New approach to Weapon Damage

[Demetrio]

This would make actual damage irrelevant, and shift the entire focus on a wide threat range.

Better perhaps to do more damage regularly than MD infrequently. But of course it would depend on how easy getting a crit ended up being.

And certainly there would be an incentive to chase crit threat. But increasing crit threat is harder than increasing damage for most characters.

I actually see no reason for weapons to have different crit ranges. I think they were just introduced for 'flavour'. If all weapons had an identical crit range then part of the problem would disappear. Of course some variation would be lost and that might be a shame.

there would be one no-brainer weapon&feat choice outperforming everything else.

That's fair. But how often will character be wielding their favoured weapon? Power attack works all the time. imp crit only with a specific weapon. And if Scimitar crit range is reduced to a more sensible 19-20...

 

[Clovenhoof]

I actually see no reason for weapons to have different crit ranges. I think they were just introduced for 'flavour'.

Mostly, but not entirely. Crit stats were adopted 1:1 from D&D, where opponents with DR are rather the exception than the rule, but do occur nonetheless. A 20/x3 crit is better against high-AC, high-DR, high-HP opponents (or 2 out of 3), while 10-20/x2 is better against lower-HP opponents, which usually come in larger numbers, so it's better to spread the same average damage over more attacks instead of mashing a 20-HP Ogre to pulp with a 40-dmg crit.

But as I said, the effects in D&D are marginal and can be ignored altogether, especially as about every other creature type is immune to crits anyway. The bottom line is that Weapon Focus is superior to Improved Crit because it gives you 5% better hit chance -> 5% more damage over time against _all_ opponents.

In Conan, where everything revolves around cracking the 20-point threshold, I consider 19-20/x2 to be superior over x3, because doubled damage will usually suffice to force MD, while occuring twice as often as the 20/x3 crit, whose damage is just overkill.

If all weapons had an identical crit range then part of the problem would disappear. Of course some variation would be lost and that might be a shame.

The variation exists mainly on paper. How many player characters have you seen actually choosing a Ghanata or Zhaibar knife? It's just flavour. As I wrote on the previous page, I'm toying with the idea of streamlining the weapon list considerably, so that players don't get shafted for choosing sub-optimal weapons for flavour reasons.

 

[Demetrio]

Sure, some weapons are just shortswords (or whatever) in disguise.

In Conan, where everything revolves around cracking the 20-point threshold, I consider 19-20/x2 to be superior over x3, because doubled damage will usually suffice to force MD, while occuring twice as often as the 20/x3 crit, whose damage is just overkill.

I'd agree.

 

[Sutek]

I have no problem with the weapon damage dice as written. It all goes wonky with 2h weapons and Power Attack (and a few other feats). That's the real problem.

But Cloven is right - it's really all about that 20 point damage blow, and not what the cirt level of a particular weapon is.

This is a Conan game. Weapons are supposed to cleave limbs and rend bodies, so the 20 point MD value is reasonable, and the huge amount of damage that weapons can dish out works to the primary end of hacking through mooks like a chainsaw. Where the mechanic needs to be reigned in is on a level of feat acquisition control, which is entirely up to the GM. Players are apt to (and reasonably so) pick feats jsut to increase their damage output, and that is something totally under the control of the GM. It ticks players off to tell them "nah...take a different feat" but honestly, I'd rather that than damage overload because of feat tweaked characters all over the campaingn.

Now, if you're wanting a more realistic damage structure, then weapons should probably deal a flat amount (maybe max of whatever damage die they currently have) plus a smaller random amound. A sword is equally sharp each time it hits, so maybe the damage should as well. However, that's an approach that also tries to make HP an actual representation of wounds, when it's not intended to be.

That leads me to a final point. Weapon damage is a means of depleting HP in this game, and the recalibration of weapon damge sounds like an attempt to make weapons dish out more reasonable harm to the foes they strike. However, that's not what the HP mechanic is supposed to keep track of, and all of those high damage die and high crit multiplier weapons are really jsut in there for "shock and awe" purposes, driving weapon damage in a B-line straight towards the 20 point MD number.

