Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

[Netzilla]

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

 

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' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

Do you allow the mooks to get crits on the PCs? If so, crit rules tend to be harsher on the PCs than on the mooks. You put 6 SPD 3 characters up against 12 SPD 2 mooks and you've got 18 attacks for the PCs and 24 attacks for the mooks. If nat' 3 is what determines a crit, the PCs are much more likely to be hit for max damage than the mooks are.

 

A Standard Heroic Character (going by the Character Ability Guidelines Table) should have around 10/5 DEF/rDEF, 15 CON, 15 BOD and 30 Stun. A crit from that 1d6+1 broadsword the mook is holding does 7 BOD (2 over rDEF) and 35 Stun (25 over DEF), leaving the PC CON stunned and 5 STUN from a KO. When the next mook follows-up, the PC is 1/2 DCV and likely KOed unless the PC is lucky enough for that to have been the last mook to attack him before his next action. If mooks can't make crits, this problem won't come up.

 

If you lessen the Critical Hit to being +4 DC (a free haymaker), then that same broadsword goes to 2 1/2d6 (average 8 Body and 21 Stun). The PC takes 3 BOD and 11 Stun; under his CON stun threshold and 19 away from being KOed. A significant hit but not a fight-ender.

 

As far as how the mook fares, let's use the Skilled Normal as our guideline: the mook's probably got around 12 CON, 11 BOD and 24 STUN with 6/3 DEF/rDEF. That max damage crit does net damage of 4 BOD & 29 STUN for a KO. The +4 DC hit on average nets 5 BOD and 15 STUN for a CON Stun and out on the next hit. The mook still drops in only 1 to 2 hits.

 

These days, my group gives mooks the Mere Mortal Disadvantage (x2 BODY to all damage that get past DEF), so our mooks are sufficiently squishy even without having to hope for that 1 in 216 chance of a crit.

 

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.

 

Unfortunately, they take out PCs equally quickly. Even a 1d6 KA does 30 STUN maxxed out and CON stuns the Standard Heroic PC. If the PCs are out-numbered, he's probably out of the fight at that point and all due to mere mook getting lucky. Not very heroic in my book.

 

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

 

Like I said, every group I've played with did so, even when using the Hit Locations chart. The frequency with wich PCs were being taken out of the fight by lucky mooks is something that really annoyed my group.

 

Needless to say, all of this gets even uglier when you get into autofire attacks, Increased Stun Multipliers and so forth.

[Netzilla]

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

 

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?

 

Hmm... Billy Club is +3 HA as I recall, thus 5d6 normal for the Viper Agent. That maxxes out a 30 Stun, 10 Body. Ironclad has 25 PD, so he'd only take 5 Stun. It's not so bad for him. Defender would take 10 Stun. I don't think any of the Champions would be KOed by that.

 

However, I seem to recall that the basic Viper Blaster does 8d6 normal, and thus maxxes at 54 Stun, which is 29 past Ironclad's defenses. He just barely avoids a CON stun (30 CON) and still has 36 STUN left. Rough but not awful for the brick. Defender, OTOH, takes 34 past his defenses, is CON stunned and has 1 STUN remaining. He's basically out of the fight if there are more Viper agents than Champions.

 

Of course, if the Viper Agent uses his combat knife (total 2d6 KA after STR). A max of 60 STUN CON stuns Ironclad and KOs Defender. Defender, dropped by a mook with a bowie knife.

 

Now, if the Viper agent, with his whopping 12 DEF, 30 STUN, 13 CON & 12 BODY gets critted by either Ironclads or Defender's 12 DC attacks (72 STUN & 24 BODY), said Viper Agent is reduced to -30 STUN (coma threshold) and 0 BODY (bleeding to death threshold). Can anyone say excessive force?

[BlackSword]

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

 

I could work with "mooks can't Crit"' date=' 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.[/quote']

What is this "pay" thing you speak of?

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.

This is why I don't give mooks recovery. If they recover and cower, then why worry about them recovering. Once they are out of the fight, they are out of the fight, SFX may vary from them being in lala land to finding a nice dark spot to cry in, but once they hit Zero stun they are no longer my concern.

