Recent thread got me to thinking on this subject and then made me realize something.
First off: Critical hit as we always used it was double damage on a natural 20.
Question then to those interested. Do you use critical hits in your D&D games or not? Assuming of course you play D&D at all.
Personally I enjoy them because they add a little "POW!" factor to combat.
Not sold yet on the Next version of criticals which is just do max damage.
-=-=-=
Which leads to the second observation...
I can not recall when we started using criticals in AD&D. Or where we picked the method up from. Was not Dragon magazine I do not think. I thought I might have picked it up from Gamma World. But I am not seeing it there either.
So when were critical hits, and fumbles, actually added to AD&D officially? Unearthed Arcana? Dragonlance? Oriental Adventures? I do not have my books handy to check.
I know they are in 2nd ed. But I was using critical hits well before 2nd.
Were they officially added?
I know that they were common enough, there is an article in Dragon #39 mentioning how common their usage was.
I think it's just like ability checks, they were seemingly adopted by players and eventually got added officially.
Have been using them since 1980 but no idea where they came from.
Remember reading Gary complaining that there was no need for critical hits or trying to treat D&D hit rolls as a single strike becuase it was a melee of blows that lasted a minute. I think that is in the DMG somewhere.
Anyway we rejected that and continued with ciritical hits and fumbles on a natural 1 but you got to roll under your level on a d20 as a "save vs fumble" and sometiems we dropped fumbles all together but a natural 1 always missed.
interestignly enough we doubled everything so a backstabbling theif with a +3 sword at 9th level (x 4 damage) that rolled a nat 20 would do -
(((1d8 +3)x4)x2) or (1d8 x 8) +24
I know that he semi-offical rule was more
(((1d8)x4)x2) +3) or (1d8 x8) +3
or even
(8d8 +3)
This became toughter still with UA and weapon specialisation when a figther with a magic sword and some strength and double spec might be dealing (1d8 +5) as on doubles it became (1d8x2)+10
Philotomy Jurament has some great ideas that really inspired me to do more with Critical Hits.
http://www.grey-elf.com/philotomy.pdf
In essence, you don't just double damage, but critical hits are moment of great DM flourish to tailor what the critical does based on the situation.
Example: Gehan the Cleric crits an orc with his mace. He rolls a 2 as his base damage. Instead of doubling damage to 4 points or adding another D6 damage, I could rule that the orc is dazed by the smash, maybe even needs to save vs. stun, or the mace comes down on the orc's shield, shattering it or the mace crushes the orc's arm, forcing him to drop its spear, etc.
Generally I've used critical hits in D&D, but there is definitely merit in the argument that using them universally is a bad thing for the players as the DM tends to roll more attack rolls than the party.
Quote from: Spinachcat;735137Philotomy Jurament has some great ideas that really inspired me to do more with Critical Hits.
http://www.grey-elf.com/philotomy.pdf
In essence, you don't just double damage, but critical hits are moment of great DM flourish to tailor what the critical does based on the situation.
Example: Gehan the Cleric crits an orc with his mace. He rolls a 2 as his base damage. Instead of doubling damage to 4 points or adding another D6 damage, I could rule that the orc is dazed by the smash, maybe even needs to save vs. stun, or the mace comes down on the orc's shield, shattering it or the mace crushes the orc's arm, forcing him to drop its spear, etc.
Generally I want my monsters and PCs to obey the same "physics" and I think that whist double damage can be scary to a PC these effects would piss them off more.
I don't think D&D needs them. The combat rules are meant to be abstract and the idea of a single roll mapping to to one "attack" just doesn't fit. It is the same justification for not granting a fighter with 2 weapons an extra attack. An attack roll is not "a swing" therefore critical hits are a clumsy fit.
I do like the idea of them but I believe that they make more sense in less abstract systems in which a particular attack CAN be mapped to a more discrete action.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;735163I don't think D&D needs them. The combat rules are meant to be abstract and the idea of a single roll mapping to to one "attack" just doesn't fit.
Actually, critical hits, at least those that do double damage, make more sense in an abstract combat than in a one-swing per die roll system. If an attack roll is the combination of multiple swings and feints, then it's possible for two of those swings to hit in that one "attack".
The rule for double damage on a 20 shows up in MAR Barker's original Empire of the Petal Throne manuscript from early in '74, just a few months after D&D was published. This probably means that Dave used them.
