Damage modifiers

[gamesmeister]

Which is why no-one will parry with a weapon anymore. Why would anyone try to parry with a sword when it only subtracts 4 points of damage? Everyone will walk around with shields.

Bear in mind that
a) not everyone can carry the big kite shields, so you're often looking at a Target Shield instead. 8 points is certainly pretty good, but it won't stop a big hit.
b) Advancement is a lot slower if you have to split your experience across two skills (weapon + shield, as opposed to just weapon)
c) Lots of people just like the big damage done by two handed weapons
d) Some cultures will tend to use 2H weapons because of their natural way of fighting e.g. Greek pikemen

Actually, it's not that easy. I would have preferred to use RQ3, as that system isn't full of broken rules that need houseruling before play (dedicated POW, incorrect tables, bypass armor attacks, etc.), but I still want to use MRQ'a adventures. If I houserule the damage modifiers, I'll have to change it for all the opponents in future supplements too.

As an aside, I see no problem with the bypass armour precise attack. The problem lies with the Armour Skill penalty, which should be based on current encumbrance rather than APs.

 

[badside bill]

badside bill wrote:

no i am definately not that afraid any more, besides these days highly skilled elven fighters would be better. they have usually more combat actions and they strike before the giant. the one thing i could imagine would be a logic consequence to all this is large scale giant hunting..i mean if you have a party of newbees and who wants a kick start, why not take out a giant?


Why not take out a giant? Because when the giant hits and your newbie fails to parry/dodge, he's one dead newbie. If you take the 6m tall giant from the Monsters SRD, he will average 20 pts of damage per hit, and given his massive STR his starting skill is also very high. Even if this is parried you've still got a 2m knockback to worry about, on top of the damage that gets through.

I suggest you run some practice combats and see how long your group of newbies lasts...

well i love to test it, i think i even the group is going to land that giant in the end. i mean my newbies have 2 hero points right? i think they will get use for those combine with some spells and some longbow missile weapons and of course a good old swinging battle axe, preferrably with bladesharp on it..., definatly worth a go i think.

 

[gamesmeister]

well i love to test it, i think i even the group is going to land that giant in the end. i mean my newbies have 2 hero points right? i think they will get use for those combine with some spells and some longbow missile weapons and of course a good old swinging battle axe, preferrably with bladesharp on it..., definatly worth a go i think.

You're getting away from the original topic here, which is about damage bonuses on large creatures. Spells were just as effective against previous versions of giants, as were longbow missile weapons and bladesharp. You could go hunting a giant in the past using these things.

With 3pt skin, high weapon skills, an avg of 18-19 hit points per location, and a big ass club, my money is on the giant

 

[Rurik]

A couple points here.

First off, it is unfair to take hero points into evaluating the difference between characters abilities to fight big creatures. Hero points are a separate rule change that have nothing to do with the combat changes (other than that they can be used in combat).

Second off, RQ 2/3 characters had one big advantage in that criticals were much deadlier in that system. In most old RQ games where the players killed giants and dream dragons and the like it was usually with a big critical.

Finally, I have found that big creatures are still pretty devastating in MRQ. The lack of total HP and the importance of Resilience affect the combats way more than the change to Damage Modifier. Small guys have a much harder time wearing away at big guys. Want your giant to be tough? give him a 90 resilience, he will eat up the newbs. Want him to be (relatively) easy? Give him a 40 resilience.

Honestly, what bothers me most about the new Damage Modifiers is the low end. The average Trollkin gets -1d2, and the average Scout Dragonewt gets -1d4 (!). This pretty much makes them completely innefectual (add to this the fact that even with a crit they aren't going to be doing much damage and there is little reason to fear them).

EDIT: In previous editions neither had a damage penalty even though the stats are the same.

Though from a personal standpoint I like any rule that makes Trollkin less deadly. :wink:

 

[badside bill]

well back to topic then...
my generally opinion is that the large strong creatures provess is generally weakened and i think it is because of some certain principp of not rolling so many dices. what i try point out here is that you get biiig creatures doing tiny damage. that is something i can`t very well imagine. as i said in the beginning what i thought was dangerous with the old damage modifiers was that you at least expect a 7 points of damage from a giants club, and that would appear soo seldom that even hoping for it would be far out fishing so to speak.
what i see now is that the minimum damage is very low. almost at the point that it hardly moves a child. that doesn`t very vell describe a huge creature swinging a blow against anyone.
say you have an insanely big monster doing a 1d100 in damage bonus, and you got 01 on the die roll...i don`t see this as good way to describe neither muscle power nor huge size.

