to a Presence Attack made sometime within the next few actions against anyone that observed them.

 

EPIPHANY

The character has a flash of insight regarding the skill or ability that they rolled a three for and their competency with that ability is expanded. The character gains +2 character points to allocate towards a bonus with that skill or attack. For attacks this translates into a +1 OCV Combat Skill Level with that attack. If a skill this translates into either a +1 or +2 with that skill depending on whether the skill is on the 3/2 or 2/1 costing model. If the three was rolled for a familiarity, the familiarity becomes a full skill instead.

 

This can not be used to upgrade existing levels; for example a character could not opt to bump an All Combat level to an Overall Level with the 2 free points gained in this fashion -- the 2 pts must be spent specifically for the task they were gained from.

 

However, levels gained in this fashion can themselves be upgraded later with experience. For example a 2pt +1 OCV level with a specific kind of pistol could be upgraded to a 3pt "Pistols" tight group level later on.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

Hero does not have a critical/fumble system. Not a proper one. It should have, it is a toolkit, and all too often that seems to stop at 'you can build any character you like'. It shouldn't. You should be able to build any game you like.

 

Personally I don't like critical/fumble systems, as they inevitably are not good for the PCs but, like smoking, no one seems to want to accept that. I'm all for choice though. Kill yourself if you want to.

 

Skills and combat rolls could be so much more, but we seem determined not to take it there.

 

Ah well. I'm going to bed, I'm obviously too bitter to remain conscious.

[JmOz]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

Hero does not have a critical/fumble system. Not a proper one. It should have' date=' it is a toolkit, and all too often that seems to stop at 'you can build any [i']character[/i] you like'. It shouldn't. You should be able to build any game you like.

 

Personally I don't like critical/fumble systems, as they inevitably are not good for the PCs but, like smoking, no one seems to want to accept that. I'm all for choice though. Kill yourself if you want to.

 

Skills and combat rolls could be so much more, but we seem determined not to take it there.

 

Ah well. I'm going to bed, I'm obviously too bitter to remain conscious.

 

I think hero should have a collum a & b version of crits (collum A is how you get a crit like Roll more than 3 more than you need, 1/2 again, nat 3, collum B is the effect like Max damage, etc) all of them optional.

 

Personaly I like how Savage Worlds handles characters, then I would let "wild Cards" to use there term to use one set of crit rules, the "extras" another set.

[Blue Jogger]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

For Fantasy Hero, I had optional magic rules where 3 was a critical success (or a normal success if normally a 3 would fail), one could choose between double damage and max damage. 4 and 5 represented a minor bonus (if you would otherwise succeeded).

 

And on the other end, missing by 5 or more was a lousy failure (side effect was much more damaging rather than just annoying) and missing by 10, or rolling an 18, was a critical failure. This was designed to prevent people from going, well, I have a 5 or less chance...

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

Odd thought, and somewhat random....

 

I suppose as an alternative to increase the occurrence of "special result" rolls, one could make any roll of "triples" a special result, a "Crit" if the roll is successful, a "Fumble" if not, with a possible exception for 3 and 18 if those are also the target numbers (if you need a 3, then 3 doesn't crit, if you only miss with an 18, then it doesn't fumble).

Gives a broader range of possibilities, and alters the range depending on chances of success. Would be consistent with a Runequest style of game in feel.

 

 

For my part I've been using the Optional Crit rules for decades and am quite happy with them (Half roll or under means max damage). It gives a very realistic feel to things... If you consider that the weapon DC's are at least loosely derived from KE (well, firearms are, and they've kinda set the benchmarks), then it's not a hard intuitive leap to see a really good shot as imparting all it's KE (damage) into the target, while a less well aimed blow only succeeds in translating part of the energy into damage.

 

It does make you consider campaign guidelines in a different light, however.

Make combat quite a bit more dangerous for everyone, as well, but once the players are used to it, you tend to see more realistic combat actions rather than the slugfest style of play. Might not be good for more unrealistic/cinematic games.