 

I haven't given much thought to crits with regards to mooks. We typically let mooks crit. If it makes mooks a little more dangerous. Its a rare event, so if one mook rolls an 18 his rifle explodes, if another rolls a 3 he gets the chance to take down a hero, or at least get a hero's attention.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

What is this "pay" thing you speak of?

 

If he doesn't recover, why should he not sell back his REC for 8+ points and either buy something else or be a lower point mook? you have removed an ability the mook has points invested in, so you have depowered him artificially..

 

This is why I don't give mooks recovery. If they recover and cower' date=' then why worry about them recovering. Once they are out of the fight, they are out of the fight, SFX may vary from them being in lala land to finding a nice dark spot to cry in, but once they hit Zero stun they are no longer my concern. [/quote']

 

Does the mook get taken prisoner for questioning? Does he slink off to provide the Boss with the description of the individuals who took out a dozen of his men, or is the Boss none the wiser? Can the PC's steal the mooks' uniforms to infiltrate the base? Is the base on high alert because a mook snuck away and triggered the alarm? Will the next set of mooks be warned so they can set an ambush? Will reinforcements summoned by the mook that recovered show up shortly after, or even during, the battle? Did that mook sneak away with the loot/map/letter of orders, or is it there for the PC's to take? Is that important prisoner still there, or did a mook slit his throat or move him to prevent him falling into enemy hands?

 

These, and many more, questions can be answered...if you know whether the mook recovered!

 

I haven't given much thought to crits with regards to mooks. We typically let mooks crit. If it makes mooks a little more dangerous. Its a rare event' date=' so if one mook rolls an 18 his rifle explodes, if another rolls a 3 he gets the chance to take down a hero, or at least get a hero's attention.[/quote']

 

Of course' date=' if the Viper Agent uses his combat knife (total 2d6 KA after STR). A max of 60 STUN CON stuns Ironclad and KOs Defender. Defender, dropped by a mook with a bowie knife.[/quote']

 

What can I add to that?

[NuSoardGraphite]

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

 

Do you allow the mooks to get crits on the PCs?

 

Short answer? No. Only PC's and major NPC villains get to do crits. Scrubs aren't so lucky.

 

If so, crit rules tend to be harsher on the PCs than on the mooks. You put 6 SPD 3 characters up against 12 SPD 2 mooks and you've got 18 attacks for the PCs and 24 attacks for the mooks. If nat' 3 is what determines a crit, the PCs are much more likely to be hit for max damage than the mooks are.

 

I use the "roll less than half" method of doing a crit. Also, Scrubs tend to be quite a bit less powerful than the PC's allowing the PC's to wade through hordes of them. Critical hits help make this play out faster.

 

A Standard Heroic Character (going by the Character Ability Guidelines Table) should have around 10/5 DEF/rDEF, 15 CON, 15 BOD and 30 Stun.

 

In my experience, there is no such thing as a "standard heroic character". They vary quite a bit depending on the campaign, the player and the function of the character in question. Your stats do remind me of a "typical" fantasy fighter though.

 

A crit from that 1d6+1 broadsword the mook is holding does 7 BOD (2 over rDEF) and 35 Stun (25 over DEF), leaving the PC CON stunned and 5 STUN from a KO. When the next mook follows-up, the PC is 1/2 DCV and likely KOed unless the PC is lucky enough for that to have been the last mook to attack him before his next action. If mooks can't make crits, this problem won't come up.

 

Well, since scrubs in my campaigns can't perform crits, that scenario will never pop up in one of my games, however even in such a case, I utilize Hit Locations, so the Stun Lotto is effectively null and void. Chances are the Stun multipler will be a X2 or X3 (in Hit Location, a X4 or X5 Stun result is fairly rare) which makes the stun damage from that 7 Body critical hit around 14 or 21 Stun. The characters defenses should easily be able to absorb that, possibly even bringing it down to the minimum of 7 Stun damage. (1 Stun per point of Body damage)

 

If you lessen the Critical Hit to being +4 DC (a free haymaker), then that same broadsword goes to 2 1/2d6 (average 8 Body and 21 Stun). The PC takes 3 BOD and 11 Stun; under his CON stun threshold and 19 away from being KOed. A significant hit but not a fight-ender.

