I picked up the 2003 (1st?) ed. years ago because it was on sale and I loved Hensley's Fields of Honor 19th c. miniatures rules - but never got around actually to playing SW.
Now I'm thinking it might be worth a try with my regular game group. I would have some pregens ready, because for these guys the character design would probably be a turnoff initially. The game systems would no doubt seem very strange at first, but hopefully they would be familiar enough after a couple of sessions. The more I can handle mechanics "transparently," the better for most of the players.
To avoid cases in which a "better" trait yields a worse chance of success, I propose to ignore a point of penalty in the following:
D6-2 = d6-1
D8-4 = d8-3
D10-6 = d10-5
D12-8 = d12-7
This group is not into the superhero genre, but I may have some thoughts on factors more related to that because it interests me (and I'm in no hurry to buy another book). I'm not sure I want to do more swords and sorcery, but that may be the best way to introduce a new system.
Any advice from seasoned (or Veteran, heh) players/GMs?
Personal opinion is that Savage Worlds doesn't do superheroes that well. Its really the one genre I hate trying to attempt with it.
Also on the math thing: its very minor, and even where it does happen (which is 1 difficulty number per die) you still have a better chance of crit succeeding and not crit failing on a higher die.
BUT, if you really want to avoid it, the easiest way to do it is to have any "aced" die have a minus 1 on its reroll. So for instance, if you rolled a 4 on a d4, when you reroll, you add 1d4-1 to it instead of the full 1d4.
As said above I don't think it's a good ruleset for superheroes (unless you mean "street level" superheroes : Punisher, Black Widow, Batman, etc.).
To introduce the game system to your group I'd go for a 1930s pulp game. You will have everything you need to do that in the core book (and there is a scenario on the Pinnacle website : The Eye of Kilquato (http://www.peginc.com/freebies/Pulp/TheEyeofKilquato_Rev.pdf)
I GMed different campaigns for the last 5 years, my advice is just to play the game "as is" at least once before tweaking the rules.
And you can get the latest edition for just 9,99$, the rules are cleaned-up and you have a bit more options.
If the game "clicks" with your group, go for the adventure deck (https://www.peginc.com/store/action-adventure-decks/). It's really a game changer, my players want an adventure deck in almost every game we play now
I love universal systems, and have used SW to run multiple genres. I would love to like it more, but I just can't. As you identified, the dice are wonkey at times. Also the rules for ranged combat seems tailored to modeling normal humans vs bullets and we gamers seldom expect our heroes to be incapable of reacting to ranged attacks. The exploding dice is less of an issue but frequently kills characters in the least-fun way, IME.
It's a charming system with a loyal fanbase, but some of the gaming concepts it is designed to displace are there for a reason.
It doesn't do "Realistic" very well, it doesn't do superheroes very well... but it does the pulpy middle ground of Robert E. Howard, Edgar Rice Burroughs, old tough-guy movies, 80's men's paperback vigilantes, 2000 AD Punk-SF, American ninja, and 70's cop shows very, very well.
The dice wonkiness was never a problem when I played it (But then, I thrive on randomness and unpredictability). I would strongly second the poster above's recommendation to try the system "Straight" before popping the hood -I once played in a SW game where the GM tried to "Fix" it and it was a grueling slog... the system is a finer-tuned engine than it may at first appear.
Quote from: Phillip;763386This group is not into the superhero genre, but I may have some thoughts on factors more related to that because it interests me (and I'm in no hurry to buy another book). I'm not sure I want to do more swords and sorcery, but that may be the best way to introduce a new system.
I love Savage Worlds, but in my experience vanilla or D&D-esque fantasy is about the worst possible use of it. Every time I've seen it tried there's one or more players trying to play combats like they're playing D&D. Swinging swords every round instead of trying tricks and tests of will, then getting frustrated when that doesn't work (which it especially doesn't against tough opponents like main villains or tough monsters).
For an intro run I'd look for something that explicitly calls for swashbuckling and using the environment over attacks. Robin Hood a la Erol Flynn, pirates of the Spanish Main, or just about any genre of action pulp.
On the other hand, if by "swords and sorcery" you mean sword and sandals, Conan-the-movie-not-the-books, Beastmaster, et al, then by all means carry on.
I have yet to run superheroes with SW but I suspect it'll do a fine job of it because the baseline assumptions that most people regard as "pulp" hew so close to pre-Iron Age four-color superhero comics.
