Critical Hits in the Hero System

[Duke Bushido]

Thanks, Shrike.

 

Much appreciate you posting your interesting Critcal Rules, and look forward to using the Epiphany rules.

 

 

[BoloOfEarth]

I use the "3 = max damage/effect" method of critical successes.  And keep in mind that I only run Champions, so this may be different for heroic-level characters.

 

I don't really see the PCs taking all that many more attacks than they dish out.  Most of the time, the bad guys are roughly equal in number to the good guys.  I usually combine agent-level foes into groups (each group making one attack roll, one damage roll, etc.)  So if 6 PCs are facing off against, say, 5 bad guys and their dozen thugs, those thugs might be broken into two groups of 6.  So that means 7 attack rolls versus the PCs' 6 attacks per Phase (assuming roughly equal SPDs).  Not a huge difference.

 

And even if you do roll for every one of the lower-level thugs, well, then you're more likely to get those extra critical hits from them than from the bigger bad guys (since you're making significantly more agent attack rolls than supervillain attacks).  And those agents' attacks are probably less damaging than the big-bad's attacks (e.g. instead of the supervillain's 12d6 EB, you have the agent's 8-9d6).  All a crit from a lower-powered character does is make that one hit just a bit more powerful than the the big bad's average attack.

 

All of that said, there's also a PC in my current Champions campaign who has a Luck spell (for a few minutes, he can give people 5d6 Luck), and the way we use that is to roll the dice of Luck before combat and count BODY.  The total is what can be added to rolls during the fight, and each "6" rolled also provides one re-roll for the character.  I think I'll also allow them to spend a re-roll to turn a foe's critical success into a normal success.

[Hugh Neilson]

On 10/19/2018 at 10:24 AM, BoloOfEarth said:

I don't really see the PCs taking all that many more attacks than they dish out.  Most of the time, the bad guys are roughly equal in number to the good guys.  I usually combine agent-level foes into groups (each group making one attack roll, one damage roll, etc.)  So if 6 PCs are facing off against, say, 5 bad guys and their dozen thugs, those thugs might be broken into two groups of 6.  So that means 7 attack rolls versus the PCs' 6 attacks per Phase (assuming roughly equal SPDs).  Not a huge difference.

 

The issue is that, over the course of the campaign, the PCs are attacked in every combat, and the NPCs are attacked in only a few.

 

So 3 does max damage means 1 in 216 rolls inflicts max damage.  The PC will be attacked more than 216 times in a campaign.  NPCs will not, and they are easily replaced if one gets killed off with a lucky roll.

[dsatow]

I generally don't use crits because while its fine to do to someone else, players playing superheroes generally don't want to be knocked out/take stun from a small pistol.  Crits tend to be fine if there is always an ever present sense of mortality like in most heroic level games.  In supers, even Batman like games, crits aren't as welcome because there seems to be some unspoken rule that most supers are unto gods (or demigods).

 

[Duke Bushido]

18 minutes ago, dsatow said:

I generally don't use crits because while its fine to do to someone else, players playing superheroes generally don't want to be knocked out/take stun from a small pistol.  Crits tend to be fine if there is always an ever present sense of mortality like in most heroic level games.  In supers, even Batman like games, crits aren't as welcome because there seems to be some unspoken rule that most supers are unto gods (or demigods).

 

 

I know what you mean.  Players that want to use them want it to be a one-way street.  I don't mind that idea in a lot of systems, but in a system renowned for its "get what you pay for" design parameters, that one way street is a lot of damage / defense (by defense, I mean the presumed player immunity to running into the crits they want to dish out) that you'd get without paying for it. 

 

But even then, that's not why I generally don't use them.  Someone earlier put it into words better than I could: the critical hit was implemented in a different system to address a shortcoming in that system.  It's a shortcorming that HERO doesn't have. 

 

But even then, that's not why I don't use them. 