So in the end, with all that said, it's really all about that 20 point damage blow, and not what the cirt level of a particular weapon is. (lol)

 

[Demetrio]

so the 20 point MD value is reasonable,

Superficially, yes. but it's broken because a Str 20 character with a Conan like broadsword can't MD on a normal hit yet he'll MD plenty if wielding an un-Conan like 2h sword.

I'm completely unbothered (within reason) by damage being 'more realistic' because no rpg actually has a realistic damage system. The issue for me is that the MD rule actually encourages un-Conan like weapon choices.

I'm not myself convinced that tying MD to crit will work flawlessly, even if crits are tweaked. But it seems to me that the trigger for MD being a set damage roll is very flawed. And it seems to me that some folk agree with that. Simply moving the trigger up or down won't alter the fact that more damage will be better and thus 2hw will be easily the best choice. Breaking the link between MD and damage roll would sidestep the issue. to me critical hit chance seemed the most obvious alternative.

 

[Sutek]

Okay, I can kinda buy into that, but the "un-Conan" nature of things is also under GM control. If you don't want people weilding them, don't make them available except to the people that ought to have thm in the genre: executioners.

I mean, armor is pretty "un-Conan" too, but nobody is griping about that.

The 20MD rule is meant to take out grunts. Period. A 1d8 weapon with crit 19-20 weilded by that STR 20(+4) character you mention is dealing 12points on an average hit, but potentially double that on 10% of hits.

Now, I tend to go back to Stargate SG1 RPG for crit done right, but most of the weapons in that game are fire arms and most of the feats ascociated with them increase threat range. This accurately represents characters getting better at aiming for vital spots and, ulitimately, putting a bullet right between somebody's eyes. Feats could get rifle crits down to almost a 50/50 at about 12th level, which makes sense for an acomplished sniper.

That's what is missing from the sword and sorcerery combat, if you ask me: opportunities for extended crits instead of iterative attacks. But that could be an easily written house feat right there: player can convert iterative attack opportunities into expansion to threat range. But that would be too powerful left right there, but the idea of increased threat ranges would make daggers and other tiny weapons capable of crits much faster, and in the right hands, make them possibly capable of MD.

 

[Elements Warden]

The 20MD rule is meant to take out grunts. Period.

Most grunts (as I see them 1-2 level characters) will be taken out by 20+ hits with no need for MD.

 

[Demetrio]

I mean, armor is pretty "un-Conan" too,

What?? Conan wears armour a lot. In fact I'd say he is encountered armoured more often than not in Howard. I shall check. In fact while he quite often begins a story naked, he dons armour as soon as practical and begins wearing armour in The Scarlet Citadel, The Queen of the Black Coast, Black Colossus, Beyond the Black River, The Frost Giant's Daughter, The Snout in the Dark. That's 7 out of 24. In at least half a dozen of the stories where he begins unarmoured, he dons armour as soon as he can. In the other stories he remains unarmoured through inability to find it. He usually starts unarmoured through force of circumstance (eg being crucified or swimming) or because he's thieving. Stories where he is unarmoured through choice are in the minority.

Most grunts (as I see them 1-2 level characters) will be taken out by 20+ hits with no need for MD.

Yes, quite. A fair few 3rd level npc fighters will have 20 or less hps also. MD is quite clearly designed as a measure to take down tough foes.

 

[Clovenhoof]

I also say that MD is for making short work of tough opponents, i.e. with so many HP they wouldn't go down within one round anyway.

Breaking the link between MD and damage roll would sidestep the issue. to me critical hit chance seemed the most obvious alternative.

As I said, I am not basically opposed to the idea, but there are a lot of implications. If crits are the only thing that count, not only does that affect weapon choice, it also follows that attack and defense values are more or less meaningless.
I mean, if you need to roll a 19 or 20 in order to kill someone, it doesn't matter if your attack bonus is +10 and the target Defense is 15, 20 or 25.