I'm inclined to agree that it probably does a poor job of handling cosmic-level high-powered stuff (a la Superman, Darkseid, Silver Surfer, Adam Warlock, etc.) but if you're running a low- to mid-power level game (say, your average X-Men or derivative comic), and keep appearances by cosmic heavyweights to a minimum, it should do the trick.
I agree with what's been said: great system at nearly every genre, but not supers. It works for for pulpy games or for more realistic games, it just requires a bit of tuning. Drop the Wild Die for realistic games - easy enough.
As for the statistic oddity, it is extremely minor, and only for specific situations. If the game was "hit the exact target number", then it would matter (slightly) more. But since raises matter a great deal, the statistical oddity fades away. Character ability is much more based on Edges than on die type. Having a +2 to a roll tends to be more important than an increase in die type, plus all the other effects of dice.
After running it for years, my two complaints are: 1) The power system is bland, and 2) I'd rather have hit points than Wounds. There's actually a decent way to switch to Hit Points with minimal impact on the system, and I'd still be using the system if that were my only issue. However, the Power system requires too much of an overhaul to be worth it, and the creators don't see a problem with it.
Still, I highly recommend it to anyone.
Quote from: Saladman;763432I love Savage Worlds, but in my experience vanilla or D&D-esque fantasy is about the worst possible use of it.
It definitely plays a bit different than D&D, but once players switch their thinking a bit, I've found it great for fantasy. I ran a pathfinder adventure path (Rise of the Runelords) using Savage Worlds and it was awesome.
Quote from: Obeeron;763444As for the statistic oddity, it is extremely minor, and only for specific situations. If the game was "hit the exact target number", then it would matter (slightly) more. But since raises matter a great deal, the statistical oddity fades away. Character ability is much more based on Edges than on die type. Having a +2 to a roll tends to be more important than an increase in die type, plus all the other effects of dice.
IMO it's the raise that causes the worst oddities by itself. Particularly considering how the TN is always (always) 4. So d6 is not only capable of consistently hitting that all by itself, but it's also more likely to raise than a d8. Plus you get a d6 on everything you do because you're a PC.
Caveat: I am absolutely certain that a math boffin has calculations proving me wrong, but having actually observed this in action I remain unswayed by those arguments.
To me the most unique/useful aspect of Savage Worlds is that it's designed from top to bottom for adults with careers and families. Most of the games I loved as a teenager/early-20something are unplayable now (hi Shadowrun!) because we just don't have 2 hours for character creation or a whole night to dedicate to one combat. My only complaint with Savage Worlds is the lack of granularity, since there are only 5 die types measuring the entire range of aptitude. I'm tinkering with a heavy modification that implements zocchi dice to fill out the range, and -1 on exploding dice to fix the probabilities.
Anyone interested in the math for Savage Worlds can copy/paste whichever pieces below they want to anydice.com.
output [explode d4] named "d4"
output [explode d6] named "d6"
output [explode d8] named "d8"
output [explode d10] named "d10"
output [explode d12] named "d12"
output [highest of [explode d4] and [explode d6]] named "d4 wild"
output [highest of [explode d6] and [explode d6]] named "d6 wild"
output [highest of [explode d8] and [explode d6]] named "d8 wild"
output [highest of [explode d10] and [explode d6]] named "d10 wild"
output [highest of [explode d12] and [explode d6]] named "d12 wild"
output [explode d4]+2 named "d4+2"
output [explode d6]+2 named "d6+2"
output [explode d8]+2 named "d8+2"
output [explode d10]+2 named "d10+2"
output [explode d12]+2 named "d12+2"
output [highest of [explode d4] and [explode d6]]+2 named "d4 wild +2"
output [highest of [explode d6] and [explode d6]]+2 named "d6 wild +2"
output [highest of [explode d8] and [explode d6]]+2 named "d8 wild +2"
output [highest of [explode d10] and [explode d6]]+2 named "d10 wild +2"
output [highest of [explode d12] and [explode d6]]+2 named "d12 wild +2"
Combat in Savage Worlds can be very swingy. I've lost two player characters over the last two sessions because of exploding dice.
The first was the result of seven successive exploding d6s on damage. The character was being chased and had a low Toughness, so it only makes sense he would die.