IMC, if a character rolls a critical (either a 20 or 10 more than he needed) he'll can roll double the damage (two dice instead of one die doubled) or he can perform any other special attack such as a trip, disarm, grapple, takedown, etc.
I use them.
In fact, I was considering starting a thread on this topic, as I'm debating which system to use for my recently started AD&D campaign.
I don't like the 'natural 20 is a crit' system, as it means that all characters, whether magic-users or fighters, have the same chance to score a critical hit. That's implausible. Also, sometimes a foe can only be hit with a 'natural 20' if they have a great AC.
The alternative that I'm using now is that a natural 20 gives the character the opportunity to score a critical hit. The player has to roll again, and if he scores a hit (of any kind), his PC has scored a critical. This means the PC does maximum damage and rolls one more damage die on top of that (so a longsword would do 8 + 1d8 + modifiers damage). (I believe I took this from 3e, of all places, but I don't recall now.)
I'm not entirely happy with this system, and am looking for something more colourful, in the vein of the MERP system, but adapted to AD&D.
Since 1989 I've used something similar to the AD&D2 optional method for critical hits. If you roll a natural 20, then you hit and get a bonus attack. I play it so the bonus attack doesn't necessarily have to be against the same opponent as the original attack.
Before that I occasionally used a method in one of the Best of Dragon compilations. It was one where whenever you hit you calculated the margin you hit by. This margin then became a percentage chance you rolled against for a critical hit. If you scored a critical hit you rolled on another chart for the exact effect. It was a mechanically sound method, but tedious as all fuck. That was why I used it irregularly and happily ditched it in favor of the much simpler and intuitive AD&D2 rule.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;735180Actually, critical hits, at least those that do double damage, make more sense in an abstract combat than in a one-swing per die roll system. If an attack roll is the combination of multiple swings and feints, then it's possible for two of those swings to hit in that one "attack".
The rule for double damage on a 20 shows up in MAR Barker's original Empire of the Petal Throne manuscript from early in '74, just a few months after D&D was published.
There is also the fact that characters are quite fragile enough. A 1st level character can be taken out by a single regular hit on average. Adding a 5% chance per attack roll to nigh ensure a PC kill doesn't seem like the best of ideas IMHO. Combat is already lethal enough.
Quote from: jibbajibba;735135sometiems we dropped fumbles all together but a natural 1 always missed.
Same.
I've played where fumbles cause various effects: damage to the attacker, dropped weapons, broken weapons, loss of next attack, etc. I definitely don't play that way anymore. I just say that a natural 1 is an automatic miss with no further effect.
I feel that fumbles suck all around, not just from a player perspective. In D&D they especially suck because of how whiff heavy the combat system is and how little damage weapons do compared to how many HPs have to be depleted. Adding additional fumble effects just exacerbates the inherent problems for no productive play purpose.
Quote from: Akrasia;735189I don't like the 'natural 20 is a crit' system, as it means that all characters, whether magic-users or fighters, have the same chance to score a critical hit. That's implausible. Also, sometimes a foe can only be hit with a 'natural 20' if they have a great AC.
That why I also let a critical occur when the attack roll is 10 more than required. This makes the attack roll for high level fighters still have meaning when they are just about autohitting. I also don't allow criticals if the number needed to hit is 17 or more.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;735192There is also the fact that characters are quite fragile enough. A 1st level character can be taken out by a single regular hit on average. Adding a 5% chance per attack roll to nigh ensure a PC kill doesn't seem like the best of ideas IMHO.
Just because players can score criticals doesn't mean that monsters can. Also, the fragility of first level characters varies by edition.
In my AD&D 2E game a critical hit (natural 20) automatically does maximum damage for your weapon.
I like it because on the one hand it guarantees that a critical will be significant (getting a critical under crits-do-double and then rolling a "1" on the damage dice raises the question of just what was so critical about this hit that did a mere 2 points of damage), but at the same time it isn't too devastating for a result which is likely to come up 1 in every 20 combat rolls.
EDIT: It also neatly sidesteps the "how come casters can do crits?" thing - here, they certainly can, but the weapons available to them mean that their critical hits are consistently not going to be as good as the fighters'. Anyone can get in a lucky shot, but not everyone is equally effective when they do.