 

Now I _have_ run games where making a roll by half of what you needed allowed some minor bonus: less time or more details learned or better quality work, etc, and making 1/4 or less what you needed allowed a bit more bonus than that, up to and including a meta game bonus like a die modifier the next time you use the skill or fight that opponent. 

 

I don't use the traditional "getting the lowest roll possible is a critical hit" concept for two basic reasons:

1) in Champions, traditionally, the characters are good guys. They aren't necessarily out to kill.  Someone wanting to deliver a stunning blow to subdue someone, who then scores a roll that indicates perfect success, is likely going to be disappointed to discover that he has done grievous bodily harm to someone. 

 

But even that can be worked around by simply ignoring your "opportunity" to maximize the pain.  ("can I save it for later?" )

 

The biggest reason I don't use it is because of those odd occasions where _only_ a 3 will bring you success.  It could be an attack roll; it could be a Skill or Characteristic Check.  If you _must_ have a 3, this suggests that you are doing something so far above your competency that it makes no sense to me that the only way you can succeed is flawlessly.  Say two characters are clanging swords, and one of them _must_ have a 3 to hit.  (like if I personally were to draw a sword and attack Conan or something).  I have a hard time swallowing that for a five-minute fight, I only hit him twice, but every time I touched him it was a critical hit.  Game-wise, there is nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't sit well with me. 

 

It is for this reason that I prefer the "made it by half / made it by 1/4" idea: if you are so out of your league that you need a 6 or less to succeed, you still have the chance to succeed, but there is no chance you will make it by rolling 1/4 of your target number.  To me, this more accurately simulates Skill level by leaving the chance of success in place, but removing the chance to demonstrate a superiority that isn't there. 

 

The drawbacks are obvious: if you need any number below 6, you are not going to make half your target number.  If you need less than 10, you are not going to make 1/4 your target number.  Honestly, I feel that's reasonable: a person with a high degree of proficiency doing routine tasks _should_ get outstanding results more often than someone who is much less talented (or trained, or what-have-you).  Establishing "3 is automatically critical" or a "phenomenal success" adds a bit of the spectacular; I won't deny that.   But it does it for the completely unskilled just as often as it does it for the wizened master who devoted his life to the subject at hand. 

 

Another potential drawback to the way I do it is the obvious mathematical fact that "special success" will occur much more often than do "nat 3s.". This is well-compensated for by reducing the value of the "prize.". Rather than double damage, maybe max damage, or a couple of dice of damage, or those two points of BODY needed to CON stun the opponent, and things smaller and greater.  Just a wider variety of smaller payoffs keeps the game fresh without upsetting the balance of a scenario too badly (like having the informant hospitalized might do). 

 

I'd like to take a minute to shout out to Killer Shrike, who posted many ideas on "crits," including the "Epiphany Point," which I was rather taken with.  I tried it with my youth group Sunday afternoon (wanted to try it with the Kids before dropping it on the grown ups tomorrow night). 

 

It's a neat way to reward a player for something that traditionally RPGs reward for.  However, after Sunday's game, I am going to think about adding a cap (one of the girls rolled enough natural 3s to take her MD up two levels!). I am thinking maybe no more than 2 in any one Skill, and no more than 3 in any one session.  I mean, even if you can't spend then anywhere you want to, 3 bonus eepees is a _lot_ for one session!

 

 

 

 

[Brian Stanfield]

33 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

It's a neat way to reward a player for something that traditionally RPGs reward for.  However, after Sunday's game, I am going to think about adding a cap (one of the girls rolled enough natural 3s to take her MD up two levels!). I am thinking maybe no more than 2 in any one Skill, and no more than 3 in any one session.  I mean, even if you can't spend then anywhere you want to, 3 bonus eepees is a _lot_ for one session! 

 

You may consider instead giving an XP for each 3 rolled, only to be added to the skill. That way it would take more than one roll to raise the skill level.

[Duke Bushido]

20 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

 

You may consider instead giving an XP for each 3 rolled, only to be added to the skill. That way it would take more than one roll to raise the skill level.