The second was against a Fish-Bear, a monster with a monstrous damage of d12+d8. He was very tanky, but even with the best armor and high toughness, he went down after the d12 element of the die exploded three times. He tried to save himself with a Benny and failed.
I've cooked up a house rule very similar to Warhammer Fantasy RP fate points. When you die, you can lose a Benny and be knocked out instead of dead. The character still suffers the effects of Injuries and healing time. Often at times, it's better to just let the character die. As well, after every major adventure, a character can regain a lose Benny.
Quote from: Saladman;763432I love Savage Worlds, but in my experience vanilla or D&D-esque fantasy is about the worst possible use of it. Every time I've seen it tried there's one or more players trying to play combats like they're playing D&D. Swinging swords every round instead of trying tricks and tests of will, then getting frustrated when that doesn't work (which it especially doesn't against tough opponents like main villains or tough monsters).
I think this is a general gamer thing, though. Using GURPS, my players are prone to do the exact same thing: tinkerhammering rather than trying more than the occasional use of the numerous maneuvers available. It's not even as if they're unfamiliar with GURPS -- the
novice in the group's been playing GURPS for five years, and he's the only one playing GURPS for less than a decade.
Quote from: Crabbyapples;763528Combat in Savage Worlds can be very swingy.
Ah, didn't take long for that tired old gripe to surface. Is RQ swingy? There's a chance in any combat that someone is going to roll 01, and then it's a crit and very likely game over. And yet everyone I know raves about how great and 'realistic' RQ and all of the other derivatives (CoC, Stormbringer etc) is. So why is the exploding dice and extremely minor probability issue seized upon with glee by people as evidence that SW is borked?
SW can handle plenty of styles with the tweaks in the Deluxe edition. But it plays nothing like D&D - hence the generally good advice not to start with fantasy. I honestly think too many people think that because it is 'pulpy' (which is a shit term IMO) PCs are nigh invulnerable and the stand and toe it out style of DnD combat will work fine; it won't, there is a decent tactical level to combat. And hey, whatever happened to 'fight only as a last resort'? You wouldn't expect to get away with it in an OSR game, so if you get your ass handed to you in a fight you shouldn't have gotten into then maybe you should have been more careful.
Quote from: Derabar;763566Ah, didn't take long for that tired old gripe to surface. Is RQ swingy? There's a chance in any combat that someone is going to roll 01, and then it's a crit and very likely game over. And yet everyone I know raves about how great and 'realistic' RQ and all of the other derivatives (CoC, Stormbringer etc) is. So why is the exploding dice and extremely minor probability issue seized upon with glee by people as evidence that SW is borked?
RQ6 may very well be swingy. I've never had a chance to try it out.
Savage Worlds on the other hand can be swingy. Extreme results do happen at the table, on both sides of the screen. I don't blame Savage World's normal resolution (which plays near perfectly) but with the damage system. A combat skill roll can only give +1d6 to damage after all. Sometimes a monster is too weak, unable to harm the attacker, or suddenly too powerful with a series of explosion, killing them in one attack. This may be a deal-breaker for some and is legitimate compliant.
The minor mathematics hiccup is bullshit though. Sure, a d4 might be better against rolling a TN of 5, but only if you don't expect a raise.
Quote from: Ravenswing;763543I think this is a general gamer thing, though.
I've seen the same thing. Spam the stock attack repeatedly whether it's working or not, whether the game system rewards or punishes it, whether they're D&D players or not.
Quote from: Crabbyapples;763583The minor mathematics hiccup is bullshit though. Sure, a d4 might be better against rolling a TN of 5, but only if you don't expect a raise.
From what I can see, it's not - the issue is that for any d
, you are *very slightly* more likely to hit with d than with d.
So, for the d6/d4 comparison, the blip actually occurs with a TN of 6, which for a d4 is an 18.75% chance, while with a d6 is only a 16.67% chance - and that's the *worst offender. Against a TN of 5, d4 has a 25% chance, while d6 has a 33.3% chance.
For *any* other target, the larger die is always preferable.
http://www.insomnihack.com/?p=495
It's a minor blip, and is easily solved by having exploding dice be at -1 if you feel "fixing" it is necessary. I personally don't.
edit: The point about where the mathematical oddities occurs if you look at chance to get *at least* a particular number. If you look at the chance to get *exactly* a particular number, it occurs in different places... but since getting a number or above is usually what you're looking for, that's the metric I focused on. For instance, you're more likely to get a 5 *exactly* with a d4 (25%) than with a d6 (16.6%). But since getting *exactly* five is irrelevant (higher is always better), the more interesting oddity happens at TN 6.