Might as well do away with Hit Points altogether and instead force a Fort Save on every hit with DC=damage. Close fails could result in penalties instead of killing you, while failing blatantly will send you to the boards.

 

[Demetrio]

Surely you need to confirm the crit (hence Attack and Defence will come into play) and the target must then fail his Fortitude roll?

Let's say my attack is +9 and the DV is 15. If I roll a 19 or 20, I still must roll 6+ to confirm. Thus my chance of inflicting MD is 7.5%.

If my attack is +2 and DV is 15 then I potentially crit on 19 or 20 as above. But I need to roll 13+ to confirm the crit. So my MD chance would be 4%.

but there are a lot of implications.

Yes. And I suspect that there may be intractable problems. So it's nice that someone else is looking at it too.

instead force a Fort Save on every hit with DC=damage

Hmm. Surely that still encourages 2hw fighting and power attacks?

 

[Clovenhoof]

Alright, let me try and get this into a coherent shape... keep in mind at all times that this is just a thought experiment and at best a basic foundation to a new - and radically different - damage system:

Attack vs. Defense: basically remains as is, except the Defense progressions may have to be upped one step for each class

Weapon Damage: streamlined to just 3 different Tiers:
Light: D8 + Str, low AP
One-Handed: D10 + Str, medium AP
Two-Handed: D12 + 1,5x Str, medium-high AP
(I don't know what to do with Simple weapons in that model. Maybe they just get worse Crit stats.
A War Sword might be D12 damage plus the appropriate Str mod depending if you use it one- or two-handed.)

Criticals: most weapons to have a standard crit chance of maybe 10%. Some weapons may have extended threat ranges, such as Broadswords.
A successful crit might do one or more of the following:
- ignore armour DR (you hit a vulnerable area, such as the neck),
- do extra damage, thus possibly forcing a MD save
- simply trigger a MDS with fixed DC (default 20), or have the DC tied to damage
- if the DC is fixed, there may be feats to increase it, analogous to D&D Spell Focus (i.e. +2, +4, +6...).

Yet Another Damage Concept:
Another idea might be to do away with Hit Points altogether.
* A normal, non-critical "hit" forces a Reflex (or Fort) save. DC is set by Damage roll, Armour DR applies. A successful save negates. A failed save cause Fatigue/Wounds.
* a confirmed Critical Hit forces a Fort Save as above. A narrowly failed Save causes a Wound. A totally botched Save disables or kills the character (depending on if it's an important character or an Expendable).

Hmm. Surely that [tying MDS to damage] still encourages 2hw fighting and power attacks?

In and of itself, yes. Of course you can (and possibly should) nerf PA to x1 bonus. Also, it's okay if 2HF keeps a certain edge in damage potential - it just shouldn't be so overwhelming as to make all other fighting styles unviable. The main point being, as we have been reminded just a few posts further up, that 2HF is not typical for the S&S genre in general and Conan in particular. I think if the rules should favour any fighting style in particular, it should be something Conanesque with extra coolness factor.

Basically each fighting style, such as S&B, TWF, THF and OHF should have its merits -- there's another thread about that going on, "Diversifying Fighting Styles", maybe it's time to give that a little bump again, too.

 

[treeplanter]

I think you have a good idea in "uniformazing" weapon but the problem i see with what your actual suggestion is:

2-handed get two nerfed vs two-weapon fighting and one-handed + shield.

So I think the 2 handed weapon should retain the 2d8/10 damage.

On the other hand I think it might be a good idea to make all light weapon 1d8 and medium 1d10 and slightly modify critical value for simple vs martial. I hate spear being so weak. Also i find stupid Bardiche and Poleaxe being more powerfull than the Exotic greatsword and tulwar so their damage should be 2d6 or 2d8.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Ah, good catch with the TWF. Let's see.

Current: TWF does similar gross damage as THF, except that
1.) Light weapons are incompatible with Power Attack;
2.) you split the damage over twice the numbers of attacks, meaning that the DR is deducted twice;
3.) and despite those drawbacks, you need to spend up to two feats to pull it off (except for Borderers), whereas using THF doesn't mandate any feat;

So TWF only wins if you have some extra damage source, such as Sneak Attack (and that's pretty much the only extra damage you get in Conan).