Yes; that was the "Epiphany Points" system Shrike proposed and we tried.  As luck would have it, I had one player get eight natural 3s using the same skill over the course of the adventure.  

 

I am looking for a susoensory medium just dense enough to float her dice.

[Hugh Neilson]

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

The biggest reason I don't use it is because of those odd occasions where _only_ a 3 will bring you success.  It could be an attack roll; it could be a Skill or Characteristic Check.  If you _must_ have a 3, this suggests that you are doing something so far above your competency that it makes no sense to me that the only way you can succeed is flawlessly.  Say two characters are clanging swords, and one of them _must_ have a 3 to hit.  (like if I personally were to draw a sword and attack Conan or something).  I have a hard time swallowing that for a five-minute fight, I only hit him twice, but every time I touched him it was a critical hit.  Game-wise, there is nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't sit well with me. 

 

I like the d20 solution that a max roll (or the roll needed for a crit) must be confirmed by rolling a second successful roll to hit, although that is an extra die roll.  If a potential crit only arises on a roll of 3, and you need a 3 to hit, you now need to roll two consecutive 3's - still possible, but not at all likely.  In your five minute fight, you still to pretty well to get 2 3's (1 chance in 216 rolls).  Rolling two consecutive 3s is 1 chance in 46,656.  Assuming a 2 SPD (so 10 attacks per minute), you need a 21.6 minute battle to make 216 rolls.  You have to fight for 77.76 straight hours to make 46,656 rolls.

[Ockham's Spoon]

As mentioned earlier, it depends on what you want critical hits to do.  Max damage is kind of the default, but not the only option.  In my games if the roll is under half of what is needed to hit, the player can roll twice for the damage and then take the greater (or lesser) of the two rolls.  That means really good To-Hit rolls tend to be more effective, which makes intuitive sense, but it isn't max damage so it isn't as unbalancing.  Also, because PC's tend to have better OCV & DCV relative to low-level thugs, it is a mechanic that mostly benefits the players.

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I like the d20 solution that a max roll (or the roll needed for a crit) must be confirmed by rolling a second successful roll to hit, although that is an extra die roll.  If a potential crit only arises on a roll of 3, and you need a 3 to hit, you now need to roll two consecutive 3's - still possible, but not at all likely.

 

 

Worse yet, I'm pretty sure I'm a Speed 1.

 

 

I like the extra roll to confirm a crit, at least if a crit is your only chance of hitting at all.  It also slides the odds way down, to where you would expect them to be when the odds of success at all are already extremely low. 

 

Borrowing inspiration from the long list of ideas Killer Shrike posted, even just adding a 4th die in a different color to determine if a success was critical (assuming a critical was the only successful hit) and deciding that only if it is also a one is the hit actually critical--  even that adds a bit more realism (though the odds are still far better than having to roll a second "critical success." 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Ockham's Spoon said:

As mentioned earlier, it depends on what you want critical hits to do.  Max damage is kind of the default, but not the only option.  In my games if the roll is under half of what is needed to hit, the player can roll twice for the damage and then take the greater (or lesser) of the two rolls.  That means really good To-Hit rolls tend to be more effective, which makes intuitive sense, but it isn't max damage so it isn't as unbalancing.  Also, because PC's tend to have better OCV & DCV relative to low-level thugs, it is a mechanic that mostly benefits the players.

 

Adding choice seems to make the crit more valuable, and probably more dramatic.  Perhaps you get to choose your hit location (with the attendant results, possibly impairing or disabling, also allowing you to choose to hit a focus instead of the target).  Maybe you can also modify the maneuver - what if you could, on a critical, decide to Disarm the target, or Trip him, either instead of, or in addition to, normal damage?  We could probably come up with lots of great options for that Crit to be a bonus, but not one which devastates a PC when the dice favour the villain.