Quote from: Omega;735133Not sold yet on the Next version of criticals which is just do max damage.
-=-=-=
Crits in Next are Max damage + 1 additional damage dice.
QuoteWhich leads to the second observation...
I can not recall when we started using criticals in AD&D. Or where we picked the method up from. Was not Dragon magazine I do not think. I thought I might have picked it up from Gamma World. But I am not seeing it there either.
.
Don't know when it officially started, but I posted an article yesterday about an article in 1980 from Dragon magazine that talked about expanding it from just double damage to a table of possible results.
Personally I like crits, but usually do double damage to keep it simple. And what's good for the PCs is good for the monsters ;)
Quote from: JeremyR;735134Were they officially added?
Quote from: Spinachcat;735137Philotomy Jurament has some great ideas that really inspired me to do more with Critical Hits.
http://www.grey-elf.com/philotomy.pdf
In essence, you don't just double damage, but critical hits are moment of great DM flourish to tailor what the critical does based on the situation.
The original critical hits were monster- or item-specific and didn't do double damage, but instead had a specific effect. I think the purple worm is the only example from the LBBs (on a roll 4 above the target number or a natural 20, victim is swallowed.) But the vorpal blade shows up in Greyhawk, I believe.
Which, in my mind, sets up some guidelines to expanding the rule:
(1) Not everyone should be able to do it (maybe Fighters only for combat, or specific spells for M-Us.)
(2) The effect ought to be weapon-specific.
(3) The effect for a mundane weapon has to be less powerful than the magical vorpal blade, or the purple worm.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;735198Just because players can score criticals doesn't mean that monsters can. Also, the fragility of first level characters varies by edition.
Always give a monster an even break. Learn it. Live it. Love it.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;735204Don't know when it officially started, but I posted an article yesterday about an article in 1980 from Dragon magazine that talked about expanding it from just double damage to a table of possible results.
Jon Peterson goes into the history of critical hits here:
http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-first-critical-hits.html
The first crit table was from '75.
Quote from: jibbajibba;735151Generally I want my monsters and PCs to obey the same "physics" and I think that whist double damage can be scary to a PC these effects would piss them off more.
I have never had a problem with a player pissed off by my custom crits and fumbles, as they apply to both PCs and monsters.
In my game on Saturday, six gnolls attacked and one gnoll fumbled and because it was a messy melee in a tight space, I ruled that the fumble was the gnoll accidentally targeting a fellow gnoll. So I rolled the gnoll's attack and of course, he hits his fellow gnoll, does max damage and cleaves his buddy's head off.
I also do the same thing for fumbles and crits in saving throws so some spells go off spectacularly and some saves result in amazing escapes.
Quote from: Akrasia;735189I don't like the 'natural 20 is a crit' system, as it means that all characters, whether magic-users or fighters, have the same chance to score a critical hit.
I agree this is an issue. Since fighters make more attacks, they get more crits in battle. In the past, I have had house rules that Fighters can crit on any attack rolls that are 10 higher than needed. AKA, if they have AC 13, and your attack roll total is 23, then blammo!
Quote from: Gabriel2;735194Adding additional fumble effects just exacerbates the inherent problems for no productive play purpose.
The key to fumbles and crits is to make them important and key moments in the battle, the moment when either Lady Luck or Mr. Murphy makes their appearance on the stage.
Never used any special crits/fumbles as a DM, though I don't mind them as a player. For me, when damage rolled is max, that IS a critical strike.
OH, count me as one of those who used to use fumbles, but now it's just an automatic miss. I never liked fumbles being something horrible because they happen 5% of the time, and you don't break your weapon or stab your buddy once every 20 attacks in "real" combat.
I like both crit hits/misses. I've played the double damage but more now we use either charts ( DCC) or a card draw from a crit deck (Pathfinder/D&D).
That is something we will pull into Next if we play. I can see how the crit miss could seem abusive to some. Even before we had the above mentioned methods, it was generally accepted that if you rolled a 1 the GM was going to come up some crappy thing that just happened to your PC. But mostly we used the occasion to inject some humor or narrative into combat.
This has been interesting thread, it goes to show gaming groups can be insular. I never really considered that many folks would be adverse to crits.