[Netzilla]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

Odd thought, and somewhat random....

 

I suppose as an alternative to increase the occurrence of "special result" rolls, one could make any roll of "triples" a special result, a "Crit" if the roll is successful, a "Fumble" if not, with a possible exception for 3 and 18 if those are also the target numbers (if you need a 3, then 3 doesn't crit, if you only miss with an 18, then it doesn't fumble).

Gives a broader range of possibilities, and alters the range depending on chances of success. Would be consistent with a Runequest style of game in feel.

 

Actually, that is basically what I'm using for my Monster Hunters campaign:

 

On any Attack/Characteristic/Skill/etc. roll, if the dice come up triples, the roll is a Critical (except in cases where 3 is the only way to succeed or 18 is the only way to fail). If the total rolled would normally succeed, then it is a Critical Success. Otherwise, it is a Critical Failure. On a Skill Roll or Characteristics Roll, the GM will devise an appropriate benefit/penalty according to the situation. In the case of a successful Critical Attack, 3 Damage Classes are added to the Damage of the attack (typically 3 dice for a normal damage attack or 1 die for a killing attack). This damage ignores the damage doubling limit that normally applies to weapons. Attacks that Critically Fail are subject to GM whim and whimsy, but the guidelines on FH 159 give an idea of what may be possible.

 

I chaged Crit Damage to +3 DCs as Crits will come up much more often than on a 3/18 split (roughly 6% vs 0.5%). Plus, I've never been a fan of Max Damage on a crit anyway. In my experience, it's almost always a fight-ender (for the target anyway) and I feel that's too powerful for something that's just a matter of luck.

[Era Scarecrow]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

A Note for actual odds in dice rolls may also reflect it's chances to hit. 1 in 216. Considering there's a .463% chance to hit either 3 or 18, or .926 together. I won't fight on what happens on how it's defined a crit, or what happens, but it's interesting percentiles on the matter.

 

I got more percent information for all dice types in case anyone wants to try a 3d8 heros game with minor modifications

 

Tot: Hits : Percent Accumulated Percent

3: 1 / 216 : 0.463% 0.463%

4: 3 / 216 : 1.389% 1.852%

5: 6 / 216 : 2.778% 4.630%

6: 10 / 216 : 4.630% 9.259%

7: 15 / 216 : 6.944% 16.204%

8: 21 / 216 : 9.722% 25.926%

9: 25 / 216 : 11.574% 37.500%

10: 27 / 216 : 12.500% 50.000%

11: 27 / 216 : 12.500% 62.500%

12: 25 / 216 : 11.574% 74.074%

13: 21 / 216 : 9.722% 83.796%

14: 15 / 216 : 6.944% 90.741%

15: 10 / 216 : 4.630% 95.370%

16: 6 / 216 : 2.778% 98.148%

17: 3 / 216 : 1.389% 99.537%

18: 1 / 216 : 0.463% 100.000%

 

Era

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

Do any of you actually own the rulebook?

 

A result of 3 on an Attack Roll always succeeds, and may entitle the character to some extra benefit or advantage (perhaps some extra dice of damage, or an Armor Piercing effect). A result of 18 always fails, and may cause the character to incur some disadvantage (perhaps reducing his DCV for a Segment or two).

[ghost-angel]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

That still leaves some ambiguity as to the idea that "critical success/failure" aren't really core rules but GM discretion. Which it is.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

That still leaves some ambiguity as to the idea that "critical success/failure" aren't really core rules but GM discretion. Which it is.

Yes, but Heimdallsgothi's original post seemed to imply that there was no discussion of critical success/failure in 5ER (other than the fact that 3 always succeeds and 18 always fails), and that the concept arose only in The Ultimate Skill. I just wanted to cite another instance of critical successes/failures being discussed in 5ER.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

Do any of you actually own the rulebook? ;)

 

There's a rulebook?

