Troll Lord Games

We've beaten this dead horse repeatedly, but as we've yet to critical him, here's my take on it.
In creating the houserules for my fall campaign, I've been leaning heavily towards the old school methods detailed in the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming. However, I've decided to go a little more detailed with the concept of the critical hit.

I'm wasn't satisfied with the generic 2x Damage for everything, but I didn't want to go all Rolemaster on my players either. I wanted something that gave a general idea of the location and damage to help a DM/CK come up with an appropriate description and also to allow for scars, lost teeth and broken/lost limbs with minimal difficulty. I also wanted helmets to have a more important function.

Here it is...
Luther's Crit's

Let me know what you think...

Well except that monsters don;t really have a CON stat this is nice.

Good point. I was looking at it from the player's POV and totally forgot that Monsters have no CON scores, simply a P or M for saves.

One way to handle would be to assume that Monsters have a CON of 8+HD if they have a Physical Prime, 6+HD if not, unless the CK thinks that the creature is particularly weedy or tough. Thing is, since most creatures at the lower levels won't be able to take a 10+ point hit anyways, and most of the creatures affected by these types of results are P save creatures, you could probably get away with just using the 8+HD for everything.

Any other ideas on this...?

Luther wrote:
Good point. I was looking at it from the player's POV and totally forgot that Monsters have no CON scores.

Any other ideas on this...?

Well, the table looks good. My idea would be that upon making a critical roll, the character makes a Strength siege check at a CL = victim's HD, and the various results lead to that table.
_________________
Homebrews Wiki a list of campaign settings on the web.

Turanil wrote:
Well, the table looks good. My idea would be that upon making a critical roll, the character makes a Strength siege check at a CL = victim's HD, and the various results lead to that table.

The results don't just represent an 'extra hard' hit. They also represent extra accurate and lucky blows as well.

Also, I intentionally avoided any 'Crit Check' type of roll to speed things up and keep it simple. I want to keep it a one roll system: if you get a crit, you roll location, badda bing, badda boom, you've got a result.

Looks good and I see your point, but like Turanil, I would find a way to integrate it into a SIEGE check vs. either monster hit die or vs. whether or not the monster has physical primes. Maybe a dex check or some such, with a 5 or 6 CL vs Phys prime monsters and a CL 1 vs non Phys prime creatures. Your system works fine as is, but its complex due to having to fudge for the lack of a solid Con score for monsters.

With Str being the melee stat in CnC it makes sense to just use that instead of trying to use str and/or dex.

However I am not sure you can easily use a Siege check to determine location. As what would that tell you? the system as set up uses results of 1/2 Con, 1/2 to = Con, and > Con. So if you used a Siege check using hit dice you could do something like

if check is made with a roll of at a CL = HD:

less than 1/2 HD Flesh would

1/2 to = HD Debilitating

> than HD Ghastly

This would in fact greatly favor those with Str as prime since again Str is the CnC melee stat.

So for example say I am fighting a 5 HD monster and score a crit. Str is prime so after adjusting for CL my target number is 17. Say I score a 19 after rolling + modifiers. I would have beaten the target number by 2 which is less than half the creatures HD thus scoring a Flesh wound.

However I would suggest that if you only want one roll using this system you never get LESS than a flesh would. In other words crits are always some type of crit regardless of the Siege Roll.

problem with this is the bigger crits become harder to get. So I would put in some sort of extra thing say you roll another natural 20 on your Sige roll and you get the big hit so to speak.

This is just me brainstorming a bit and since I just got out of bed I am sure it is full of holes

shadoes wrote:
With Str being the melee stat in CnC it makes sense to just use that instead of trying to use str and/or dex...if check is made with a roll of at a CL = HD:

less than 1/2 HD Flesh would

1/2 to = HD Debilitating

> than HD Ghastly

This would in fact greatly favor those with Str as prime since again Str is the CnC melee stat.

...However I would suggest that if you only want one roll using this system you never get LESS than a flesh would. In other words crits are always some type of crit regardless of the Siege Roll.

problem with this is the bigger crits become harder to get. So I would put in some sort of extra thing say you roll another natural 20 on your Sige roll and you get the big hit so to speak.

This is just me brainstorming a bit and since I just got out of bed I am sure it is full of holes

No worries. I thrive on the back and forth nature of communal brainstorming. In fact, I think it is the only way to really iron out the kinks in a rule.

