Alternate Critical Rule

[Rurik]

One of the "problems" with the new combat rules is the perception that they are not as deadly as the previous versions.

In past Runequest a lucky shot with a dagger could kill anyone. That is not so with the current rules against an armored foe.

This is not an invitation for a mass of "use precise attacks" or "use a great axe" responses. That is not always an option. Most rabble have skills 45 or less, and usually aren't trained in advanced tactics.

Mongoose is releasing increased damage tables in S&P, which will make the system more deadly, but I don't feel the difference in lethality is due to the damage tables but to the weakened criticals. RQ 2/3 had specials at 20% that did not ignore armor and criticals at 5% that did ignore armor. MRQ criticals are at 10% and slightly less effective than specials in previous versions.

My simple mod is this: If the critical roll is odd, ignore armor. If it is even, armor counts. This also roughly equates to 1/2 of criticals ignore armor, or the old 5%.

Constructive comments welcome.

 

[Archer]

My simple mod is this: If the critical roll is odd, ignore armor. If it is even, armor counts. This also roughly equates to 1/2 of criticals ignore armor, or the old 5%.

Constructive comments welcome.

That is a nice solution.
Simple without changing too much of the rules.

I think I will adopt that one, unless I come up with something better.

Increasing weapon damage to make the game more lethal are not a really good solution IMHO. It is better to ramp up the damage modifier of average characters. Easier to keep track of also. Just up the damage modifier one step on the scale. If you want it even more lethal, just up it one step more.

Or just use the rule that criticals do x2 damage instead of maximum. That way you get the potential for a more lethal hit, but still retain the average lethalness in the game. A war sword would do 2d8 of damage on a critical hit.

Changing weapon damage are a bad thing, since it will make you have to memorize all those weapon damages all over again.

 

[atgxtg]

I'm waiting until I see the "gritty" weapon damage & critical hit tables in the companion.


Those will probably help out.

 

[Archer]

I'm waiting until I see the "gritty" weapon damage & critical hit tables in the companion.


Those will probably help out.

Thank you for telling me.
I had totally missed that. "Critical Hit tables", that makes me both joyous and nostalgic.

Guess I will have to pre-order the companion asap.

 

[Rurik]

I'm waiting until I see the "gritty" weapon damage & critical hit tables in the companion.


Those will probably help out.

We'll see about the crit table in the companion - I am really looking forward to it to see the rest of the rules. Too bad about the delay.

I don't see the weapon damage as the problem - it is not really that different from earlier versions - it is the nerfed criticals that make the trollkin less deadly. What are the gritty damage tables gonna do, increase dagger damage to 2d4+2? And Great Swords and Axes are plenty deadly in the current table.

In the thread way back when the question was posed (by you I think) "Can a dagger to the head kill in one shot?" the answer was "not if it is armored". Part of the problem is impaling damage is spread out, you still do max plus rolled, only now in two steps. The max is done on the hit, and the rolled is done on the yank. Chain will block the impale. If you just do max+rolled on the hit you can punch through armor on a crit.

But the 'big' difference I think is the ignore armor bit. Now don't get me wrong - I'm all for immunity to Trollkin - but I think adding a way to ignore armor on criticals would return muc of the lethality of the old system back in.

 

[mthomason]

I'm waiting until I see the "gritty" weapon damage & critical hit tables in the companion.


Those will probably help out.

Thank you for telling me.
I had totally missed that. "Critical Hit tables", that makes me both joyous and nostalgic.

Guess I will have to pre-order the companion asap.

Mongoose are going to have to start paying atgxtg commission

 

[atgxtg]

I'm waiting until I see the "gritty" weapon damage & critical hit tables in the companion.


Those will probably help out.

Thank you for telling me.
I had totally missed that. "Critical Hit tables", that makes me both joyous and nostalgic.

Guess I will have to pre-order the companion asap.

Mongoose are going to have to start paying atgxtg commission

Considering how often I am at odds with the MRQ rules it is funny that I end up "plugging" things.

 

[Utgardloki]

Die roll: Armor Ignored: Damage Multiplier:
10% of to hit chance 1/2/3 X2
5% of to hit chance 2/4/6 X3
2% of to hit chance 3/6/9 X4

Armor Ignored: use first figure for bludgeoning weapons, second for slashing, third for piercing.

Damage Multiplier: Roll damage and multiply by the figure.

 

[atgxtg]

I don't see the weapon damage as the problem - it is not really that different from earlier versions - it is the nerfed criticals that make the trollkin less deadly. What are the gritty damage tables gonna do, increase dagger damage to 2d4+2? And Great Swords and Axes are plenty deadly in the current table.

I think that the elmination of total HP, and the slightly greater HP/location also factor in. JUst look at Disrupt. Without total HP, the mass disrupt tactic had sort of flew out the window.

I have OGL Ancients, somthing that uses a different damage tabel than other d20 games, and the new weapon tables there made a big difference. A 1H sword doing 2d6 makes it quite nasty. Ancients had armor absorption and parrying too. I've serious considered swipping the values from Ancients for MRQ. I've also considered just using the RQ3 weapon tables.

