Damage Modifier.

[Trifletraxor]

I'm not entirely happy with the Damge Modifier table, as it kinda moves a bit irregularly and stops at 100 STR+SIZ. The old RQ table stopped at a lower level than that, but had a formula of how to calculate higher damage mods too. Also, I don't like having +-1D2 as a damage modifier as there is no such dice. Anyone who's done any houserule work with the damage modifier? Created a new table, or made some formula to calulate higher mods?

SGL.

 

[Utgardloki]

I would simply extend the table, with each +10 increasing the dice. The progression would be determined as follows:

nD6
nD8
nD10
nD12
2nD6

and repeat, where n starts with 1. (I forget where this matches up with the current table.)

Another possibility I considered was to have each +20 increase the dice instead of each +10. I'm thinking that STR+SIZ scores above 100 should be rare enough that it does not make a lot of difference, but it makes sense if scores up to 50 increase the damage modifier for each +5, and scores 51-100 increase the damage modifier for each +10, then scores 101-200 increase the damage modifier for each +20.

On the other hand, my theory is that STR and SIZ scores should be logarithmic, so if you're facing someone who's STR + SIZ is 241, that guy is TOUGH. :shock:

Still, perhaps for 101+, each +20 increases the damage modifier, whether STR + SIZ is 101 or 1101. (STR + SIZ of 1101 means this guy really should be able to smash up a planet. You do NOT want to take a direct hit from a guy like that.)

Another rule I've added is that instead of having Martial Arts do 1D6 damage, regardless of score, instead a character with the Martial Arts Strike advanced skill can add 1/5 his skill % to his STR + SIZ to determine his damage modifier unarmed or with a martial arts weapon. (Note, this is added to STR + SIZ to determine the damage modifier, NOT to the damage modifier itself.)

As to the low end of the scale, I suppose that instead of -1D2, you can just have -2. That way you don't have to roll the dice. Otherwise, the way I do 1D2 is simply roll D20 and consider 1-10 to be 1 and 11-20 to be 2. You can use a D6, D8, D10, or D12, but I like D20 the best.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

The SRD table scales up to 200, and makes it pretty obvious where things go from there (xd10, xd12, (x + 1)d10, (x + 1)d12, etc in groups of 20).

 

[Trifletraxor]

The SRD table scales up to 200, and makes it pretty obvious where things go from there (xd10, xd12, (x + 1)d10, (x + 1)d12, etc in groups of 20).

Thank you for the tip. That should cover most situations.

As to the low end of the scale, I suppose that instead of -1D2, you can just have -2. That way you don't have to roll the dice. Otherwise, the way I do 1D2 is simply roll D20 and consider 1-10 to be 1 and 11-20 to be 2. You can use a D6, D8, D10, or D12, but I like D20 the best.

Hmm... But I don't really like to roll dices like that. Only time I feel forced to do that is with the good old POW roll. I think I'll skip those intervals, and just increase the 0 damage modifier range to 16-30.

I don't really feel happy with the lessening of impact of the damage modifier, but I gotta keep the general range if I'm supposed to be able to play MRQ scenarios in the future (in the hope that they do produce some good ones).

Thank you both for the good ideas!

SGL.

 

[Trifletraxor]

...and I think I'll change the -1D6 range from 6-10 all the way down, 1-10. Otherwise a couple of miny moes fighting would never be albe to damage each other.

SGL.

 

[iamtim]

I don't like having +-1D2 as a damage modifier as there is no such dice.

Sure there is -- built in to any other numbered die. Roll dWhatever, and read evens and odds as 2 and 1 respectively.

 

[Trifletraxor]

I don't like having +-1D2 as a damage modifier as there is no such dice.

Sure there is -- built in to any other numbered die. Roll dWhatever, and read evens and odds as 2 and 1 respectively.

As I said, I don't really like to roll dices like that (unless it's important, like the POW roll of course). 1D2, feels like a waste of time, which is why I'll skip it in my games.

SGL.

 

[Trifletraxor]

I guess the lowering of the damage modifiers are done to make the game more "heroic," giving high-power characters a bigger chance to defeat colossal monsters.

Not really sure what I think about that. :?

SGL.