But I would argue that 5% chance of crap going really bad for you in one minute of combat (1 round) may not be that far off from reality. Crap breaks, guns jam, misfires, slip n falls, the list goes on and on. This is why the military spends so much time drilling discipline into soldiers, to deal with all the things that can go wrong above and beyond the fact that someone wants to kill you. I doubt it was any better when they were fighting with the supposed weapons of a fantasy setting. IMHO
P.S. Is anyone watching "Vikings" on History channel? I think there are some awesome scenes that can spark the mind when imagining RPG combat (especially crits)
A minor clarification.
We played a critical only if the attack has a chance to hit in the first place. Same for a fumble.
But... Here on page 61 of my DMG Gary is talking about combat and specifically mentions hit locations, criticals and double damage as things AD&D does not need.
Re-reading that now makes me reconsider use of criticals in AD&D.
I started using them after a few years, and used them more and more as time went on, though in the last few years, when I design anything for d20, it is more pared down and descriptive again. Fumbles as well as crits.
Too many versions of the game I used had monsters and characters with 50+ HP, and there needed to be a little more threat to combat with mass creatures.
As far as I can recall I've always played in groups that use them. I'm not myself firmly attached to them, but I don't mind them either.
Quote from: Grymbok;735142Generally I've used critical hits in D&D, but there is definitely merit in the argument that using them universally is a bad thing for the players as the DM tends to roll more attack rolls than the party.
That's the argument against them I find most persuasive. Players generally like them, but any given goblin only gets crits rolled against it once, while the pcs get rolled against hundreds of times.
Quote from: Akrasia;735189The alternative that I'm using now is that a natural 20 gives the character the opportunity to score a critical hit. The player has to roll again, and if he scores a hit (of any kind), his PC has scored a critical. This means the PC does maximum damage and rolls one more damage die on top of that (so a longsword would do 8 + 1d8 + modifiers damage). (I believe I took this from 3e, of all places, but I don't recall now.)
Rolling to confirm a crit is indeed from 3E. In the book I think it doubles (or triples, depending on weapon) the dice rolled, but that one die maxed and the rest rolled is a house rule I've already played under. It spares the let-down of rolling snake-eyes on a confirmed crit.
Quote from: Akrasia;735189I don't like the 'natural 20 is a crit' system, as it means that all characters, whether magic-users or fighters, have the same chance to score a critical hit. That's implausible. Also, sometimes a foe can only be hit with a 'natural 20' if they have a great AC.
I'd draw inspiration from ACKS, which makes criticals a "skill" (really a feat) you have to buy into. (And fighters get more of these skills, so they're most likely to pick it up.) And in LotFP, I think only fighters get to increase their to-hit as they level. Combining the two ideas, I can see making crits a class feature for fighters. It also solves Grymbok's problem above, though rare skilled monsters might still have it.
Quote from: Spinachcat;735137Philotomy Jurament has some great ideas that really inspired me to do more with Critical Hits.
http://www.grey-elf.com/philotomy.pdf
In essence, you don't just double damage, but critical hits are moment of great DM flourish to tailor what the critical does based on the situation.
Example: Gehan the Cleric crits an orc with his mace. He rolls a 2 as his base damage. Instead of doubling damage to 4 points or adding another D6 damage, I could rule that the orc is dazed by the smash, maybe even needs to save vs. stun, or the mace comes down on the orc's shield, shattering it or the mace crushes the orc's arm, forcing him to drop its spear, etc.
Its a different approach, but this reminded me of Zak's Kung Fu Numbers (http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2009/11/lucky-number-kung-fu.html). You can unpack disarms or trips (or anything else you can think of) from the natural 20 and assign them to other individual numbers. So a monk, for instance, might deal no damage but still disarm if he takes that on a low number, or do both if he takes a high one. And you can tailor the number of numbers you get by campaign, so maybe fighters get the most in a western game, or monks and ninjas in an Asian game.
Quote from: Saladman;735393That's the argument against them I find most persuasive. Players generally like them, but any given goblin only gets crits rolled against it once, while the pcs get rolled against hundreds of times.
Same here. For the kinds of games I run and want to play, there is no automatic monster equality.
Quote from: Gabriel2;735398Same here. For the kinds of games I run and want to play, there is no automatic monster equality.
Why you trying to keep the green man down?
Quote from: Grymbok;735142Generally I've used critical hits in D&D, but there is definitely merit in the argument that using them universally is a bad thing for the players as the DM tends to roll more attack rolls than the party.