 

Thats just it...critical hits are supposed to be fight-enders. I see critical hits as that lucky blow that will at the very minimum maim someone for life. Chop off a limb, shatter bones, cause permanent paralysis. In other words, garunteed impairing or disabling wounds.

 

as how the mook fares, let's use the Skilled Normal as our guideline: the mook's probably got around 12 CON, 11 BOD and 24 STUN with 6/3 DEF/rDEF. That max damage crit does net damage of 4 BOD & 29 STUN for a KO. The +4 DC hit on average nets 5 BOD and 15 STUN for a CON Stun and out on the next hit. The mook still drops in only 1 to 2 hits.

 

In general, I want scrubs taken down by critical hits. The players LOVE it. A swing of their broadsword and heads fly, limbs rend, spines shatter and bones break. And their PC's look totally badass while doing it. At the end of the night, I want my players to leave my place with a smile on their face while talking about how badass their characters were that evening.

 

these days my group gives mooks the Mere Mortal Disadvantage (X2 Body to all damage that gets past DEF) so our mooks are sufficiently squisky, weven without having to hope for that 1 in 216 chance of a crit.

 

wow, yeah. I don't need to do that. Getting a crit in my campaigns isn't really based so much on luck (1 in 216 chance of rolling a 3) as it is the skill of the character vs the skill of their opponents (rolling less than half of what was needed to hit...a more skilled character with a much higher OCV will crit often against a lesser skilled opponents. I like that) In general, the PC's will be at least 3 CV higher than the typical stormtrooper and this can get quite a bit higher if skill levels are brought into play (which they should).

This method of handling Crits actually simulates many types of heroic (and some superherioc) fiction where a hyper-competant hero can literally wade through dozens of opponents and lay each one low with a single punch or kick per opponent. Considering that Batman is one of the worlds best hand to hand fighters and he adds all 8 of his Hand to Hand combat levels to his OCV of 7 for a full OCV of 15 and he's fighting against 10 DCV 4 thugs, he has a ([15+11]-4) 22 or less chance to hit them, meaning he crits on a 10 or less...a 50/50 chance of critting against every opponent. Heck, he could even Sweep 3 per phase and still have a crit chace of 8 or less!

 

Unfortunately, they take out PCs equally quickly. Even a 1d6 KA does 30 STUN maxxed out and CON stuns the Standard Heroic PC. If the PCs are out-numbered, he's probably out of the fight at that point and all due to mere mook getting lucky. Not very heroic in my book.

 

Agreed. Not very heroic at all, which is why the hired help can't crit

 

 

, every group I've played with did so, even when using the Hit Locations chart. The frequency with wich PCs were being taken out of the fight by lucky mooks is something that really annoyed my group.

 

The GM shouldn't have let those mooks do crits. Its not in genre. Now, maybe if you are playing VIETNAM WARHERO, yeah, everyone can crit. but in NINJA HERO, only the PC's and major villians should get to.

 

Needless to say, all of this gets even uglier when you get into autofire attacks, Increased Stun Multipliers and so forth.

 

Yeah, no kidding. I'm playing Star Wars right now, and typical Lightsabres are written up as 2D6K APx2 +1 Stun multiplier. Ouch. Watch out for those Sith..they do get to crit.

[Sean Waters]

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

 

I'm not that keen, personaly, on treating mooks as substantially different from PCs in terms of 'game world physics', so I'm generally opposoed tot he idea that mooks operate on a different set of rules to PCs, but I can see the utility of the idea.

 

If the idea is adopted, however, I still tend to be somewhat opposed to the idea on this basis; why?

 

Is it that people just like to punch the air and shout 'critical'?

 

Is it that it speeds up combat?

 

Is it something else?

 

I just don't get it.

 

The other thing that I don't get, or rather don't like, is the massive disconnect that criticals demonstrate between the effect of normal attacks and the effect of killing attacks. An average 6d6 attack does 6 Body and 21 stun. Against, say 10 pd, you get 11 stun and 0 body through defences.