Proposed: sticking to the above regime with the three Tiers, it would be easiest if TWF did not bestow any actual off-hand attacks at all. Instead - and this is taken directly from Mazes & Minotaurs - it could simply give an attack bonus for your regular attacks. With the proper feats, you could even convert this attack bonus into extra damage or defense.
The attack bonus could be +1 with TWF and +2 with ITWF.
As a side effect, this would also speed up combat as your TWFer won't have to roll up to eight attacks per round.

I hate spear being so weak.

I'm with you there. In this context, I'd simply define a Spear as a One-handed Martial weapon, which can also be wielded as Simple weapon in two hands. Sort of as a "War Sword Light".

With a bit of luck, I can get this project far enough to playtest in our next Conan campaign, which should start in March. At the very least, I'll weed out and revise the equipment table and actually remove most two-handed weapons altogether (this is for a custom setting).

 

[Hervé]

What about simply dropping the 1.5 Strength multiplier and the Power Attack double damage bonus for two handed weapons? They would still keep high damage ratings but would come down to a more reasonable level if they used the same rules than one handed weapons.

As it has been stated, the real problem comes with the triggering of MD or not. In the current state of the rules, you have almost no chance of doing Massive Damage with a one handed weapon, even with Power Attack, when, on the contrary, a two handed weapon will trigger the MD threshold every time.

As it is today, Conan combat is too often summarized by "Fort Save or die".

Two handed weapons got far too much in the game (high dmg rating / strength multiplier / double PA bonus) making all other weapons pretty useless for fighter types. Clovenhoof justly remarked that two handed combat is pretty atypical of the Conan stories or of the S&S genre in general. Conan himself is rarely seen using a two handed weapon. If the game is supposed to reflect the stories, then something really has to be done about this.

The ideas proposed by Clovenhoof are pretty good for me. Streamlining weapon damage into three categories is a really good "anti-munchkin" approach. I've been using this for a while in non Conan BRP games and it works pretty well. Players will go more naturally to their cultural weapons rather than just looking at the best stats. After all, who can really say than a broadsword hurts more than a scimitar? Same for criticals. Each category needs to have a common critical. There are feats and abilities that modify them if needed.

PA really HAS to be be nerfed to a x1 bonus whatever the weapon.

So I think the 2 handed weapon should retain the 2d8/10 damage.

You can't have the best of both worlds. In Clovenhoof proposition, 2hd weapons keep their 1.5 strength multiplier.

2-handed get two nerfed vs two-weapon fighting and one-handed + shield.

It's true than it has been nerfed, but this topic (and many others before that) have proven that 2hd weapons are FAR too much overpowered in the game.

I mean, armor is pretty "un-Conan" too,

What?? Conan wears armour a lot. In fact I'd say he is encountered armoured more often than not in Howard.

Well, I have the feeling that Conan will wear an armour when he knows he's going into battle, but most of the time he will go without armour.

Most RPGs fall off target with armour. Real armour are bulky and pretty tiring to wear, when most RPG characters will wear an armour most of the time. Most of my players go unarmoured or lightly armoured in my campaign because I focus a lot on armour bulk and penalties. As in the stories, they would generally don armour when expecting a mass battle or such kind of heavy fight, but there's no way they could have survived long in the Kharamun Desert wearing chainmails, breastplates or metal helms.

Actually it is stuff that is "un-conan". Conan doesn't care about the weapon he wields and he never has the same equipment from one story to another. Fighting prowess is far more important in REH stories than any equipment. It's the man that makes the warrior, not the stuff.
Clovenhoof rules help to re-create this feeling, streamlining weapon stats.

 

[Demetrio]

I think if the rules should favour any fighting style in particular, it should be something Conanesque with extra coolness factor.

Agreed.