I don't really see that as a bad thing. It is just a way to increase the challenge. Most of the 'extra' critical hits are probably coming from mooks that are otherwise fodder.
Quote from: Omega;735348A minor clarification.
We played a critical only if the attack has a chance to hit in the first place. Same for a fumble.
But... Here on page 61 of my DMG Gary is talking about combat and specifically mentions hit locations, criticals and double damage as things AD&D does not need.
Re-reading that now makes me reconsider use of criticals in AD&D.
"need" perhaps not.
But some groups will enjoy criticals, others not so much.
I can't recall ever hearing a player complain that critical s exist. Even in Rolemaster.
Quote from: Bill;735654"need" perhaps not.
But some groups will enjoy criticals, others not so much.
I can't recall ever hearing a player complain that critical s exist. Even in Rolemaster.
Outside of D&D who cares? Often those other systems have criticals built in if they have them. Rather than shoehorned in. My own games do not have critical hits.
Did though have critical damage. IE: if a hit did max damage then the target suffered some additional setback. Usually just rends in armour and shields, one round stuns, limb injuries that slow down mobility without totally disabling.
Unless the damage was taking out a limbs body points at the same time, in which case the target might lose the limb. Which tended to be the least of their worries at that point.
Quote from: Gabriel2;735190Since 1989 I've used something similar to the AD&D2 optional method for critical hits. If you roll a natural 20, then you hit and get a bonus attack. I play it so the bonus attack doesn't necessarily have to be against the same opponent as the original attack.
I do this as well: 20 is an automatic hit, plus you get a free attack. For fumbles I flip it around: 1 is an automatic miss, but you've left an opening and that gives one opponent one free attack against you. In either case, the free attack can crit or fumble, which can be pretty hilarious. I combine this with Shields Shall Be Splintered to mitigate the PCs-take-more-attacks problem — which doesn't help thieves or magic-users, as is proper, or shieldless monsters.
Crits and Fumbles yes. I have fumble tables for thieves, mages, and clerics too!
Arrows of Indra's criticals work like that: if you get a natural 20, you automatically hit. And IF your roll + bonuses would have hit anyways, you get an extra attack.
RPGPundit
They speed combat up, so I'm all for them.
Quote from: Grymbok;735142Generally I've used critical hits in D&D, but there is definitely merit in the argument that using them universally is a bad thing for the players as the DM tends to roll more attack rolls than the party.
That is an attribute of critical hit systems yes.
The general advice of "deal with it" for some reason doesn't solve everyones problems no matter how many times I say give it :p
Quote from: Bill;735654I can't recall ever hearing a player complain that critical s exist. Even in Rolemaster.
Eh, a couple of my players have whined about getting critical hitted a couple of times. My retort's always been, "You never complained when it was
you dishing out the crits." That shuts them up, invariably.
I haven't GMed D&D for a very long time, but I started using critical hits the moment I saw the table in
Arduin. For me, they corrected what I knew to be a critical realism flaw in D&D -- that there was no feasible way for a low-level type to punch out a high-level type, one-on-one.
Of course it doesn't "screw up" D&D. It does make combat
different, but I don't make the mistake of presuming that "different" = "OMG you
broke the system!"
Quote from: Ravenswing;736605
I haven't GMed D&D for a very long time, but I started using critical hits the moment I saw the table in Arduin. For me, they corrected what I knew to be a critical realism flaw in D&D -- that there was no feasible way for a low-level type to punch out a high-level type, one-on-one.
[/I]
More importantly there was no feasible way to have characters running around with missing buttocks. :p
Quote from: Ravenswing;736605For me, they corrected what I knew to be a critical realism flaw in D&D -- that there was no feasible way for a low-level type to punch out a high-level type, one-on-one.
This reminds me of my younger brother in the 90s. He was big into martial arts at the time and was attending a dojo with a fairly high level teacher.
He got called out for lack of humility and was told to take his best shot with the teacher.
He wakes up across the room. He went on to win a regional competition.
And at that point I had a hard time laying a finger on him without sneak attacking.
More levels/competence = less likely to get tagged.
And a natural 20 in D&D allready gives a lower level character a chance to tag even a high level opponent.
So go ahead and punch Elminster.