 

On a 'max damage' critical you get 26 stun and 2 body through defences. Sure the proportional effect is the same, and even in terms of results you wind up with SOME body through, but what you mainly get is shed loads of stun. OK, it is a normal attack, you might expect that. What about a similar DC killing attack?

 

Average damage is 7 BODY, 19 stun: assuming the defence is resistant, you get slightly less stun through (9 points) and still no body. On a max damage critical, you do 12 Body (2 through - same as a normal attack) and 60 stun; 50 through defences.

 

Eh?

 

That perfectly placed sword/bullet/whatever does no more actual killing damage but shed loads of stun? How does that make sense?

 

Now the suggestion that criticals should reduce defences rather than boost damage does address this point to a large extent, and also has the effect of making combat far more deadly, or at least criticals far more deadly. This is probably not a good plan for superhero games though: a 12DC attack will put quite a lot of superheroes on the critical list, even ones who should be bulletproof - because the defences are so much higher to balance much higher attacks, the effect of criticals would be so much more pronounced.

 

Of course this is all a balancing act: the problem with deadly combat is that the PCs are expected to take risks if the game is not to drag. In practice people would take far more notice of cover in a gunfight, and sneak about slowly, looking for an advantageous position, not making wild runs through hails of bullets. If you want slow, realistic combat, then criticals are not a bad idea. If you want heroism then they suck. The GM can afford to lose any number of villains (even if we are not counting mooks, there will be plenty of PC level villains), but one lucky shot can end the carreer of a PC built up over years.

 

This is not an argument against criticals, however, it is an argument for a range of options to suit individual tastes and individual games. More tools, please - we can customise characters to the nth degree, we can't say the same about the game itself.

[AmadanNaBriona]

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

 

I suddenly had a flashback to our Star Hero game, somewhere around the 5th year when my girlfriends Empath Rock star character was beginning to go all Dune Messiah on us. One of the other GM's had been handling the story arc, but his character was coming into play so I took over. With a government dispatched assassin coming after her character.

 

Put 4 rounds from a 15 mm gauss rifle into her and her bodyguard (yeah...my character, as NPC). Several crits. One in the vitals.

 

Very good body armor and very prompt triage into the ships med bay prevented me from wiping out both our characters, but it was tense.

 

Oh, and it blew off my arm. Luckily, the already cybernetic one. Being only 30% meat had advantages in the bodyguard business.

[Sean Waters]

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

 

I suddenly had a flashback to our Star Hero game, somewhere around the 5th year when my girlfriends Empath Rock star character was beginning to go all Dune Messiah on us. One of the other GM's had been handling the story arc, but his character was coming into play so I took over. With a government dispatched assassin coming after her character.

 

Put 4 rounds from a 15 mm gauss rifle into her and her bodyguard (yeah...my character, as NPC). Several crits. One in the vitals.

 

Very good body armor and very prompt triage into the ships med bay prevented me from wiping out both our characters, but it was tense.

 

Oh, and it blew off my arm. Luckily, the already cybernetic one. Being only 30% meat had advantages in the bodyguard business.

 

I would say that is very brave of you to do that to your girlfriend's character, but I've picked up a clue or two about you over the years

 

I'm amazed that a gauss rifle crit to the vitals is not a kill shot (even with good body armour), especially as it was part of a spread pattern and not the only crit. If Hero needs criticals to even get close to killing a character then SOMETHING needs adjusting...

[AmadanNaBriona]

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

 

I would say that is very brave of you to do that to your girlfriend's character, but I've picked up a clue or two about you over the years

 

I'm amazed that a gauss rifle crit to the vitals is not a kill shot (even with good body armour), especially as it was part of a spread pattern and not the only crit. If Hero needs criticals to even get close to killing a character then SOMETHING needs adjusting...

 

IIRC, the top-of-the-line soft body armor she was wearing included a Body Only half damage reduction undersuit. Even so, we were both well and good into negative body (My character was a LOT tougher than her, but her suit kinda evened the odds), I seem to remember a couple of Paramedic rolls getting made in the -5 to -7 category.