Hmmm.. maybe I should be on comission...

In the thread way back when the question was posed (by you I think) "Can a dagger to the head kill in one shot?" the answer was "not if it is armored". Part of the problem is impaling damage is spread out, you still do max plus rolled, only now in two steps. The max is done on the hit, and the rolled is done on the yank. Chain will block the impale. If you just do max+rolled on the hit you can punch through armor on a crit.

But the 'big' difference I think is the ignore armor bit. Now don't get me wrong - I'm all for immunity to Trollkin - but I think adding a way to ignore armor on criticals would return muc of the lethality of the old system back in.

Yeahm, that was me. IMO impales should go back to max+rolled (2nd edtion RQ) or double damage (3rd edtion RQ). Either of which would solve the "wimpy" impale problems.

Or-you could swipe a rule from Usagi Yojimo. Basically, an impale (okay, a stab, UY differeniate between stabs and impales) automatically kicks up the wound severity one step, unless the character retreats. In UY this plays into the whole fludid combat thing that MRQ is suppsed to have too.


Come to think of it, a lot of the UY rules could be incorporated into MRQ, and would really help out too. THe easy rebound, retreat on parries and all that could really spice up MRQ's combat.

 

[atgxtg]

Die roll: Armor Ignored: Damage Multiplier:
10% of to hit chance 1/2/3 X2
5% of to hit chance 2/4/6 X3
2% of to hit chance 3/6/9 X4

Armor Ignored: use first figure for bludgeoning weapons, second for slashing, third for piercing.

Damage Multiplier: Roll damage and multiply by the figure.

This is pretty close to the idea I had for using degress of success in MRQ.

Basically, I was going to halve most the weapon damage dice, and people would roll more dice with greater desgress of success. SO a critical might mean rolling 4 dice instead of one.

 

[Rurik]

Die roll: Armor Ignored: Damage Multiplier:
10% of to hit chance 1/2/3 X2
5% of to hit chance 2/4/6 X3
2% of to hit chance 3/6/9 X4

Armor Ignored: use first figure for bludgeoning weapons, second for slashing, third for piercing.

Damage Multiplier: Roll damage and multiply by the figure.

Ahh yes. A good system, though I might do a 20%/10%/5% scale and drop the damage modifier by 1 per level.

You are the first person on this board I am aware of to bring up the different properties of types of weapons. I personally have liked the Idea af giving Armor different values against types of attacks, such as 3/5/4 for Chain against bludgeon/slashing/thrusting.

I may just go back to the old 20%/5% crit rules from earlier editions, they have never been too complicated for anyone I game with.

The ignore armor on odd rolls was a way to put lethality into crits without changing the published rules that much.

 

[atgxtg]

Die roll: Armor Ignored: Damage Multiplier:
10% of to hit chance 1/2/3 X2
5% of to hit chance 2/4/6 X3
2% of to hit chance 3/6/9 X4

Armor Ignored: use first figure for bludgeoning weapons, second for slashing, third for piercing.

Damage Multiplier: Roll damage and multiply by the figure.

Ahh yes. A good system, though I might do a 20%/10%/5% scale and drop the damage modifier by 1 per level.

You are the first person on this board I am aware of to bring up the different properties of types of weapons. I personally have liked the Idea af giving Armor different values against types of attacks, such as 3/5/4 for Chain against bludgeon/slashing/thrusting.

It is somewhat counter to the whole streamlined and simplified concept that peole seem to be pushing for. You don't see anyone mentioning the old slash and crush rules either.

IMO Harn is worth a look if you want to factor in weapon vs armor.

I may just go back to the old 20%/5% crit rules from earlier editions, they have never been too complicated for anyone I game with.

The ignore armor on odd rolls was a way to put lethality into crits without changing the published rules that much.

 

[Rurik]

It is somewhat counter to the whole streamlined and simplified concept that peole seem to be pushing for.

Well preserving that simplicity was what I was trying to do with the original suggustion. A quick rule, no more math, still just 10% crits, dagger can kill.

You don't see anyone mentioning the old slash and crush rules either.

I do now.
(actually I have almost mentioned them a few times)

IMO Harn is worth a look if you want to factor in weapon vs armor.

I have an old copy but never played it. The rules seemed good. Has it changed much since the middle eighties or so?

 

[atgxtg]

It is somewhat counter to the whole streamlined and simplified concept that peole seem to be pushing for.

Well preserving that simplicity was what I was trying to do with the original suggustion. A quick rule, no more math, still just 10% crits, dagger can kill.

I was referring as to why you didn't see anyone else work up armor vs weapon notes and such. It adds another level of complexity-and most people appear to favor simplicity.

IMO Harn is worth a look if you want to factor in weapon vs armor.

I have an old copy but never played it. The rules seemed good. Has it changed much since the middle eighties or so?[/quote]


Yes & no. The olf edition was good. The revised edtions, maybe. There was a difference of opinin between the author and the game company. THe offical rules were streamlined. THe author's "gold" edition was more complex. but IMO a better game.