 

OK.

 

On criticals, I like the triple thing: we've talked about this before (and the game Unknown Armies sort of uses this option with a really interesting twist: you DEFINE your own criticals (from a list) and assign them to particular triple results, and they remaion set for that character helping to further refine and define their fighting style). You can also, if you are really keen on unusual results, do 'doubles' too as a lesser version of the critical. Both these systems have the advantage that the actual chance of a critical/fumble is related to the chance to hit, not a set '1 in 216'.

 

Mind you' I'm REALLY not keen on 'double damage' or 'maximum damage': a 6d6 attack averages 21 stun, and maximum is 36 (double being the even more horrendous 42, on average). In Hero we rely on 'points through defences', unlike DnD which has no subtractor if you hit. Therefore the effect of even a few extra points through is really felt, especially as campaign average damage is usually not far off campaign average CON and stunning an opponent is often the end of the fight, in real terms.

 

So a 'gentle' critical system is that, when you roll a double or a triple you ADD that to the damage done: a double 4, for instance, adds 8 points to damage. If they are normal dice, you also add the BODY total.

 

Still not entirely fair if you tend to use a lot of unusual attacks or highly advantaged attacks, but you can't have everything.

 

Alternatively, you could assume a double is a +1/4 advantage on damage, a triple si a +1/2 (so 30 damage would beceome 37 on a double and 45 on a triple).

 

Then we have to deal with fumbles: I'd suggest, perhaps, -2 DCV if you roll a double, -4 if you roll a triple (and miss, obviously).

 

Of course you don't need criticals AND fumbles if you don't want both.

 

Other options include always using the roll to hit as part of the damage dice, or not rolling damage ayt all, but relating it to the amount you succeeded by. I have a chart, somewhere...

[ghost-angel]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

There's a rulebook?

 

 

Just because yours is covered in Crayon Corrections

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

There's a rulebook?

 

OK.

 

On criticals, I like the triple thing: we've talked about this before (and the game Unknown Armies sort of uses this option with a really interesting twist: you DEFINE your own criticals (from a list) and assign them to particular triple results, and they remaion set for that character helping to further refine and define their fighting style). You can also, if you are really keen on unusual results, do 'doubles' too as a lesser version of the critical. Both these systems have the advantage that the actual chance of a critical/fumble is related to the chance to hit, not a set '1 in 216'.

 

Mind you' I'm REALLY not keen on 'double damage' or 'maximum damage': a 6d6 attack averages 21 stun, and maximum is 36 (double being the even more horrendous 42, on average). In Hero we rely on 'points through defences', unlike DnD which has no subtractor if you hit. Therefore the effect of even a few extra points through is really felt, especially as campaign average damage is usually not far off campaign average CON and stunning an opponent is often the end of the fight, in real terms.

 

So a 'gentle' critical system is that, when you roll a double or a triple you ADD that to the damage done: a double 4, for instance, adds 8 points to damage. If they are normal dice, you also add the BODY total.

 

Still not entirely fair if you tend to use a lot of unusual attacks or highly advantaged attacks, but you can't have everything.

 

Alternatively, you could assume a double is a +1/4 advantage on damage, a triple si a +1/2 (so 30 damage would beceome 37 on a double and 45 on a triple).

 

Then we have to deal with fumbles: I'd suggest, perhaps, -2 DCV if you roll a double, -4 if you roll a triple (and miss, obviously).

 

Of course you don't need criticals AND fumbles if you don't want both.

 

Other options include always using the roll to hit as part of the damage dice, or not rolling damage ayt all, but relating it to the amount you succeeded by. I have a chart, somewhere...

Here's a variant for ya, sport....

Doubles half defense, Triples bypass Defense. Doesn't increase the damage at all, only increases the "felt" effect of the already rolled damage.