I'd simply define a Spear as a One-handed Martial weapon, which can also be wielded as Simple weapon in two hands

That's a good idea and a better way for flavour to be imparted to different weapons than the current rather dubious differing damage dice or crit chances. It might be fair to say that if it's used two handed then it qualifies as a reach weapon too.

Attack vs. Defense: basically remains as is, except the Defense progressions may have to be upped one step for each class

Or downgrade Attack progression one step for each class. This will slow down the gaining of multiple attacks, which one may view as a good or bad thing. If defence and attack have similar progressions then use of Combat Expertise means hits will become a whole lot harder - essentially defensive fighting using Combat Expertise will be very hard to break down. To me that seems slightly anti-Howard in flavour. And I think the fact that defence progressions are lower than attack progressions is deliberate to allow for Combat Expertise to be used as a balancer.

Light: D8 + Str, low AP
One-Handed: D10 + Str, medium AP
Two-Handed: D12 + 1,5x Str, medium-high AP
(I don't know what to do with Simple weapons in that model. Maybe they just get worse Crit stats.

Simple weapons at d6? Why not? Or indeed let them just crit on a 20. But to my ming the d6 would work quite well with your postulated spear rule above. Used one handed and gripped near the mid point it does d10 as a martial weapon, used two handed gripped near the butt it is used for weaker jabs at a distance.

- ignore armour DR (you hit a vulnerable area, such as the neck),
- do extra damage, thus possibly forcing a MD save
- simply trigger a MDS with fixed DC (default 20), or have the DC tied to damage

I'd plump for:

ignoring armour and triggering a MDS with a difficulty of (say) 15 or rolled damage, whichever is higher

or rolling the weapon damage dice twice (strength bonus and any power attack bonus is not so doubled) and triggering a MDS with a difficulty of (say) 15 or rolled damage, whichever is higher. eg a broadsword used one handed would do 2d10+strength bonus+any power attack bonus.

or doing maximum possible weapon damage plus normal rolled damageand triggering a MDS with a difficulty of (say) 15 or rolled damage, whichever is higher. eg a broadsword used one handed would do 10+d10+strength bonus+any power attack bonus.

I think I prefer the third way.

 

[Demetrio]

Conan will wear an armour when he knows he's going into battle, but most of the time he will go without armour.

Not always. He's armoured when 'about town' in Black Colossus and (strangely) after a court appearance in Argos at the start of Queen of the Black Coast (I suspect Howard dropped the ball there mind you - regardless he was clearly armoured whilst 'about town' before he was hauled off to court).

I completely agree that Conan is 'anti-stuff' and thus the idea to rationalise weapons is a good one. I'd still like to see some little stylistic difference between spear and sword for example along the lines that Clovenhoof suggested above

 

[Clovenhoof]

After all, who can really say than a broadsword hurts more than a scimitar? Same for criticals. Each category needs to have a common critical. There are feats and abilities that modify them if needed.

Well, the D&D damage threat ranges do follow a certain pattern as you are certainly aware. The general way of thought seems to be that it's difficult to hit well with massive weapons such as axes and hammers (i.e. only on a 20), but if you do it really hurts a lot; whereas it's easier to hit well with well-balanced edged weapons (19-20), and if the blade is curved it will cut better (hence 18-20).
Of course this is all pretty arbitrary. You could rationalize it just as well the exactly opposite way. And for that reason, I agree, you can just give them all the same stats. A foot of steel in your tummy will most certainly kill you this way or other.

You can't have the best of both worlds. In Clovenhoof proposition, 2hd weapons keep their 1.5 strength multiplier.

Yes, though keeping a slightly higher damage die and making Str bonus a flat x1 might also work. I actually feel that the x1.5 Str bonus is the better solution because it emphasizes the character's abilities over the equipment. Besides, note that this will result in an absolute maximum of +4 extra damage per hit, and that only at levels 18+. For most characters, the extra bonus will be +1 to +2 throughout most of their career.

It's true than it has been nerfed, but this topic (and many others before that) have proven that 2hd weapons are FAR too much overpowered in the game.