Again, I want it to be one roll and look up without any complications like 'Degrees of Success.' So let's take the base idea you've had here, Applying the result to HD for monsters, and apply it to the CON scale I used originally. Maybe the chart would look something like this:

0 - 1/4 current HP = Flesh Wound (the minimum crit)

1/4 to 1/2 current HP = Debilitating Wound

Over 1/2 current HP = Ghastly Wound

Obviously, the bigger the monster, the harder it is to score the Ghastly crits at the beginning, but I think this is a bonus to realism, because, how easy is it to lop the leg off of a Dragon when its limbs are as thick as a redwood? And how likely is it that the Death Knight is going to let his guard down enough for you to remove his head within the first round of a fight?

The reason I base it on the current HP is that the act of wearing down the monster will leave it open to more devestating attacks. Maybe after a dozen hacks at it's leg, a Dragon will be unable to use it or might even lose it? Maybe the Death Knight is so worn down by the party that fatigue made him drop his gaurd for one lethal second? Actually it kind of reminds me of the 3e concept of Massive Damage.

So does that work? Should it be applied to PC's as well or should they have to stick to the CON chart...?

Undead do not fatigue.

serleran wrote:
Undead do not fatigue.

Depends on the world the CK is using, but that's missing the point anyways. The point is that the foe weakens in some way, allowing for a more definitive hit, whether that weakening be through fatigue, structural damage or, in the case of the undead, losing the necrotic energy that sustains its form.

Remember, I'm approaching this from an Old School, the CK describes the specifics the rules provide the inspiration, type approach...

Or, you could just have a different crit system for creatures that do not, generally, exhibit the traits required for the standard one -- undead, golems, elementals... all of these are abnormal regarding the potential for critical injury, without further modifying based on "world mechanics."

Now you're heading into RM territory.

Obviously, cutting the head off of a Golem is not going to kill it. At that point, the CK needs to come up with some other description that fits the Golem or just decide that Golems are immune to crits.

I'd just as soon keep it simple and up to CK interpretation.

If it is to be left to CK interpretation, there is no need for a system at all.

However, the proposed method is very easy to slightly modify to include what I have suggested -- that is, an undead, golem, or elemental reduces severity of critical injury by one, or two steps, at the CKs discretion. Same system, in fact, only different execution of the system.

serleran wrote:
If it is to be left to CK interpretation, there is no need for a system at all.

By that argument we should all stop buying C&C products. I stated specifically the desire to create a simple system that is a step above 'just make it up.' It is supposed to give a framework that the CK builds his descriptions on, and it is, in fact, based on the very spirit of the SEIGE Engine concept: A base mechanic that the CK can extract results from not be boxed in by.

Quote:
However, the proposed method is very easy to slightly modify to include what I have suggested -- that is, an undead, golem, or elemental reduces severity of critical injury by one, or two steps, at the CKs discretion. Same system, in fact, only different execution of the system.

And then it becomes an Exception Based Rule Design, which I avoid like the plague where possible because it relies on 'knowing' all the exceptions. That is the very design that turned me off from 4e and brought me to C&C in the first place. Let the CK decide whether crits affect Golems in his world. I don't need to spell it out for him.

The Goal of the Rule:

1. Give a more interesting crit system beyond '2x damage.'

2. Keep it simple, i.e. a single roll, a quick look at a single stat, a small table.

3. Give a few base results that help the CK describe the strike based upon the circumstances.

So back to the subject: does using HP instead of a CON attribute fix the 'mosnters don't have CON' problem without complicating the basic rule?

A high HP monster is going to be unaffected (much) by the majority of natural twenties / critical hits because the damage dealt is going to be, in most cases, "light wounds." Eventually, after much beating, they will become more and more readily affected, until, when they are already near dead (that is, when the crit really doesn't matter -- any good damage roll or two will suffice) they just die -- all you're doing then is providing a rule for a description, which any CK can already do based on the damage rolled -- not the attack score.

But, that's neither here nor there, really: Pure HD doesn't work (for obvious reasons), but it should be a factor (in my opinion.) To make things "less complicated" I would probably have a "critical threshold" for every character / monster -- a sort of AC, if you will. I would like use max HD type (that is d4 = 4, d6 = 6, etc) + half HD (rounded down.) So, an orc with d8 HD would have a "value" of 8 + 1/2 = 8. This would be considered the Con score, relevant to the existing system -- remember, by default C&C rules, it is generally difficult for a player to inflict this much damage in one single shot so these values should not be exceptionally high or expect to never see instant death shots.