 

I still have to disagree with you about max damage criticals. Been playing that way forever and a day, and it's just a matter of adjusting perspective. You stop thinking "That Greatsword averages 7 Body on a hit" and start thinking "That Greatsword throws 12 Body on a solid hit" Weapons become as lethal as they kinda feel like they should be...a 3 DC .22 pistol or Dagger still throws 6 Body if you make your shot by half, enough to take someone down with a head or vitals shot, which about fits with how they seem to work IRL.

 

YMMV, as always.

Understand, also, that we habitually played 250 point Epic Heroic games, seldom less, so the characters generally had a lot of points to throw around.

[Netzilla]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

Here's a variant for ya, sport....

Doubles half defense, Triples bypass Defense. Doesn't increase the damage at all, only increases the "felt" effect of the already rolled damage.

 

Eh, that seems a bit over-powered. Doubles come up something like 41% of the time. Do you really want to give nearly 1/2 of all attacks that hit free Armor Piercing? Triples is about 3% (the 6% I remembered earlier was wrong), thus giving slightly less than 1 in 33 successful attacks free NND Does Body.

 

Giving someone a free haymaker (+4DC) on a crit is pretty powerful in its own right. If you really want to do both doubles & tripples, giving a half-haymaker (+2DC) might not be so bad.

 

Completely by-passing defenses (especially in a supers campaign) gets deadly really fast.

 

I still have to disagree with you about max damage criticals. Been playing that way forever and a day, and it's just a matter of adjusting perspective. You stop thinking "That Greatsword averages 7 Body on a hit" and start thinking "That Greatsword throws 12 Body on a solid hit" Weapons become as lethal as they kinda feel like they should be...a 3 DC .22 pistol or Dagger still throws 6 Body if you make your shot by half, enough to take someone down with a head or vitals shot, which about fits with how they seem to work IRL.

 

YMMV, as always.

Understand, also, that we habitually played 250 point Epic Heroic games, seldom less, so the characters generally had a lot of points to throw around.

 

It's probably not as bad in a Heroic level game where DCs are usually lower (especially pre-modern Heroic). However, when you're dealing with 12d6 Super Heroic Energy Blast, you're looking at a max of 24 Body and 72 Stun. Even at Heroic levels that greatsword doesn't just do 12 body, it's also 60 Stun. It's the Stun that ends up being the fight ender for whomever gets hit, and that ends up being the players more often than the bad guys. I really sucks to be taken out of the fight simply due to one lucky roll and no fault of your own.

 

Now, if you don't count the Stun Multiplier as part of "max damage", that might not be so bad, but every group I've played with that used the max damage rule did.

 

Also, if your group likes that kind of sudden lethality, go for it. I've never been of the opinion that deadlier makes for better games. Too often, I've seen players become completely gun-shy in high-lethality systems. Depending on genre, having players be cautious is fine. Go to far, and I've seen players adopt some very un-heroic tactics to compensate. At least, that where my mileage took things.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

Also' date=' if your group likes that kind of sudden lethality, go for it. I've never been of the opinion that deadlier makes for better games. Too often, I've seen players become completely gun-shy in high-lethality systems. Depending on genre, having players be cautious is fine. Go to far, and I've seen players adopt some very un-heroic tactics to compensate. At least, that where my mileage took things. [/quote']

 

I think it's important to remember that critical rules come back to bite the PC's eventually. The typical NPC appears in one combat scene. if he's killed instantly by a critical, well, there will be other villains in later scenarios.

 

PC's, on the other hand, will appear in most or all combat scenes in the game. Sooner or later, that unlikely result comes up, and the player is making a new character. The cost of a 0.1% chance per hit of instantly killing the bad guy is a 0.1% chance per hit that your character dies. In other words, the law of averages says that, for every time you get an instant kill on an adversary from the critical system, you should lose a character to an instant kill against you from the critical system.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

The Pulp Hero book suggests one very important thing: Henchmen and low level enemies can not get Critical Hits, or get Recoveries. Only Master Villains and important Lieutenants to said M.V.s can perform these on PCs - as it helps enhance the Heroic aspect of the Pulp Genre.