 

We played hardball, but even so, the campaign levels balanced better than it might appear at first blush. Only had a couple of fatalities over those 5 years, and most were from acting dumb versus dumb luck.

Blowing away 1 man of a 4 man squad of Reflex Augmented SpecOp Jumptroopers on a combat zone patrol, for instance, standing wide out in the open, with a single shot handcannon, basically (inspired by the original gyroslugger from John M Fords story The Alkahest Solution. RIP).

Suicide by player disinterest, that was.

 

The better ones usually involved going out in the proverbial blaze of glory. My Merc commander, my friends Power Armor pilot, and around 60% of our supporting cast died fighting a rearguard action against the final push of the alien forces, to buy said Empath enough time to get her brain into the Hive Mind and shut off the damned things.

We took a whole lotta them with us, first tho.

[BlackSword]

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

 

If he doesn't recover' date=' why should he not sell back his REC for 8+ points and either buy something else or be a lower point mook? you have removed an ability the mook has points invested in, so you have depowered him artificially..[/quote']

Because the GM has better uses of his time than to min/max mooks.

Does the mook get taken prisoner for questioning? Does he slink off to provide the Boss with the description of the individuals who took out a dozen of his men, or is the Boss none the wiser? Can the PC's steal the mooks' uniforms to infiltrate the base? Is the base on high alert because a mook snuck away and triggered the alarm? Will the next set of mooks be warned so they can set an ambush? Will reinforcements summoned by the mook that recovered show up shortly after, or even during, the battle? Did that mook sneak away with the loot/map/letter of orders, or is it there for the PC's to take? Is that important prisoner still there, or did a mook slit his throat or move him to prevent him falling into enemy hands?

 

These, and many more, questions can be answered...if you know whether the mook recovered!

I can (and do) improvise that. In the end though its a toma"toe"/toma"tah" argument, a difference in playstyles. I play fast and loose, it sounds like you track things much more closely.

What can I add to that?

It adds stories, "the man who took down defender in one shot." Defender's hunteds are now going to look for this guy to find out his special technique. It keeps players on their toes. It changes the battle in a split second.

[Netzilla]

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

 

Short answer? No. Only PC's and major NPC villains get to do crits. Scrubs aren't so lucky.

 

That, in and of itself, makes a huge difference in how lethal you can allow crits to get.

 

I use the "roll less than half" method of doing a crit. Also, Scrubs tend to be quite a bit less powerful than the PC's allowing the PC's to wade through hordes of them. Critical hits help make this play out faster.

 

My group's used that before and we liked it better than 'Crit on 3'. However, we found it made OCV/DCV king over raw damage. A few levels of OCV (3-4) proved more effective than 4-5 more DCs. So, the 10 OCV guy with the 1 1/2d6 pistol (max 9/45) was more effective at putting down mooks than the 6 OCV guy with 3d6 (average 11/29) rifle. 'Named' foes depended on said foe's CV. Significantly lower and you'd crit often enough to more than make up the damage difference. Significantly higher, and the 6 OCV with the big gun has a hard time hitting. In the middling range, however, having the big gun was worth it.

 

Also, crit on half combined with max damage made Area Effect attacks (3 DCV) really nasty.

 

In my experience, there is no such thing as a "standard heroic character". They vary quite a bit depending on the campaign, the player and the function of the character in question. Your stats do remind me of a "typical" fantasy fighter though.

 

True, but we've got to have some basis for comparison. I pulled that from the book as I can't think of a better base line.

 

Well, since scrubs in my campaigns can't perform crits, that scenario will never pop up in one of my games, however even in such a case, I utilize Hit Locations, so the Stun Lotto is effectively null and void. Chances are the Stun multipler will be a X2 or X3 (in Hit Location, a X4 or X5 Stun result is fairly rare) which makes the stun damage from that 7 Body critical hit around 14 or 21 Stun. The characters defenses should easily be able to absorb that, possibly even bringing it down to the minimum of 7 Stun damage. (1 Stun per point of Body damage)

 

Removing the Stun Lotto from crit effects is another thing that makes a huge difference.