 

[badside bill]

Honestly, what bothers me most about the new Damage Modifiers is the low end. The average Trollkin gets -1d2, and the average Scout Dragonewt gets -1d4 (!). This pretty much makes them completely innefectual (add to this the fact that even with a crit they aren't going to be doing much damage and there is little reason to fear them).

here i have to agree.
first of all i think even if you are siz 6 and have a str on 8 and considered to be the puniest of things, you still manages to cut meat with a knife.
i think it is far better to give them no bonus instead of penalise them.
i think many don`t prefer playing weak creatures just because of the - modificator.

 

[Rurik]

WHile it is really a matter of preference I tend to like using less big dice than more smaller dice. More smaller dice clumps the odds greatly at the middle range of results while less bigger dice gives a more even spread.

As has been pointed out, 2d12 is more likely to resilt in a 2, but also more likely to result in a 24.

And I think it is possible for a giant to strike a glancing blow with his massive club. Even if he rolls very bad minimum damage is enough to likely disable an unarmored limb.

Take for example bullets as an analogy. A .22 will often cause a relatively minor wound, while a .50 cal MG round will likely devastate whatever it hits. But it is still entirely possible to be grazed by the .50 cal round - not every hit is absolutely positively going to kill (just most of them).

 

[Trifletraxor]

well i love to test it, i think i even the group is going to land that giant in the end. i mean my newbies have 2 hero points right? i think they will get use for those combine with some spells and some longbow missile weapons and of course a good old swinging battle axe, preferrably with bladesharp on it..., definatly worth a go i think.

You're getting away from the original topic here, which is about damage bonuses on large creatures. Spells were just as effective against previous versions of giants, as were longbow missile weapons and bladesharp. You could go hunting a giant in the past using these things.

With 3pt skin, high weapon skills, an avg of 18-19 hit points per location, and a big ass club, my money is on the giant

Off topic I know. I think giant-hunting is something that would be very dangerous for newbies, which is why I suggested to bring the über-powerful longbow and skybolt-spell, which are much more deadly than anything similar from previous editions.

Experienced guys with good equipment could probably go hunting though, something which was pretty unthinkable before.

SGL.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Yeah, I can remember scenes like this:

[GM]: You see a group of Trollkin in the cave in front of you.

[Players]: :shock:

[GM]: I said trollkin!

[Players]: Yes, we know. How many 18-pt Shortspear criticals and 16-pt sling criticals are you going to roll this time?

 

[Quire]

With 3pt skin, high weapon skills, an avg of 18-19 hit points per location, and a big ass club, my money is on the giant

Is it bad of me that I read this as "my monkey is on the giant" and thought "wow, that monkey's as tough as a giant - good call!"?

- Q

 

[badside bill]

WHile it is really a matter of preference I tend to like using less big dice than more smaller dice.

Matter of preference.. well, i don`t know. a dragon doing 3 damage? well if you prefer i it to do so i guess it is no problem i reckon...

More smaller dice clumps the odds greatly at the middle range of results while less bigger dice gives a more even spread.

well i do think this has also another function too, it do prevent a very low minimum damage and describes better the firepower of huge monster.
As said earlier the dangerous thing about the creatures of the RQ3 was that you know they would hit you hard, even if they rolled embarresing low damage.

And I think it is possible for a giant to strike a glancing blow with his massive club. Even if he rolls very bad minimum damage is enough to likely disable an unarmored limb.

when it comes to terms like glancing blow, having a hard day, etc, this is just for giving somewhat of an explanation to why on earth that giant or other huge monsters do that a puny 4 or 3 damage roll. it doesn`t change or, after my opinion, justify the fact that the minimum damage is veery low. And the fact that he is in such a way able to do this damage now when it is more of an even spread damage, doesn`t serve the poor giant, and of course all other huge strong monsters.

 

[simonh]

WHile it is really a matter of preference I tend to like using less big dice than more smaller dice.

Matter of preference.. well, i don`t know. a dragon doing 3 damage? well if you prefer i it to do so i guess it is no problem i reckon...

Nobody is saying they prefer dragons to do 3 points of damage.

I do think that not all attacks by all big monsters should necessarily always inflict huge damage to all opponents under all circumstances. If you choose to rule out any possibility of a glancing blow or lucky survival against the odds that's up to you, but personally I don't think that's either more realistic or more fun.

 

[weasel_fierce]

Chance is the lifeblood of adventures.