QFT. To cite some cold hard numbers, a Str 18 character attacking a DR4 opponent, while piercing his armour, has a MD chance of 2,8% using a broadsword but 7% using a Bill (2d8), and that's without Power Attack. With PA, the odds get tilted much more towards 2H.

It's the man that makes the warrior, not the stuff.
Clovenhoof rules help to re-create this feeling, streamlining weapon stats.

That's what I'm trying to do. Thanks for the rep.

It might be fair to say that if it's used two handed then it qualifies as a reach weapon too.

Yes, sure. If it's about 2 metres long and you hold it like a quarterstaff, that should work.

As I said, I'd like to get to a system where all weapons do dangerous damage, with each weapon type (spear, sword, axe etc.) having individual special qualities, allowing for special manoeuvres and so on.
Such as: Spears are good to keep the opponent at a distance. Swords are good at defeating armour. Two-handed axes make ax-tra damage but drain your defense. Short swords are good in close quarters. Etc.

Or downgrade Attack progression one step for each class.

Now you're threatening to kill one of the Holy Cows. It's been customary for I don't know how many years and editions of (A)D&D to give fighters an attack bonus every level.
Looking at it more closely, it would actually increase the combat advantage of fighter-types -- they'd get 50% more attacks per round than non-fighters, as opposed to the current 33%. (3 and 2 attacks versus 4 and 3.) If you know what I mean.
On another note, this might result in a seriously crippled attack bonus for multiclassers, but I'm not going to fiddle with this right now.

Be that as it may: by RAW, typical Defense levels out at about 25-30 depending on build and class (without CE), whereas even moderate builds will get attack bonuses of +25 and up, so it's nearly impossible to miss each other. The absolute maximum Defense score I can think of would be a Level 20 Soldier with maxed-out Strength, a Large Shield and Combat Expertise, for Parry 42 and Attack +25 (with GWF). So two of those might end up hacking at each other for hours, but that's gonna be the exception rather than the rule.

eg a broadsword used one handed would do 10+d10+strength bonus+any power attack bonus.

That doesn't look bad at first glance. It's low bookkeeping because you always know you're adding a fixed score to your regular damage. However, it again gives two-handers a substantial damage advantage. Compare for Str 18:
Broadsword crit: 10 + D10 + 4 = 15-24 -> 50% chance to exceed 20
Greatsword crit: 12 + D12 + 6 = 19-30 -> 95% chance to exceed 20

Also consider the typical range of Fort saves. A character starting with Con 14 will have around +5 Fort at third level and climb to +18 at 20th if he takes Great Fortitude. Of course, you also need to give more squishy characters a chance to survive, such as your Con-12 Thief whose Fort will only move from +2 to +10 at best. Tricky.

I think I'd actually prefer a crit mechanic that favours one-handed weapons. I.e. you do higher normal damage with two-handers, wearing down your opponent with brute force, but one-handers give you the precision to hit where it really hurts. So maybe one-handers should simply have twice the crit range or so.

 

[Demetrio]

That doesn't look bad at first glance. It's low bookkeeping because you always know you're adding a fixed score to your regular damage. However, it again gives two-handers a substantial damage advantage. Compare for Str 18:
Broadsword crit: 10 + D10 + 4 = 15-24 -> 50% chance to exceed 20
Greatsword crit: 12 + D12 + 6 = 19-30 -> 95% chance to exceed 20

Good point. Maybe just roll the weapon dice twice then.

I think I'd actually prefer a crit mechanic that favours one-handed weapons. I.e. you do higher normal damage with two-handers, wearing down your opponent with brute force, but one-handers give you the precision to hit where it really hurts. So maybe one-handers should simply have twice the crit range or so.

So using a weapon with two hands allows you to use 1.5 x strength bonus but crit threat is 19-20. And using a one handed weapon simply has normal strength bonus applied but crits on 18-20.


Thinking about weapons...