 

Thats just it...critical hits are supposed to be fight-enders. I see critical hits as that lucky blow that will at the very minimum maim someone for life. Chop off a limb, shatter bones, cause permanent paralysis. In other words, garunteed impairing or disabling wounds.

 

Not from mooks, which is what my examples pertained to. If you don't allow mooks to make crits, then the parameters have changed enough that my comments no longer apply.

 

In general, I want scrubs taken down by critical hits. The players LOVE it. A swing of their broadsword and heads fly, limbs rend, spines shatter and bones break. And their PC's look totally badass while doing it. At the end of the night, I want my players to leave my place with a smile on their face while talking about how badass their characters were that evening.

 

Sure.

 

[Netzilla]

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

 

I would say that is very brave of you to do that to your girlfriend's character, but I've picked up a clue or two about you over the years

 

I'm amazed that a gauss rifle crit to the vitals is not a kill shot (even with good body armour), especially as it was part of a spread pattern and not the only crit. If Hero needs criticals to even get close to killing a character then SOMETHING needs adjusting...

 

This depends a lot on the relative levels of armor vs damage, the use of optional rules like the Hit Location chart (x2 BODY can get nasty), Disabling, Impairing and so forth. From the sound of things AmadanNaBriona's campaign had rather significant defenses.

 

This is rather different than most of the Heroic games my group has run. In our case, rDEF was commonly <3 and only on vital areas for mooks. For the PCs, "casual" wear was 4-8 only on inconspicuous areas and 9-12 all over for heavy combat. At those levels, 2d6 Killing attacks (typical side arm in our Star Hero game) are something you don't want to be surprised by. Rifles, armor piercing ammo and explosives were well feared.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

I use the "roll less than half" method of doing a crit. Also' date=' Scrubs tend to be quite a bit less powerful than the PC's allowing the PC's to wade through hordes of them. Critical hits help make this play out faster.[/quote']

 

As noted already, this tends to make OCV/DCV much more useful than extra damage/defenses. If I have a 2d6 KA (say), I could invest 30 points making it a 4d6 KA to double my average damage from 7 BOD to 14, or I could buy +10 levels with my preferred weapon and leave it at 2d6. Let's assume I hit on an 11- before any adjustment.

 

If I buy the extra DC's, I still hit on 11-, in which case I do 14 BOD on average.

 

If I buy the levels, I do 12 BOD on an 11-, and if I roll higher, I'll still hit for 2d6 KA unless I roll an 18. Those levels can be shifted to DCV if I'm in a truly dangerous fight, or can be used to increase my DC's from 2d6 to 3 1/2 d6 if I really want higher base damage.

 

Seems pretty clear which is the better buy.

 

I utilize Hit Locations' date=' so the Stun Lotto is effectively null and void. Chances are the Stun multipler will be a X2 or X3 (in Hit Location, a X4 or X5 Stun result is fairly rare) which makes the stun damage from that 7 Body critical hit around 14 or 21 Stun. The characters defenses should easily be able to absorb that, possibly even bringing it down to the minimum of 7 Stun damage. (1 Stun per point of Body damage)[/quote']

 

As a strict point of order, hit locations still have a Stun Lotto - the odds have just changed. But I do agree the Crit issue is mitigated if you allow KA's max BOD damage, but still require STUN be determined normally.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

I can (and do) improvise that. In the end though its a toma"toe"/toma"tah" argument' date=' a difference in playstyles. I play fast and loose, it sounds like you track things much more closely. [/quote']

 

A lot depends on playstyles. I find many players prefer to know that the determination of whether a mook escaped to warn the boss depended on the application of the rules, not on whether the GM wanted a mook to escape and warn the boss.

[SteveZilla]

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

 

Chances are the Stun multipler will be a X2 or X3 (in Hit Location' date=' a X4 or X5 Stun result is fairly rare) which makes the stun damage from that 7 Body critical hit around 14 or 21 Stun. The characters defenses should easily be able to absorb that, possibly even bringing it down to the minimum of 7 Stun damage. (1 Stun per point of Body damage)[/quote']

 

Actually, I belive the rule is 1 Stun per point of Body damage after defenses. Unless you're using a house rule.