Thing is, Omega, there's an enduring truth in combat arts. The Number One Fighter has little to fear from the 6th best fighter; they've usually trained in the same styles, know the same moves, know the usual counters, and have equal certitudes about which moves make sense and which ones are stupid.
The one he has to worry about is the newbie. Sure, the newbie is going to get knocked across the room 19 times out of 20. But that 20th time, the newbie gets in the shot ... because the Number One Fighter knows that no one attacks from that angle, using that strike, out of that stance -- it's self-evidently absurd, every trained fighter knows that!
D&D doesn't replicate this, because even if you use "natural 20 always hits," so what? The newbie just tagged that 5th level fighter (and 5th level is very far from Number One Fighter) for 1d8 damage? Big deal. The 5th level fighter's got a few dozen more hit points. He's not impaired in any way, shape or form, and promptly finishes the job.
I don't use crits in AD&D because they make two weapon fighting too good relative to sword & shield or two-handed weapon. Otherwise I like the 4e D&D rule 'max damage on a 20', I use that in Pathfinder instead of the usual double damage crits, which are too swingy IME - I like how it speeds the game up rather than 3e/PF's horrible clunky 'roll to confirm crit, then either you whiff or do x2/x3/x4 damage' system, about the worst I've ever seen.
If I didn't allow mutiple attacks from TWF in my AD&D game then max damage on a 20 would work well there, too. I might use it the next time I run BX or BECM/RC D&D, since that doesn't have TWF rules.
Quote from: Piestrio;736565That is an attribute of critical hit systems yes.
The general advice of "deal with it" for some reason doesn't solve everyones problems no matter how many times I say give it :p
Works for me! I just think it's one of those things you need to be aware of when making design choices. At low levels in D&D a single critical can turn the tide of battle, and so the fact that the enemies will likely get more of them can be an issue. As I recall, one of the first adventures published for 3e (either the one inserted in the PHB or the Sunless Citadel) included as an opponent to the players an Orc with a great-axe, which did X3 criticals. Can't recall off hand what the damage dice was - 2d6 or 1d12 I think. The net result was that if that Orc managed to roll even a single critical hit, someone was going to die (as this was a 1st level adventure). In our game, he got a critical on his first attack, so the players didn't even get to see what he rolled for normal damage first and know to be wary of him...
Quote from: Grymbok;736766Works for me! I just think it's one of those things you need to be aware of when making design choices. At low levels in D&D a single critical can turn the tide of battle, and so the fact that the enemies will likely get more of them can be an issue. As I recall, one of the first adventures published for 3e (either the one inserted in the PHB or the Sunless Citadel) included as an opponent to the players an Orc with a great-axe, which did X3 criticals. Can't recall off hand what the damage dice was - 2d6 or 1d12 I think. The net result was that if that Orc managed to roll even a single critical hit, someone was going to die (as this was a 1st level adventure). In our game, he got a critical on his first attack, so the players didn't even get to see what he rolled for normal damage first and know to be wary of him...
Seems like 1st level PC should be wary of a monster with a bloody big battle axe. There is a slight gamist take here. If you remove the game stuff and had a situation where a bunch of in experienced adventurers encounter an orc with a huge axe they would be wary of him, just like kids are wary of Jason in the Friday 13th movies. In D&D certainly TSR D&D most weapons do c.d8 damage and so you can kind of predict that a blow even a crit double damage isn't going to kill you though it might render you unconscious if you are a 1st level fighter with 9 or 10 HP.
Different games render this situation differently DnD, whilst we all think it is very lethal at low levels really isn't compared to most other RPGs.
I'm rather 'meh' on critical hits personally. And the first thing I houseruled was no 20s always hit and 1s always miss. There's other ways, especially with context and called shots, so that I don't bother with it.
However having ran a session recently where I used the 2e Punching and Wrestling tables extensively I am coming to like the idea of attaching KO% to attacks. Having at least two amazing one-shot KOs in that session at the very start of battle, knocking out a full HP opponent each (on still very low % I might add), left me wistful about incorporating something similar outside of subdue attacks. 2e already has turning martial weapons into subdue damage (5% KO per point of damage sustained, though all that damage is 75% non-lethal damage that fades quickly), which is kinda funny as it might be easier to KO a higher level opponent with lots of HP than try to kill them.