Quote from: Derabar;763566Is RQ swingy? There's a chance in any combat that someone is going to roll 01, and then it's a crit and very likely game over.
Yes, it is. That's why Luck Points exist, and the text is very upfront about how dangerous combat is, and how to avoid fighting to the death.
I think the complaint about SW being "swingy" derives from the tone of the writing and the marketing collateral, which certainly tends more to the heroic than the gritty and deadly.
Quote from: daniel_ream;763600Yes, it is. That's why Luck Points exist, and the text is very upfront about how dangerous combat is, and how to avoid fighting to the death.
I think the complaint about SW being "swingy" derives from the tone of the writing and the marketing collateral, which certainly tends more to the heroic than the gritty and deadly.
And yet it is a game where one-shot kills are built into the system.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;763426It doesn't do "Realistic" very well, it doesn't do superheroes very well... but it does the pulpy middle ground of Robert E. Howard, Edgar Rice Burroughs, old tough-guy movies, 80's men's paperback vigilantes, 2000 AD Punk-SF, American ninja, and 70's cop shows very, very well.
The dice wonkiness was never a problem when I played it (But then, I thrive on randomness and unpredictability). I would strongly second the poster above's recommendation to try the system "Straight" before popping the hood -I once played in a SW game where the GM tried to "Fix" it and it was a grueling slog... the system is a finer-tuned engine than it may at first appear.
As has been pretty much echoed here, I agree with this. Superman vs Darkseid not so much. Punching Nazi's in the face grabbing the spear of destiny before them, hell yes!
Quote from: Saladman;763432Every time I've seen it tried there's one or more players trying to play combats like they're playing D&D. Swinging swords every round instead of trying tricks and tests of will, then getting frustrated when that doesn't work (which it especially doesn't against tough opponents like main villains or tough monsters).
I see the same behavior with new Fate players. I usually have to demonstrate how effective non-attack-button-mashing is, and explicitly explain to them why it works well.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;763426I would strongly second the poster above's recommendation to try the system "Straight" before popping the hood -I once played in a SW game where the GM tried to "Fix" it and it was a grueling slog... the system is a finer-tuned engine than it may at first appear.
I usually recommend this for just about every system. A lot of things that people think are "wrong" with systems are just ways that they're different from their favorite system - and if you want your favorite system, use that, right?
I usually say "when you can argue for a rule, you probably understand it enough to change it."
Quote from: Emperor Norton;763387BUT, if you really want to avoid it, the easiest way to do it is to have any "aced" die have a minus 1 on its reroll. So for instance, if you rolled a 4 on a d4, when you reroll, you add 1d4-1 to it instead of the full 1d4.
Yes, that looks good. The rolls it makes much harder are already pretty long shots.
If your crew likes minis, SW is a great game. I recently played in a SW 40k game and it rocked harder than the demos of Deathwatch or Only War that I have tried.
As for the PC kill issue, I consider that a feature of the system. Sometimes, shit happens and Sgt. Rock takes a bullet.
My only problem with SW is vehicle combat.
My list of things I initially or often forget about in SW, though some of them are/were pretty dumb:
*Parry is used only vs. melee attacks, not ranged.
*gang-up bonuses give +1 per extra attacker on a target.
*a tabletop inch equals 2 yards.
*rolling a 1 on the spellcasting die (regardless of wild die) is bad.
*players usually forget about bennies
*players also tend to forget about the combat manuevers; you may want to ascribe modifiers sometimes based on their description (e.g. "I charge" = wild attack).
*note that there's no direct 'armour check penalty' system, but armour is heavy and encumberance penalties are quite high.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;763674My list of things I initially or often forget about in SW, though some of them are/were pretty dumb:
*Parry is used only vs. melee attacks, not ranged.
*gang-up bonuses give +1 per extra attacker on a target.
*a tabletop inch equals 2 yards.
*rolling a 1 on the spellcasting die (regardless of wild die) is bad.
*players usually forget about bennies
*players also tend to forget about the combat manuevers; you may want to ascribe modifiers sometimes based on their description (e.g. "I charge" = wild attack).