 

Getting a crit in my campaigns isn't really based so much on luck (1 in 216 chance of rolling a 3) as it is the skill of the character vs the skill of their opponents (rolling less than half of what was needed to hit...a more skilled character with a much higher OCV will crit often against a lesser skilled opponents. I like that) In general' date=' the PC's will be at least 3 CV higher than the typical stormtrooper and this can get quite a bit higher if skill levels are brought into play (which they should).[/quote']

 

Do your players load up on those 2 pt skill levels?

 

This method of handling Crits actually simulates many types of heroic (and some superherioc) fiction where a hyper-competant hero can literally wade through dozens of opponents and lay each one low with a single punch or kick per opponent. Considering that Batman is one of the worlds best hand to hand fighters and he adds all 8 of his Hand to Hand combat levels to his OCV of 7 for a full OCV of 15 and he's fighting against 10 DCV 4 thugs' date=' he has a ([15+11']-4) 22 or less chance to hit them, meaning he crits on a 10 or less...a 50/50 chance of critting against every opponent. Heck, he could even Sweep 3 per phase and still have a crit chace of 8 or less!

 

I like the mechanics. I'm just concerned that a player might use a large number of 2 pt OCV-only skill levels to not only hit more often, but crit more often as well under these rules. If it were me, I'd limit it to the 3 pt CSLs or higher.

 

The GM shouldn't have let those mooks do crits. Its not in genre. Now' date=' maybe if you are playing VIETNAM WARHERO, yeah, everyone can crit. but in NINJA HERO, only the PC's and major villians should get to.[/quote']

 

Yeah. How often did Bruce Lee get critted by a generic flunky/underling?

[Sean Waters]

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

 

So we can agree, whether crits are a good or a bad thing and how they work out is a matter of perception and experience. I don't like crits. Cool. Others do. Cool.

 

What we need though, in system, are critical options, so everyone is happy.

Part of that, in a truly complete system, should be the ability to buy partial or total immunity to criticals. We need to think about that too. I'd also like to see some proper discussion int he rules about how such systems can afefct game balance - eg making CV far more effective, and whether that should affect the purchase cost. Someone mentioned criticals for AoE effects - should they work differently?

 

I can sit down and come up with half a dozen damage/critical systems - I'm sure you all can - but they remain house rules. What we need, IMO, is this sort of thing in the rule book.

[BlackSword]

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

 

A lot depends on playstyles. I find many players prefer to know that the determination of whether a mook escaped to warn the boss depended on the application of the rules' date=' not on whether the GM wanted a mook to escape and warn the boss.[/quote']

And I find that many players prefer the rule that mooks don't recover to hitting unconcious mooks several times to ensure they don't recover. For the mooks that escape they still have to move. They can try to sneak away, but heroes do get perception rolls.

[archermoo]

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

 

However, I seem to recall that the basic Viper Blaster does 8d6 normal, and thus maxxes at 54 Stun, which is 29 past Ironclad's defenses. He just barely avoids a CON stun (30 CON) and still has 36 STUN left. Rough but not awful for the brick. Defender, OTOH, takes 34 past his defenses, is CON stunned and has 1 STUN remaining. He's basically out of the fight if there are more Viper agents than Champions.

 

As an aside, just because it is one of those things that annoys me, CON Stunned is a null term. It is like saying BODY Dead. Being Stunned means that you took more Stun damage past defenses in a single attack than your CON stat. Adding CON to the front of it doesn't add any meaning and only confuses things, giving new players the idea that there are other kinds of Stunning that aren't based on CON. I don't even play at conventions very often, and I can't count the number of times I've been asked "Okay, I know what Con Stunned is, but what other kinds of Stunned are there?" by new/newish players.

 

We now return you to our regularly scheduled thread, already in progress...

[Tonio]

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

 

Well, I guess the term "CON Stunned" comes about from trying to clarify that we're talking about the condition when the STUN damage you take is more than your CON stat, as opposed to the condition when the STUN damage you take is more than your current STUN total ("Knocked Out"). Yes, "Stunned" and "Knocked Out" are clear, but since both come about from taking STUN damage, it's conceivable that someone might be confused upong hearing "Stunned".