So, an example, as I understand it (using the slight modified system):

Bubba attacks an orc -- he is a 1st level ranger, using a battle axe. He gets a natural 20. Critical. He rolls damage, gets a 7 + 1 for CM and +2 for Strength = 10 damage. 10 > 8 = ghastly. Rolls d12 for location, and gets Lower Body -- orc was dead on damage alone, but at least the CK can describe it as a cleaving blow to the hips, cutting the orc in twain as it bellows a horrible sound.

Perhaps that is too complex as well...

agreed simple is good. part of what attracts me to CnC is the lack of having to have a rule or feat for everything. And frankly once it is ironed out this system works for anything. you can of course at ones descretion modify to do whatever you like.

With that being said obviously some systems in place for ease of use are fine. Otherwise this is an empty conversation
Although I don't think the one proposed exception is out of hand. It is only when you start coming up with exceptions for every monster you truly start to delve into RM territory( turn to page 113 of the possible critical hit chart. if your monster is in the top 5% of this chart turn to page..... hehe) . Any game where characters/monsters have weaknesses is technically an exception based system. Why are trolls only put down by fire? Why isn't everything then? that sort of thing. haha that way lies madness! madness I tell you! because frankly any system when modified enough can be broken.

And this seems more to me of a system to help a CK describe a crit effect than anything else. At the end of the day you either say yes this is something I will use , no I don't want to use it, or I like part of this but would prefer more therefore I willmodify it to suit my players and game.

now back to the topic of HP... are you saying that you simply roll a Siege roll and compare that result to the current HP of the monster? with no success target? Or the first damage roll?

Serelan, That's why I used HP not HD as my example. Any damage that causes over 1/2 the creatures current HP= Ghastly wound.

Shadoes, I'm saying no extra roll, just use the creatures HP score, so the procedure becomes:

1. Roll a natural '20'

2. Roll damage and compare it to Creatures current HP for the wound type.

3. Roll D12 for location and look up the result on table.

And yes, this is more of a storytelling/description tool than a hard mechanics rule.

Okay so you are shooting for something like early crits would be flesh wounds but as the creature weakens(for whatever reason) the criticals would possibly become bigger.

since my damage curve does not go up as I level nearly as fast as my base to hit curve

Actually, it really doesn't matter what your base to hit is, since the only requirement is a natural 20. You'll be just as good at inflicting crits at level 1 as you are at level 20 -- the only difference will, likely, be due to equipment helping you inflict more damage (belts of strength, magical weapons, and so forth.) Under this system, a bonus to damage is far better than a bonus to hit... if you're trying to get crits, that is (they're still useful on non-20 rolls.)

So, it comes down to what you're shooting for, feel-wise.

Shadoes - Yep. Whether it's because of accumulating damage or the creature becoming fatigued (as HP represent a combination of physical structure, fatigue and morale), the idea is that it is easier to get that 'killing blow' after a good beat down on the enemy.

This keeps a 10th level Fighter from losing a leg to a Kobold who gets a lucky shot on the first turn but it also makes him think twice about hanging about and fighting off the entire tribe when he's low on HP.

Serleran - Exactly. It is unlikely that any mere mortal, no matter how skilled they are, will take a dragon's leg clean off with a good hit. But once you have magical swords, belts of Giant Strength, blessings from God, etc. working for you, you too can be like Saint George.

The feel, in this case, is that a '20' represents the uncertainty of the battle field. Nothing more. Nothing less. It could be an extremely skillful hit that slipped past the guard of the opponent or it might be that the opponent ended up on bad footing from the rough terrain leaving himself wide open (this is where the descriptive power fo the CK comes in) . Either way, it is something that is more likely to be debilitating or fatal when the combatants are so damaged or fatigued that they are unable to to compensate for it.

I've updated the PDF to take into account the new modifications, mainly replacing CON with Current HP and adding descriptive verbiage.

Luther wrote:
I'm wasn't satisfied with the generic 2x Damage for everything, but I didn't want to go all Rolemaster on my players either.