 

It could easily be applied to other Genres unless you're hoping for a higher fatality rate.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

The Pulp Hero book suggests one very important thing: Henchmen and low level enemies can not get Critical Hits' date=' or get Recoveries. Only Master Villains and important Lieutenants to said M.V.s can perform these on PCs - as it helps enhance the Heroic aspect of the Pulp Genre.[/quote']

 

Meh.

 

I could work with "mooks can't Crit", but I fail to see why they should pay for REC if they can't use it. That said, I'm not a big fan of the theory that, on recovering to 3 STUN and 3 END, characters generally hurl themselves back into the fray, rather than crawling away to lick their wounds.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

There is something to be said for the general Gamer Attitude of "Positive Life = Back In The Fight!" (Life = Stun, HP, whatever).

 

If I just got knocked out by the Hero and came to a few seconds later I sure as heck wouldn't get back up and try and take him on again... Problem is too many games end up doing just that.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

Eh, that seems a bit over-powered. Doubles come up something like 41% of the time. Do you really want to give nearly 1/2 of all attacks that hit free Armor Piercing? Triples is about 3% (the 6% I remembered earlier was wrong), thus giving slightly less than 1 in 33 successful attacks free NND Does Body.

 

Giving someone a free haymaker (+4DC) on a crit is pretty powerful in its own right. If you really want to do both doubles & tripples, giving a half-haymaker (+2DC) might not be so bad.

 

Completely by-passing defenses (especially in a supers campaign) gets deadly really fast.

Not a system I actually use, I was just having flashbacks to some of the BRP games like Stormbringer and Hawkmoon. Yeah, it ups the lethality. As pointed out, ANY crit system ups the lethality. I like your DC suggestions, and if I was gonna try and do a Runequest/BRP flavored FH game might be inclined to combine the ideas, so Doubles gives a +2 DC bonus and Triples give a +2 DC bonus and half armor.... or something. I'd play around with it quite a bit first to balance to taste, tho.

 

 

It's probably not as bad in a Heroic level game where DCs are usually lower (especially pre-modern Heroic). However, when you're dealing with 12d6 Super Heroic Energy Blast, you're looking at a max of 24 Body and 72 Stun. Even at Heroic levels that greatsword doesn't just do 12 body, it's also 60 Stun. It's the Stun that ends up being the fight ender for whomever gets hit, and that ends up being the players more often than the bad guys. I really sucks to be taken out of the fight simply due to one lucky roll and no fault of your own.

 

Now, if you don't count the Stun Multiplier as part of "max damage", that might not be so bad, but every group I've played with that used the max damage rule did.

 

Also, if your group likes that kind of sudden lethality, go for it. I've never been of the opinion that deadlier makes for better games. Too often, I've seen players become completely gun-shy in high-lethality systems. Depending on genre, having players be cautious is fine. Go to far, and I've seen players adopt some very un-heroic tactics to compensate. At least, that where my mileage took things.

I don't use the Stun Lotto.

I use Hit Locations.

You don't have to worry much about Max Damage Crits knocking everyone they hit into GM's option land, because if you get hit for a x5 Stun mod, you're usually too busy looking around the landscape for what's left of your brains.

 

The issues with Normal Attacks are one of the reasons I really LIKE the "Roll under half, score Max Damage" crit system. It makes Normal Attacks a credible threat again. As far as I'm concerned, that 12d6 EB should be only slightly less scary than a 4d6 RKA, because the have the same DC's and same cost. Yet, by the RAW, you'll be lucky to achieve a max damage roll on your 12d6 ONCE in the entire carrier of your character. If it happens at all... I can't remember if I've ever even had 12 dice all land with the 1's down. A 60 STR brick shouldn't be FORCED to buy a HKA brick trick power just so his "I can lift a train" punch is actually a significant threat to inflict Body Damage.