 

It's not really analogous to saying "BODY Dead" since there's really only one result from taking BODY damage: dying. Additionally, the word "dead", or "dying", is not similar to "BODY"; a different situation from "STUN" and "Stunned".

[JmOz]

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

 

Well, I guess the term "CON Stunned" comes about from trying to clarify that we're talking about the condition when the STUN damage you take is more than your CON stat, as opposed to the condition when the STUN damage you take is more than your current STUN total ("Knocked Out"). Yes, "Stunned" and "Knocked Out" are clear, but since both come about from taking STUN damage, it's conceivable that someone might be confused upong hearing "Stunned".

 

It's not really analogous to saying "BODY Dead" since there's really only one result from taking BODY damage: dying. Additionally, the word "dead", or "dying", is not similar to "BODY"; a different situation from "STUN" and "Stunned".

 

Personaly I use con-stuned as to prevent condfusion between Stunned (the condition) and Stun (the characteristic)

[ghost-angel]

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

 

Then there's stunned the description, which I've taken to using dazed instead. Because I too really dislike the non-term "Con Stunned" ... it just sounds silly.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

And I find that many players prefer the rule that mooks don't recover to hitting unconcious mooks several times to ensure they don't recover. For the mooks that escape they still have to move. They can try to sneak away' date=' but heroes do get perception rolls.[/quote']

 

I find the "hit them while they're down" approach stems from GM's who play NPC's (mooks or otherwise) as "Either up and in combat or KO'd". The enemies keep getting back up with 2 STUN and attacking, so we hit them again to be sure. I find that, if the barely recovered mooks tend to slip away, rather than leap back into combat, this compelling need to keep them down goes away.

 

Besides, if it's an issue, they want to belt the powerful opponents, who do get REC, "just to be sure".

 

I also like the idea that a character at 0 to -9 STUN is standing, aware of his surroundings, but dazed. He CAN be hit again to finish the fight.

[NuSoardGraphite]

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

 

Actually' date=' I belive the rule is 1 Stun per point of Body damage after defenses. Unless you're using a house rule.[/quote']

 

Thats what I meant, I just forgot to subtract the defense!

 

 

 

Do your players load up on those 2 pt skill levels?

 

Surprisingly, no they don't. They've recently discovered the joy of 10pt Overall Levels and have begun buying those in droves...well, as many as they can afford anyway.

 

 

 

I like the mechanics. I'm just concerned that a player might use a large number of 2 pt OCV-only skill levels to not only hit more often, but crit more often as well under these rules. If it were me, I'd limit it to the 3 pt CSLs or higher.

 

My players haven't abused that yet. They tend to prefer 3pt or better CSL's for their attacks because they like the versatility.

 

 

 

Yeah. How often did Bruce Lee get critted by a generic flunky/underling?

 

Hey, he even laid the smackdown on a young Jackie Chan!

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

My players haven't abused that yet. They tend to prefer 3pt or better CSL's for their attacks because they like the versatility.

 

I'd expect 3 point levels, since they can also be used to enhance the character's DCV, reducing his likelihood of being hit and, against significant opponents, receiving a critical hit.

[archermoo]

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

 

Personaly I use con-stuned as to prevent condfusion between Stunned (the condition) and Stun (the characteristic)

 

Hm. I've never played with someone who had difficulty understanding the difference between Stun, being Stunned, and being Knocked Out. Not even brand new players. I have, however, played with new players who have been confused by other people using Con Stunned, as it implied to them that there is another kind of Stunning that isn't Con related. I'll admit the first time I ever heard it used (here on these boards, or at least a previous incarnation of them) it confused me. As I recall my question at the time was "Is that a house rule, and how is it different than being Stunned?" In my admittedly limited experience with the term it seems to have caused more confusion than it ever cleared up, putting it into the category of a "fix" looking for a problem...

 

But back on to the topic at hand, I generally give some sort of advantage to a natural 3 and some sort of disadvantage to a natural 18, unless of course a 3 was the only thing they could roll to succeed or an 18 was the only thing they could roll and fail. I've toyed with other special success and failure mechanics, but haven't really found one that I like to the exclusion of others.