Just for you Luther, I present Beat 'em To A Pulp!
Yeah, I went and ported Rolemaster criticals over to Castles & Crusades just for kicks because I love their grisly sense of humor in their tables. It made for a good essay. Looking at it, you seem to be channeling HARP here while adding a hit location step into the mix. This works fine, but one thing about critical hit systems I never really liked was that it neglected the wizard's spellcasting. Spellcasters should be able to get into the fun too, with their spells.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

Traveller wrote:
Just for you Luther, I present Beat 'em To A Pulp!

I'll take a look at the HARP ones, but you couldn't get me to go back to RM in a million years.

Quote:
Yeah, I went and ported Rolemaster criticals over to Castles & Crusades just for kicks because I love their grisly sense of humor in their tables. It made for a good essay. Looking at it, you seem to be channeling HARP here while adding a hit location step into the mix. This works fine, but one thing about critical hit systems I never really liked was that it neglected the wizard's spellcasting. Spellcasters should be able to get into the fun too, with their spells.

True. How about this:
When a person makes a save against a spell with damage effect and rolls a natural '1,' they suffer a critical hit. Use the damage rolled for the spell in the same way as you would a weapon critical.

There you go. Now obviously, Magic Missles and such will not get a critical, but then I've always thought of those as 'Death by mysterious causes' types of attacks where a person coming upon the body later wouldn't have a clue what killed them as it leaves no obvious damage.

Fireballs on the other hand give a save to take half damage. Rolling a '1' on such a roll could mean that you not only failed to avoid the blast, but tripped and ended up right in the middle of it.

How's that...?

Mmm...I think any damage dealing spell should have a chance at a critical. Have the caster roll a d20 and if he gets a 20, he gets the critical.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

Traveller wrote:
Mmm...I think any damage dealing spell should have a chance at a critical. Have the caster roll a d20 and if he gets a 20, he gets the critical.

I do this already in any spell that is missle in nature. magic missle, fireball, lightning bolt etc. makes the wizards happy heh

Quote:
Have the caster roll a d20 and if he gets a 20, he gets the critical.

You do know that is almost exactly how it works in d20, yes? Not quite, of course, but very close... there are a few exceptions (like spells that don't have attack rolls or inflict variable damage.)

A seperate D20 roll would work, but it's another die roll that 19 times out of 20 does nothing. I know most people don't mind, but it drives me bonkers to have to roll dice with those odds every time I do something.

I've come up with another alternative, though. If you roll a Double of the die type used in the damage, then you get a crit. For example, if you're doing 3d6 damage, and two of the dice come up 6, you get a crit.

This means that tiny spells that only do a single die of damage won't blow anyone's head off, but as spells get more dice added to them, they become increasingly likely to do just that.

That also guarantees any spell that does 7 dice of damage is a critical, which puts spellcasters at a serious advantage (one they do not need.) It does "weaken" other spells in comparison, though, like acid arrow, unless it follows the normal need a 20 rule because it is an attack... but, that's an "exception-base."

After going through the spell lists I'm thiking that the idea that spells that allow a saving throw will cause a critical if the target rolls a natural '1' is the best way to go.

The few spells that don't get criticals in this way, like Magic Missle and Burning Hands, have a few traits that make this work. First, there is no save. The target is hit with no option but to suck it up. Second, there is typically little damage even at higher levels (MM only creates more missles, and BH adds +1 per level) and it keeps them low powered in ultimate effect.

Finally, the crits on the table are unlikely to result from the effects of some of these spells. MM, for instance, has always seemed like a low level 'Death Curse' to me, while Flaming Hands causes minor burns, and there is little way to make these effects worse by 'random battlefield fortune' which is the idea that the crit system is based around.

Higher level spells, are the flip side. Finger of Death, for instance, will never 'Crit' as it kills you outright if you fail a save (it is, in my mind, the highest form of Death Curse, where the magic missle is the lowest). So there's no overpowering there.

It is the mid range spells which can potentially be devestating, and rightly so, becuase they have effects that can be made worse by bad luck (you are hit by a Fireball, and it ignites your lamp oil, for instance).

Whatever the reasoning, I think the rule fits my goal: simple and rquiring no extra rolling or exceptions. YMMV and only time and playtesting will really tell. I have my first C&C Test Game next week, so I'll try it out there and let you know how it worked...