Huh, now that I think about it saves and subdue KO% might actually be the tools I'm looking for if I want to put the fear back into a crossbow pointed at one's prone, but high HP, chest...
I have to say, as to more complex crit rules, I was always dubious as to their viability with D&D rules; until I started playing DCC. The DCC crit rules are fucking awesome.
Quote from: Opaopajr;736801I'm rather 'meh' on critical hits personally. And the first thing I houseruled was no 20s always hit and 1s always miss. There's other ways, especially with context and called shots, so that I don't bother with it.
However having ran a session recently where I used the 2e Punching and Wrestling tables extensively I am coming to like the idea of attaching KO% to attacks. Having at least two amazing one-shot KOs in that session at the very start of battle, knocking out a full HP opponent each (on still very low % I might add), left me wistful about incorporating something similar outside of subdue attacks. 2e already has turning martial weapons into subdue damage (5% KO per point of damage sustained, though all that damage is 75% non-lethal damage that fades quickly), which is kinda funny as it might be easier to KO a higher level opponent with lots of HP than try to kill them.
Huh, now that I think about it saves and subdue KO% might actually be the tools I'm looking for if I want to put the fear back into a crossbow pointed at one's prone, but high HP, chest...
Doesn't that break the D&D HP paradigm?
The 10 HP blow is supposed to be a glancing blow to the guy with 90hp. If it has a 50% chance of knocking them out it seems a bit more like a pretty solid whack...
I fix the last issue by usinf HP/wounds and shots at helpless folks come straight off Wounds and since you typically have 6 of them and they heal 1 point per week....
In the crossbow at the prone guy situation this is how it goes
DM: You look up and there is a guy staring at you holding a loaded heavy Crossbow.
Player: 1d4+1 damage well not worried about that.
DM: well ... this is how it would work. If you choose to go into combat we roll initiaitve. If you win then you get to act and when his crossbow goes off you have full HP. If you loose then his shot goes off before you can act and you will be prone and helpless so your HP won't count and if he hits you it coes off wounds.
Player: ah... changes things
DM: remember we use weapon speeds and a loaded bow gets a speed adjust of +0. Oh and at this range, point Blank, a crossbow will do double damage.
Player: so if I try to stab him with my longsword I get 1d10 + 5 -1 (for dex) and he gets 1d10 and lowest goes first and then if he hits me I have 1d4+1 doubled off my 6 wounds....
DM: Yup
Player: Okay I surrender, drop my sword and slowly raise my arms.
DM: Wise
Quote from: jibbajibba;736795Seems like 1st level PC should be wary of a monster with a bloody big battle axe. There is a slight gamist take here. If you remove the game stuff and had a situation where a bunch of in experienced adventurers encounter an orc with a huge axe they would be wary of him, just like kids are wary of Jason in the Friday 13th movies. In D&D certainly TSR D&D most weapons do c.d8 damage and so you can kind of predict that a blow even a crit double damage isn't going to kill you though it might render you unconscious if you are a 1st level fighter with 9 or 10 HP.
Different games render this situation differently DnD, whilst we all think it is very lethal at low levels really isn't compared to most other RPGs.
It's one of the reasons I favor GURPS, where it's relatively easy for a PC at any power level to be incapacitated, but not so easy for one to be killed.
Quote from: jibbajibba;737424Doesn't that break the D&D HP paradigm?
The 10 HP blow is supposed to be a glancing blow to the guy with 90hp. If it has a 50% chance of knocking them out it seems a bit more like a pretty solid whack...
Not really, as I've learned from current experience. Ten damage is definitely towards the upper limit of regular weapon damage (unless you are a large creature). It'd require magical enhancements or weapon spec./mastery/etc. to really push it up that high or higher otherwise. So, with it's standard -4 atk & -1 init. called shot penalty, all in all it's not all that overwhelming to the standard combat. It actually ups fighter threat nicely, too.
The other interesting tidbit is the Sap weapon where that gets IIRC 20% KO per damage point for surprise, and caps around 80% (1d4?). I'd have to dig out CH:F for reference. With backstab it hits either the 95% KO cap, or spills over to 120%+ potential with GM judgment, so you can keep thieves sapping people from the shadows scary. Interesting option to tack onto a crossbow to the chest threat.
I have no real interest in using wound systems to my D&D, though.