*note that there's no direct 'armour check penalty' system, but armour is heavy and encumberance penalties are quite high.
Besides the obviously bad ones, like players forgetting about bennies, why are these rules bad/dumb? In my eyes, the above rules are features.
This thread is really whetting my appetite for some Savage Worlds gaming. Maybe I'll squeeze in a one-shot scenario between wrapping up my current OD&D game and starting the long-belated CoC one. Damn you, theRPGsite. :D
Getting shot all the time, for example, fails to emulate any form of entertainment I can think of. Imagine Star Wars where all the Storm Troopers need do to kill Luke in the Death Star is roll a 4.
Quote from: Obeeron;763445It definitely plays a bit different than D&D, but once players switch their thinking a bit, I've found it great for fantasy. I ran a pathfinder adventure path (Rise of the Runelords) using Savage Worlds and it was awesome.
I'm glad to hear that. And in fact, I'm glossing over the fact my favorite SW campaign was a Saxa-only Hellfrost game that worked out very well. Though that worked in part because the GM drilled down to a Saxa/Vikings themed game rather than throwing open the book and saying "make an adventurer and show up." More generic SW fantasy games, including Shaintar which seems to get good reviews, have never yet clicked for me.
Still, when you say "once players switch their thinking a bit," I have to stand by my position as it applies to an intro session. Better to jump straight into the system's strengths.
In that vein, I should have said something about pre-gens, since the OP is already thinking of those. In the abstract, I'd recommend something like every character having at least one of Taunt or Intimidate, one character with Acrobat (highlights agility tricks), one character with Strong-Willed (highlights tests of will), one with Quick (highlights the initiative system and increases odds of a joker). At all costs avoid single-classing characters by maxing out a fighting or casting skill to d12 - more balanced characters will actually be stronger across more situations.
I think the only thing you could possibly miss in the 2003 version is the character templates the Deluxe edition has up front, and even there, most one-shot adventures have pre-gens, so you can get an idea of what characters should look like.
Quote from: mcbobbo;763741Getting shot all the time, for example, fails to emulate any form of entertainment I can think of. Imagine Star Wars where all the Storm Troopers need do to kill Luke in the Death Star is roll a 4.
Star Wars came up on the pinnacle forums once, as an example of what (not) to do with large groups of shooty extras. The suggestion there was that a bunch of stormtroopers firing on a pc should really be a group roll rather than X number of individual rolls. So a whole group of troopers would get their average skill die once, a wild die once (for the group, despite being extras), take the higher result and be done. Its a fair critique the core book doesn't call that instance out specifically, but it is a rule that's in there, that works for that kind of media.
Although if you're complaining about shots hitting on a 4 at all, I just can't help you. That's what bennies and edges are for. And I'm pretty sure any Star Wars pc is going to have both.
Quote from: mcbobbo;763741Getting shot all the time, for example, fails to emulate any form of entertainment I can think of. Imagine Star Wars where all the Storm Troopers need do to kill Luke in the Death Star is roll a 4.
That's a very specific sort of entertainment you've got there. ;)
Also, a 4 is a hit, not a kill. If Luke has a Toughness of 5 (assuming an absolutely average Vigor score of 1d6), they have to score a damage (SWEE gives 3d6 for a laser rifle) of Toughness (5) + 3 Raises (3x4) = 17 to inflict three Wounds and one-shot Luke. And that's assuming he won't spend Bennies to Soak one or more of these Wounds.
Sure, the exploding dice might help with that damage (my math-fu is too weak to calculate the probability of 17 on 3d6 with exploding 6s), but my game-table experience is that Savage Worlds Wild Card characters are, if anything,
too hard to kill. That's what burned me out on the game in the first place, a couple of years back. Though I've since realized I've been doing a bunch of stuff wrong. :o
Quote from: Crabbyapples;763730Besides the obviously bad ones, like players forgetting about bennies, why are these rules bad/dumb? In my eyes, the above rules are features.
No, me not realizing that you didn't use Parry against ranged attacks was dumb. Or how far 1" was. Probably no one else is likely to not notice those particular two, but you never know.
Quote from: mcbobbo;763741Getting shot all the time, for example, fails to emulate any form of entertainment I can think of. Imagine Star Wars where all the Storm Troopers need do to kill Luke in the Death Star is roll a 4.