 

[Utgardloki]

I was running some numbers in my head during my drive home, and have decided that I like the nD12 -> (2n)D6 progression better than the xD12 -> (x+1)D10 progression.

xD12 -> (x+1)D10 (official SRD) The problems with this is that it leads to large jumps in average values, and once the damage modifier gets above 6D12, then increasing to the next step can actually decreas the damage you do (6D12 averages 39 hp damage; 7D10 averages 38.5 hp damage; this problem gets worse at higher levels).

nD12 -> (2n)D6 (D20 progression, and the one I intend to use). This always leads to increasing average damage with each step. A "disadvantage" is that it requires large numbers of d8s and d12s, which are typically not sold in sets as d6s and d10s are. But the official progression has the same problem with d12s.

1D12 -> 2D6 -> 3D6 -> ... (Add 1d6 for each step above the "end" of the MRQ rulebook table). Average damage goes up faster than in the progression I plan to use. But this is the simplest progression, and only uses lots of d6s, which tend to be common. (You can buy them in sets of 5 from just about anywhere.)

Of course, many people won't be playing at levels where the official progression leads to 6D12 or more. I didn't calculate what kind of creature would be required to do that much damage. I have a philosophy that my Runequest game should be ready for anything, though. I might even want to run a Runequest Supers game someday.

 

[Trifletraxor]

xD12 -> (x+1)D10 (official SRD) The problems with this is that it leads to large jumps in average values, and once the damage modifier gets above 6D12, then increasing to the next step can actually decreas the damage you do (6D12 averages 39 hp damage; 7D10 averages 38.5 hp damage; this problem gets worse at higher levels).

nD12 -> (2n)D6 (D20 progression, and the one I intend to use). This always leads to increasing average damage with each step. A "disadvantage" is that it requires large numbers of d8s and d12s, which are typically not sold in sets as d6s and d10s are. But the official progression has the same problem with d12s.

I like the idea. However, the Mongoose damage modifier progression flattens out after a while. If you take a look on Mother of Monsters, with a total STR+SIZ of 4258, she only has 18D12 (should have been closer to 105D12 following the progression from the SDR damage modifier table). I remember that creature to have a damage modifier of several D100 in RQ3.

SGL.

 

[Deleriad]

At the moment I'm thinking of using something like
STR+ SIZ Damage Modifier
1–5 -1d6
6–10 -1d4
11–15 -1d3
16–20 +0
21–25 +0
26–30 +d3
31–35 +d4
36–40 +d6
41–45 +d8
46–50 +d10
51–60 +2d6
61–70 +3d6
71–80 +4d6
81–90 +5d6
91–100 +6d6
101–120 +7d6
121–140 +8d6
141–160 +9d6
161–180 +1d6 for each +20

The problem with changing the damage modifier is that suddenly it means you can't just run with published creature stats and that is a pain. I do though, find that there's something about MRQ damage modifier that does not sit right with me. Too many break points, too flat in the upper ranges and so on. That and it uses d12 and I can do without needing d12s.

 

[Trifletraxor]

The problem with changing the damage modifier is that suddenly it means you can't just run with published creature stats and that is a pain. I do though, find that there's something about MRQ damage modifier that does not sit right with me. Too many break points, too flat in the upper ranges and so on. That and it uses d12 and I can do without needing d12s.

Fully agree. I feel I can't change the modifier too much because I'm still hoping for some good published scenarios for MRQ to play, but at the same time I don't like it as it is now. A great troll isn't really that scary anymore when his 3D6 damage modifier is reduced to 1D12.

I'll probably just gonna cut away the -1D8 and +-1D2 modifiers, cause I don't wan't to give my players advantages over opponents in future supplements. :?

SGL.

 

[Utgardloki]

I think Deleriad's proposed system is fine. It certainly is a lot simpler. And I don't think it would be a big problem to just change all the damage modifiers. I usually write up my own notes for a published scenario, changing lots of details to better fit my own campaign or even my own philosophy.

Myself, I like using d12s, so I'll post my own table to the Runequest Wiki when I get a chance.

The disadvantage of Deleriad's system is the large number of d6s required for very powerful creatures. The D6 game system has a rule where each 10D6 can just be considered to total 35 in order to reduce the number of dice that need to be rolled, so that problem is easily handled.

(I may have misremembered the D6 game system rule, but I distinctly remember a rule like that.)

 

[Trifletraxor]

D6 and D12, both are fine. Deleriad's system is better than the MRQ modifier, but I try to walk the thin line between houseruling the system into something my RQ3 players will accept, and still be able to use the MRQ scenarios. Using Deleriad's system, I'll have to recalculate damage modifiers for all the opponents in future supplements. The system is good, but will give me lots of work. :wink:

SGL.