 

like I said..it's a paradigm shift from the way we're used to thinking of the system, but it flows pretty well once you're used to it. I've used it with every genre at one point or another. I actually kinda dislike playing "Hero Light" (Little or no optional combat rules) these days because, frankly, the options are what makes this system for me. With most of the Optional Combat rules in place, combat feels the way it's felt when I've been doing it IRL, And that makes the Sim side of my black little gamer heart sing in joy.

 

As for unheroic tactics.... Yeah. If they don't have special Talents or Skill sets designed to allow them to act in combat in a Cinematic fashion, people tend to die if they showboat using this system. Which I'm totally OK with. I prefer my baseline to be a bit more "real life" and allow the over the top cinematic/literary tropes in as special abilities rather than having "Cinematic violence" the default ground rule in my games.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

The Pulp Hero book suggests one very important thing: Henchmen and low level enemies can not get Critical Hits, or get Recoveries. Only Master Villains and important Lieutenants to said M.V.s can perform these on PCs - as it helps enhance the Heroic aspect of the Pulp Genre.

 

It could easily be applied to other Genres unless you're hoping for a higher fatality rate.

 

That is exactly how I've always handled it, for every game system I've ever run except Rolemaster, where crits are an integral part of the basic combat system. Only the PC's and major villians can benefit from crits of any kind. (or when the gm determines that a crit is dramatically appropriate) Henchmen simply aren't good enough to ever achieve a critical success.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

 

 

 

It's probably not as bad in a Heroic level game where DCs are usually lower (especially pre-modern Heroic). However, when you're dealing with 12d6 Super Heroic Energy Blast, you're looking at a max of 24 Body and 72 Stun. Even at Heroic levels that greatsword doesn't just do 12 body, it's also 60 Stun. It's the Stun that ends up being the fight ender for whomever gets hit, and that ends up being the players more often than the bad guys. I really sucks to be taken out of the fight simply due to one lucky roll and no fault of your own.

 

I would probably use a different method for crits in a superheroic game. However in a Heroic level game that simulates most action/adventure fiction, max-damage style critical hits are exactly what you want. Especially within genres where the PC's fight many foes at once and it only takes 1 or 2 strikes to put an enemy down. That is by far, the style of game my group plays the most. It doesn't matter if the enemy is taken down by Stun or killed via Body damage, as long as they are outta the fight quickly. Max Damage crits does this better than any method I'm aware of.

 

Now, if you don't count the Stun Multiplier as part of "max damage", that might not be so bad, but every group I've played with that used the max damage rule did.

 

I would absolutely count the Stun Multiplier as part of Max Damage.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

Here's a variant for ya, sport....

Doubles half defense, Triples bypass Defense. Doesn't increase the damage at all, only increases the "felt" effect of the already rolled damage.

 

I still have to disagree with you about max damage criticals. Been playing that way forever and a day, and it's just a matter of adjusting perspective. You stop thinking "That Greatsword averages 7 Body on a hit" and start thinking "That Greatsword throws 12 Body on a solid hit" Weapons become as lethal as they kinda feel like they should be...a 3 DC .22 pistol or Dagger still throws 6 Body if you make your shot by half, enough to take someone down with a head or vitals shot, which about fits with how they seem to work IRL.

 

YMMV, as always.

Understand, also, that we habitually played 250 point Epic Heroic games, seldom less, so the characters generally had a lot of points to throw around.

 

There should be a range of critical rules appropriate to different genres: I don't really have a problem with max damage if you are playing fantasy or pulp: there are plenty of relatively small killing attacks that often come up near max anyway. In a superhero game however, a 12d6 EB that maxes out does 72 damage and even a Viper agent with 10 STR, offensive strike and a billy club can stun a brick who should bounce 120mm tank shells off his chest. It may seem weird to say this about a genre like superheroes, but that is simply not realistic.

 

Toolkit: where are the tools?