 

[soltakss]

Nobody is saying they prefer dragons to do 3 points of damage.

Players might, especially when facing dragons.

I do think that not all attacks by all big monsters should necessarily always inflict huge damage to all opponents under all circumstances. If you choose to rule out any possibility of a glancing blow or lucky survival against the odds that's up to you, but personally I don't think that's either more realistic or more fun.

Sometimes it's good when big things roll all ones, it makes players very happy, I've found.

However, I would like to think that, on average, a giant or dragon should be pretty lethal to most people. I'm not at all sure they are using the RQM rules. Ramping damage bonus up with D8/D10/D12s rather than a bucketful of D6s does tend to limit the high end damage and we all know how GMs love high end damage. Well, I do, anyway.

 

[Rurik]

Just for the record, the odds of rolling 4 damage with 2d6+2d12 (6 meter Giant from Monsters) are exactly 1 in 5184. It is not going to happen often.

I have not played any combats with Giants but have with some pretty big trolls and I have no worries about how lethal big creatures are.

I think that MRQ is not so much less lethal than earlier editions but in fact is more survivable. While damage is toned down a bit (excepting missile weapons) I think the removal of total HP and the effects of a high Resilience skill far outweigh damage tweaks in making the game more survivable. The other big factor is that criticals generally do less damage.

This works both ways; while it is easier for a player to survive a Giant, it is also easier for a giant to survive players. As I've said before it will often take a lot more than a lucky critical to drop a Giant (though if the giant scores a critical it is more likely to be a different story). If you choose to use a shield to block his big blows you give up the damage of a 2 handed weapon. If you go with the great axe your parries will do little against the giant. And dodging, at least without houseruling, still takes 2d12+2 points on a success. The Giant on the other hand has 17 -20 HP to a location. You have to do at least that much damage to one location to even think of starting to affect him in any way. Your best bet is if you score a good hit to start taking aimed shots for the same location.

Of course, again, the biggest factor becomes the Giants Resilience skill.

 

[RosenMcStern]

JAnd dodging, at least without houseruling, still takes 2d12+2 points on a success.

This point definitely needs houseruling. Dodging a giant's club is in no way an impossible feat, but if you use the RAW it means suicide.

Of course, again, the biggest factor becomes the Giants Resilience skill.

Another story that has already been discussed here. Needs some amendments / houseruling too.

 

[Trifletraxor]

Yep. Dodge should probably work as in RQ3 if nobody has any better suggestions, while Resilience should probably be set at CON x5.

SGL.

 

[Rurik]

The problem with dodge blocking all damage it becomes too good. Why would anyone ever parry or take shield as a skill? Of course as written dodge is often hardly worth it.

I'll again plug my solution to using the full combat tables with one roll - after many trial combats of many rules I really like this one.

If the attacker hits the defender rolls. If the defender rolls better than the attacker's roll use the Attacker Fails row of the combat table (dodge avoids all damage, weapons block 2xAP).

If the defender succeeds but rolls worse than the attacker, use the Attack Succeeds row of the table (dodge takes min damage, parry blocks AP).

This way dodges sometimes avoid all damage and sometimes take min, making them worthwhile but not overly powerful, and parrying with a weapon may actually be worthwhile in some cases.

 

[Rurik]

Regarding resilience I have been trying a negative modifier based on wound level and location of wound (up to minus 60 for Major wound to head). This makes the game much more lethal. Resilience 150+ is still pretty godlike, but it helps.

          Serious    Major
Limb        NA        -20%
Torso      -20%       -40%
Head       -40%       -60%

Increases the benefit of called shots to the head significantly.

Regarding CONx5, take our giant as an example. Typical Resilience would be 195% (plus he has 24! rounds to fight before dropping from blood loss and shock). Easy to kill?

EDIT: Clarification - that is 24 rounds after a major wound to the head before he automatically drops.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Trif:

Dodge was almost never used in RQ3 because of its uneffectiveness vs. criticals, so reverting to this would be worse than the MRQ RAW. I think the only modification needed is just dropping the paragraph about not minimizing the Damage Modifier. Many already play this way.

Rurik:

COOL way of modifying the tables! Bought!

WRT resilience, the problem here is that tough guys (Resilience 200+) can take mythical amounts of damage and still go on fighting. Consider that some creatures regenerate damage, and the outcome is that there is absolutely no way to kill them. Heck, when Storm Bull hit the Devil with the Block, did Wakboth take a Resilience test?