Axes and some swords, having their weight concentrated at their 'working' end should certainly gain a bonus to damage compared to a more balanced weapon. The flip side is that theuy are more difficult to control - it's harder to hit. That could be modelled by giving a -1 to hit and +1 to damage for a weapon like the sabre and -2 to hit but +2 damage for a battleaxe but I suspect that's a mechanic that wouldn't be popular. The alternative is to penalise the defence of wielders of 'top heavy' weapons so you trade +1 damage for -1 Defence etc.

 

[Sutek]

Just adding more d20 system varient things to the mass already in here.

(A)

In Pathfinder by Paizo, a bunch of things have changed to the feats that we're all discussing. Power attack is written as follows, truncated with abreviations by me just for space purposes:

Add an amount equal to your STR mod (or Base Att bonus, whichever is lower) to your melee damage rolls for 1 round (in addition to the normal damage mod from high STR). Subtract the same amount from your melee attack rolls for 1 round. If your attacks are made with a 2-handed wpn, add an amount equal to double your STR mod (or Base Att bonus, whichever is lower) to your melee damage rolls for 1 round (penalty remains the same).

Okay, so that effectively nerfs PA, but makes the bonus and penalty soley based on the static STR mod of the attacker, and effectively keeps things still pretty viable from a damage increase standpoint. In otyher words, it reigns PA in without cutting it off and leaving a stump.

(B)
Stargate SG1 RPG handles activation of threats based on Action Point expenditure. Of course, in that system, action points are much more fluid than any other d20 system I've used, and players can spend and regain points almost every round. Points translate into dice, and depending on the experience level of the characters, dice of different max values. Level 1-5 get 3d4 to start. 6-10 get d6s, 11-15 get d8s and 16-20 get d10s. By doing cool things, players are awarded more points, which translate into additional dice to thier pool. The real catch is that the GM gets 3d12+1 for each PC, and adds to his pool every time he awards a die to any player. Dice are actually rolled along with an attack to boost the chance to hit (so a d20+a d8 to hit) before or after the initial attack roll. Threats are activated simply by "cashing in" a whole die, so if that nat20 comes up (or whatever the threat range may be) the player can choose to give up an entire die from his pool to activate the Threat to a Crit; no re-rolling happens.

(C)
Damage is also handled diferently in SG1 in that they use the Vitality/Wounds system. Vitality is fairly equivalent to HP, and when it's all used up, damge comes off of Wounds. Wounds are always equal to CON, and Crits bypass Vitality and come diretly out of Wounds, making a 2d10 Crit from a 0.45 handgun potentially deadly everytime. This is an easier augment within Conan, particulary if the PA modification from Pathfinder is utilize as well.

(D)
Also, I gotta disagree one last time about MD. It isn't geared towards taking out high HP targets because those types typically have high FORT saves also, thus being able to overcome the MD save that follows. Lower HOP opponents are where MD is most handy because the 20+ damage is more usually not able to be saved against. :wink:

 

[Clovenhoof]

Add an amount equal to your STR mod (or Base Att bonus, whichever is lower) to your melee damage rolls for 1 round (in addition to the normal damage mod from high STR). Subtract the same amount from your melee attack rolls for 1 round. If your attacks are made with a 2-handed wpn, add an amount equal to double your STR mod (or Base Att bonus, whichever is lower) to your melee damage rolls for 1 round (penalty remains the same).

Oh, this is interesting, I hadn't noticed that you could no longer scale PA freely in Pathfinder. So it's always all or nothing. Note that this will almost always be a sub-optimal penalty, though of course you can't generalize which is the ideal penalty as so many factors play into it.

As an aside, maybe I already mentioned it, but in D&D one-handed Power Attack rarely ever makes sense at all, although a lot of players don't see this. As a rule of thumb, anytime you get any non-STR based extra damage, PA would just cripple you, or the benefit is so tiny (~1%) that it isn't worth the bother. Ironically, PA is most useful when you have rather low strength, and Pathfinder now effectively negates that use as well.

Crits bypass Vitality and come diretly out of Wounds, making a 2d10 Crit from a 0.45 handgun potentially deadly everytime.

This is really heavy, just optimize for Crits and what you get is essentially a Massive Damage Kill with no Saving Throw.