I think I'm now an edtion or so behind, and I think that the author and company have parted ways too.

One nice thing about the latter edtions is the addtion of color to the combat tables and the removal of the "points" to a wound severity system. Rather than body point hits, you wend up with punctures, lacerations, burns, abrasions and the like.

It's good, but not for the majoirty of gamers as it is very realistic. A character can easily die from infection rather than the wound.

 

[AKAramis]

A counter solution, simple and elegant:

On a crit, add the to-hit die roll to the maxed damage! Also, don't forget, a number of weapons impale on a crit. This makes crits from skilled opponents potentially much worse (An average town guardsman will have 50%, so it adds 1-5 points to a max damage of typically 9 for glaive and halberd), adds no new tables, and is simple to play.

Now a skill 90 PC could be adding 1-9 points. This assumes, of course, no damage bonus...

It gives a very spiff bonus to legendary level characters, too.

 

[Gnarsh]

In my RQ3 game, we use a simple system that's only slightly modified from the standard rules.

A 20% roll is a special. For impaling weapons, they do double damage. For all other weapons, they do maximum strength bonus.

A 5% roll is a critical. You get the benefits of a special hit plus all armor is halved.

This may seem less lethal then the standard rules, however our crits halve all armor points that may subtract from the damage of the weapon. This includes armor points in a parrying weapon or shield (and include spells as well). Removing all worn amor ends up making crit survival based on parrying or dodging alone, which has the effect of making a lucky hit in a one on one fight often meaningless, but creating a huge advantage for the same lucky hit when a target is outnumbered.

It smoothes out the effect of classic criticals a bit. It's also a small advantage to the players since they're far more likely to end up being outnumbered then the other way around. Getting critted by an unparried opponent is still likely to be damaging, but depending on the wimpiness of the foe and the strength of one's armor/spells it is not always incapacitating. While it's always amusing to have the uber runelord felled by a lucky critical from a small duck, it's sometimes a problem for the GM since you're often having to challenge high powered groups by outnumbering them, and this makes for a "random death" scenario that will happen often. Which in turn makes high power characters more suceptible to sudden death rather then less (which seems unintuitive to me).

That's just how we do it. YMMV.

 

[Licheking]

To be honest i found Impale quite lethal under the current rules. Max damage then you make an Athletics check, if you make it it does the same damage (i rule that this is direct to HP because its already in the victim) and is out of the person, if you fail then it does 1d4 additional (again straight to HP).

So ok some weapons can't get through armour, but that does still mean you have impaled the armour then, if you make the Athletics check why not allow the piece of armour be pulled off?

I also added in Crits for Blunt and slashing weapons, Blunt ignore armour when they crit, and slashing weapons cause bleeding to the location damaged. With limbs transfering damage to the abdomen or chest.

 

[Itto]

I always liked different weapon types having different effects. I carried forward a rule from RQ II to RQ III and have alterted it for MRQ, that was crushes and slashing as well a impailing.

• 
  Impailing no change to RAW .
  Slashing roll weapon damage twice (makes Great Axes and Great Swords leathel, but also balances Bastard Swords and Broadswords to Spears)
  Crushing weapons ignor armour on a critical and the target has to roll to avoid being knocked back, even if the damage is less than their SIZ.

 

[Archer]

I always liked different weapon types having different effects. I carried forward a rule from RQ II to RQ III and have alterted it for MRQ, that was crushes and slashing as well a impailing.

• 
  Impailing no change to RAW .
  Slashing roll weapon damage twice (makes Great Axes and Great Swords leathel, but also balances Bastard Swords and Broadswords to Spears)
  Crushing weapons ignor armour on a critical and the target has to roll to avoid being knocked back, even if the damage is less than their SIZ.

Intresting alterations. But I see a problem with the rule for Crushing weapons. Imagine a Duck with a tiny warhammer dealing critical damage to a great troll. While certainly adding comedy to the game, it is not always desirable.

May I suggest that you add the following; ...and if the attacker's SIZ is not less than 3 from the target.

 

[Itto]

Intresting alterations. But I see a problem with the rule for Crushing weapons. Imagine a Duck with a tiny warhammer dealing critical damage to a great troll. While certainly adding comedy to the game, it is not always desirable.

May I suggest that you add the following; ...and if the attacker's SIZ is not less than 3 from the target.

I see what you mean, but it all depends on how involved you want rules. The Duck may have crushed a toe, causing a Troll to hop back (comady), or kneecap (ow), or nuts (even more ow) funny bone (ooooh), jaw etc. It might not be the force that knocks the Troll back, it might be the Trolls reaction to the place being hit. Or stumbling while parrying.

IN RQ II cushing weapons did max damage bonus, which ment that there was a sense why big things used crushing weapon (bar availablity). But with the streamlined damage bonus (which I realy like btw) I had to opt for something else.

But as I said I just like different weapons having different flavours and effects. I'm up for any ideas realy.