If your players are letting their PCs being hit on a 4, they haven't learned tactics yet! A target number of 4 for Shooting in Savage Worlds is the equivalent of standing out of cover and firing on someone. Stand behind *anything* for TN of 5, drop to the ground for a TN of 6, drop prone behind a log or a boulder for TN of 8, or shoot through an arrow slit or underneath a car for TN of 10. Jump into some shadow for an even better TN.
(Technically you are creating a penalty to the attacker's roll, rather than an increase in TN, but it's basically equivalent).
So this, while fun, is bad in Savage Worlds and is TN of 4:
(http://whatculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/exp02.jpg)
I'm aware of cover. But heroes only take cover in specific genres.
Quote from: mcbobbo;763777I'm aware of cover. But heroes only take cover in specific genres.
Then create an edge or campaign quality that suits. "In addition to Cover, there's now 'Brazen'. The more brazen you are, the larger the penalty to Shooting rolls targeting you. Unless you are a Stormtrooper, then the TN is 2."
Quote from: Obeeron;763784Then create an edge or campaign quality that suits. "In addition to Cover, there's now 'Brazen'. The more brazen you are, the larger the penalty to Shooting rolls targeting you. Unless you are a Stormtrooper, then the TN is 2."
:)
Or play a different genre. Or ignore Parry and make it Defense. Or increase the TN to 'number of inches away'.
Or, and I say this with love, I can just pick a system that's less arbitrary about ranged weapons.
It's a preference thing, to be sure.
I ran the Necessary Evil campaign from start to finish, with my own embellishments (we made it into Legendary) and Savage Worlds did a serviceable job. The new Supers companion makes me think it does a MUCH better job.
Some changes:
- The default is for characters, regardless of power level, to have all their powers in the beginning. They still advance with Edges, Skills, Attributes, etc.
- A number of new setting rules have been added, like making Power Stunts a super simple use of a Benny, combining attacks to take down super powerful foes, etc.
- Powers have been tweaked and rebalanced.
I want to give a game with the new companion a go, just to see if it plays as well as it looks, because it looks really promising. (Still might not be the best fit for Silver Surfer, mind you, but anything from Avengers on down looks doable).
Quote from: The Butcher;763738This thread is really whetting my appetite for some Savage Worlds gaming. Maybe I'll squeeze in a one-shot scenario between wrapping up my current OD&D game and starting the long-belated CoC one. Damn you, theRPGsite. :D
RuneQuest 6!
Quote from: CRKrueger;763871RuneQuest 6!
Incidentally I was just explaining the effed-up history and current scenario of BRP fantasy RPGs over WhatsApp to our mostly-BRP-oblivious gaming group. I might get my RQ6 jitters somewhat under control, as a friend is gearing up to run Magic World.
I think it'll be like having a bottle of Oregon Pinot Noir when what you really want is to uncork that Bourgogne Premier Cru you've got in the cellar; it can be great, but it's not quite what you're craving. ;)
The only way Im playing RQ6 is probably if I'm running it, and Heaven knows I've got a backlog of stuff to run. Right now it's CoC so we'll be on one big BRP kick in a couple of months.
My 2 cents:
I don't really care much for the system of SW. I just really like the settings, the hooks that most settings have, the tone of the writing and the to the point clarity it provides.
Most settings have something that happened in the past (Serpentfall, Hellfrost) that still influences the setting in the present. I really dig that. I also really like how little words those books need to make something clear.
Quote from: Crabbyapples;763528Combat in Savage Worlds can be very swingy. I've lost two player characters over the last two sessions because of exploding dice.
The first was the result of seven successive exploding d6s on damage. The character was being chased and had a low Toughness, so it only makes sense he would die.
The second was against a Fish-Bear, a monster with a monstrous damage of d12+d8. He was very tanky, but even with the best armor and high toughness, he went down after the d12 element of the die exploded three times. He tried to save himself with a Benny and failed.
Multiple damage dice are very dangerous in SW. The more dice you're rolling, the more chance there is of one of them turning in to a multiple aces massive number, and if you're rolling two dice already for damage then that can easily become three with an aced attack roll.
My players learnt over time that when the really big attacks hit, it's better to hold back the bennies for the "do I die?" Vigor rolls than to try to Soak 20+ points of damage...