[Duke Bushido]

8 hours ago, Ockham's Spoon said:

the player can roll twice for the damage and then take the greater (or lesser) of the two rolls.  That means really good To-Hit rolls tend to be more effective, which makes intuitive sense, but it isn't max damage so it isn't as unbalancing.  Also, because PC's tend to have better OCV & DCV relative to low-level thugs, it is a mechanic that mostly benefits the players.

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Adding choice seems to make the crit more valuable, and probably more dramatic.  Perhaps you get to choose your hit location (with the attendant results, possibly impairing or disabling, also allowing you to choose to hit a focus instead of the target).  Maybe you can also modify the maneuver - what if you could, on a critical, decide to Disarm the target, or Trip him, either instead of, or in addition to, normal damage?  We could probably come up with lots of great options for that Crit to be a bonus, but not one which devastates a PC when the dice favour the villain.

 

 

Gentlemen (I assume, Spoon; sorry if I am wrong),  I am _in love_ with this sort of idea!  Not just because it rewards the spectacular success, but because it rewards it in a more appropriate way:  

 

The "pick from two effect rolls", for instance, allows the player to get _more_ of what he was trying for, even he was specifically (say in the case of subdual as opposed to just beating senseless) trying for _less_ than maximum effectiveness: the rewards become better-suited to demonstrating superior skill by demonstrating superior _control_ over the outcome: just as a more highly-skilled person would better get the exact results he disired, so should anyone who has used his Skill better or more perfectly than usual. 

 

I really, really like this. 

[dsatow]

9 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

 

Gentlemen (I assume, Spoon; sorry if I am wrong),  I am _in love_ with this sort of idea!  Not just because it rewards the spectacular success, but because it rewards it in a more appropriate way:  

 

The "pick from two effect rolls", for instance, allows the player to get _more_ of what he was trying for, even he was specifically (say in the case of subdual as opposed to just beating senseless) trying for _less_ than maximum effectiveness: the rewards become better-suited to demonstrating superior skill by demonstrating superior _control_ over the outcome: just as a more highly-skilled person would better get the exact results he disired, so should anyone who has used his Skill better or more perfectly than usual. 

 

I really, really like this. 

 

The only problem here is the Wil Wheaton syndrome: the guy who will get two rolls and both fail badly.  For instance, I can roll 10d6 and get 24 stun on the roll and roll a second time and get 25 stun.  That doesn't feel like a great crit.   Maybe, re-roll all 1s and/or 2s? 

[Amorkca]

Something that I've done as a result of rolling a "3".

 

You have a 12d6 EB, you roll a "3" to hit;  I've added 6 more dice to the pool to be rolled, roll 18d6 keep the top 12.

 

Just throwing this in the ring...

[Hugh Neilson]

That could be "roll 6 more dice, discard the 6 of your choice" if you want more choice.

 

You can keep the 5's and ditch the 6s if you're hoping to max out STUN and limit BOD...

[dsatow]

9 hours ago, Amorkca said:

Something that I've done as a result of rolling a "3".

 

You have a 12d6 EB, you roll a "3" to hit;  I've added 6 more dice to the pool to be rolled, roll 18d6 keep the top 12.

 

Just throwing this in the ring...

 

But what if its a 1/2d6 KA with a +12 Stun Mod?

[Duke Bushido]

4 hours ago, dsatow said:

+12 Stun Mod?

 

(asking because I recall don't remember) 

 

Is that legal in 6? 

[Amorkca]

No one had Killing Attacks so we didn't have to fuss over that option...

 

If we did, I'd have allowed them to use an additional half d6 and take the higher roll...

[dsatow]

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

(asking because I recall don't remember) 

 

Is that legal in 6? 

 

It's legal, but most sane GMs would blanche when looking at it.  +12 Stun is a +4 advantage and was more effective in 5th than 6th.

[Duke Bushido]

If it's not too much trouble, can you enlighten me a bit on the "more effective?"

 

I ask because even though I _did_ make it through the Powers section of 6, I didn't pay much attention to Stun multiplier in 6 (or 5 either, for that matter) as I've used a house rule for about twenty years to avoid the whole "Stun Lotto" problem.

[CptPatriot]

How do people feel about using your own points to make your own critical construct with extra dice that ties in with an 8- activation roll or To Hit roll whichever is lower?

[unclevlad]

I am not a fan of crits doing massive damage, or at least not normally.  I do remember a situation where the player took some time to go quietly around the side, then lined up the shot...then rolled the crit.  That was worth a response.  

 

But overall, crits hurt the players more than they help.  By and large, it's expected the PCs will win anyway, altho that can be a near thing in Hero.  So if they crit, they win easier...but they still win.  If they crit the boss fight and cripple/take him out quickly...the whole buildup gets flushed down the toilet.  If they get critted, as was noted, the consequences are pretty major.  A killing attack may become lethal, and generally will lay the affected PC out for the count for QUITE a while (max stun on a 3d6 KA is 90, remember).  And even max Stun on a regular attack is probably going to stun any non-brick type.

 

As a side note:  when you consider incorporating crit rules, ask yourself what level of defenses you'd buy if those rules are in place.

 

Over in the Champs Now discussion, one thing mentioned was that killing dice in general are exceptionally problematic because the variance is SO high.  Quite often they do absolutely nothing;  occasionally they're bloody devastating.  Crits throw in massive high-side variance, if you're doing damage.  And particularly if you're using them with KAs.

 

There are dramatic-crit approaches...you could impose OCV or DCV penalties, or a mobility penalty or loss of some maneuvers if that's significant.  ("That right knee's too smashed up for you to try a kick;  it won't hold up.")

[IndianaJoe3]

10 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

If it's not too much trouble, can you enlighten me a bit on the "more effective?"

 

I ask because even though I _did_ make it through the Powers section of 6, I didn't pay much attention to Stun multiplier in 6 (or 5 either, for that matter) as I've used a house rule for about twenty years to avoid the whole "Stun Lotto" problem.

 

The, "Stun Lotto" was the problem.

[BoloOfEarth]

On a side note, last night I ran a Champions combat where no crits were rolled.  However, two heroes were caught in the blast of a Claymore mine, which I had written up as  3d6+1 RKA, AoE Cone.  And then I rolled three 6's for the BODY, and a 3 for the STUN mod.  Major injuries and both PCs CON-stunned.  Sometimes the dice are just like that, whether on the attack roll or the damage roll (though it's far more likely to get three 1's than, say, twelve 6's if the attack is a 12d6 Blast).

[dsatow]

On 10/26/2018 at 6:36 PM, Duke Bushido said:

If it's not too much trouble, can you enlighten me a bit on the "more effective?"

 

I ask because even though I _did_ make it through the Powers section of 6, I didn't pay much attention to Stun multiplier in 6 (or 5 either, for that matter) as I've used a house rule for about twenty years to avoid the whole "Stun Lotto" problem.

 

Yeah, this has to do with the stun lottery and the fact that at +1/4 +1 Stun is slightly under valued (and thus more effective).  I've calculated it out a long time ago and the actual value of +1 Stun is something close to +1/3.

 

Anyways, in 5th, 

1d6K 1d6+11 Stun mod on average would do  say 3 Body and 42 Stun (assuming a 3,3).  A 4,4 roll would be 4 Body and 56 Stun.

15d6N would do 15 Body and 52 Stun.

 

This sounds fine on the short view of things, but because of the variance, aka Stun Lotto, the 15d6N would vary almost 80% between 45-60 Stun and maxing out stun would take astronomical odds.  While the killing attack had a  33% to do average stun (above) and a 33% chance to get a a good result (80 -102).

 

One of my keebler elf style attacks in 5th was the "Electrodarts" 1d6K Autofire(3) +9 STUN 64 charges at 60 active points.  This gave a 1 in 3 chance to do (70-84) Stun.  Against bricks with a lower DCV, 1-3 volleys were usually all it took.