Decapitation and lethality in your game

Lanefan said:

How does this interact with Bracers of Defense, Rings of Protection, etc. - do they count as armour? If not, this seems nasty for the sneaks and casters.

Does this stack with #1 above, giving quadruple damage if both are true?

Now this one's very interesting, though were it me I might make it something like Con score + 8 to avoid having high-level low-Con characters die to a max-rolled ordinary hit from a strong Orc's longsword. It would also make me very leery of putting them up against things like Giants that can do 20 damage on a whim, which would be a shame, because Giants are fun!

Do you find this makes your players put too much emphasis on having a high Con score?

Ok - a second save determines yes or no to this?

This last really surprises me. Either your monsters can't crit for the life of 'em or your PCs all have the constitutions of dump trucks - or both, maybe.

Click to expand...

Rings of protection add to AC but do not protect you from damage. It IS nasty to sneaks and casters, but they have adapted and try very hard to funnel enemies to the fighter and otherwise pick their targets and opportunities carefully. So far, no complaints. Even when they get slammed. They take calculated risks and understand they sometimes do not pay off.

No quadruple damage. One case of triple damage due to fire vulnerability.

I am not myself leery of using high-damage enemies. I telegraph the weapon and strength of the opponents as fairly as I can and the players are proactive about recon. When push comes to shove, any player who asks can see the enemy stat block. (This has happened twice so far).

No second save.

My monsters seem to crit 5% of the time. The highest CON in the party is 16, the lowest is 12. The fighter has 14!

In practice it seems like my rules are like a sword of Damocles or a lurking threat. It’s not a massacre at all. The lethality is there and they play like it is there. It’s less overtly “HEROIC” and more grounded (maybe is the right word).

More Daredevil than Thor, if that gives you a sense of it.

Bawylie said:

Rings of protection add to AC but do not protect you from damage. It IS nasty to sneaks and casters, but they have adapted and try very hard to funnel enemies to the fighter and otherwise pick their targets and opportunities carefully. So far, no complaints. Even when they get slammed. They take calculated risks and understand they sometimes do not pay off.

No quadruple damage. One case of triple damage due to fire vulnerability.

I am not myself leery of using high-damage enemies. I telegraph the weapon and strength of the opponents as fairly as I can and the players are proactive about recon. When push comes to shove, any player who asks can see the enemy stat block. (This has happened twice so far).

No second save.

My monsters seem to crit 5% of the time. The highest CON in the party is 16, the lowest is 12. The fighter has 14!

In practice it seems like my rules are like a sword of Damocles or a lurking threat. It’s not a massacre at all. The lethality is there and they play like it is there. It’s less overtly “HEROIC” and more grounded (maybe is the right word).

More Daredevil than Thor, if that gives you a sense of it.

Click to expand...

Sounds great! Just seems like the practice has ended up a bit different than what the white-room math would suggest; but if it works then who can complain?

Celebrim said:

Yes, and it also lets you reroll 1's, which gives you an average of an extra .5 hit points per HD - or 11 hit points per HD.

Click to expand...

We've never used that bit - a 1 is a 1.

Ahh, yeah, you've extensively rewritten 1e AD&D IIRC. So, per the RAW that should stop at 9th.

So, by the RAW, he'd have ~108 hp as a 19 Con 12th level fighter, which is a lot but not so much that it makes my eyes bug out. Barbarians and Bards can get into the 130s, but both classes are difficult to advance in their own way.

Click to expand...

5 + 60 + 45* + 12th would be over 108, probably more like 115. We don't give max h.p. at 1st.

* - a very conservative guess at his cumulative Con bonus, as I forget at what level his Con got to 19. If it was 19 all the way the 45 would be 55.

It's actually a little less than 1/2 of a HD - fighters get 3 hp, thieves 2 hp, and M-U 1 hp per level after maxing out their HD. Thieves do get maximum 10HD to the fighters 9 though, and M-U get 11HD so that somewhat narrows. The CON bonus for hit point adjustment applies only to HD, so it doesn't apply to the flat amount.

Click to expand...

No, it's the average of half of a HD. Half a fighter's d10 is a d5, the average of which is 3. Half a cleric's d8 is a d4, average 2.5; for a thief it's d3 average 2; and for a mage it's d2, average 1.5. The .5s have been rounded down to give the flat amounts in the book; and I'd be rather shocked if that's not exactly the calculation EGG used to arrive at those numbers.

What is ironic for me is that you are suggesting that you need a work around to bypass hit points because fighters have inflated hit points compared to M-U, but you've also adopted like 3 separate house rules that widen the gap between fighter and M-U hit points. Your rules increase the gap between fighters and M-U at 12th level by about ~19 h.p. You might still argue for the need to bypass hit points, but you've just made your need for that greater.

Click to expand...

Yes, the irony isn't lost on me either.

It's something I intend to have a long look at the next time I do a major kitbash (i.e. between this campaign and the next), but that'll be a while as this campaign still has probably several years worth of legs in it.

Saelorn said:

I didn't play 1E, and my 2E experience included far more overland travel than it did dungeons. I'm fairly certain that they still had something like an opportunity attack, which would prevent you from running past someone within sword reach.

Click to expand...

That must have come from a 2e options book or something; it wasn't in 1e anywhere and wasn't in original 2e that I recall.

The first time I ever met AoO as a formalized thing was in 3e.

Lanefan said:

That must have come from a 2e options book or something; it wasn't in 1e anywhere and wasn't in original 2e that I recall.

The first time I ever met AoO as a formalized thing was in 3e.

Click to expand...

This bit from the PHB 2E appears to be the predecessor to opportunity attacks:[SBLOCK]Retreat
To get out of a combat, characters can make a careful withdrawal or they can simply flee.

Withdrawing: When making a withdrawal, a character carefully backs away from his opponent (who can choose to follow). The character moves up to 1/3 his normal movement rate.

If two characters are fighting a single opponent and one of them decides to withdraw,the remaining character can block the advance of the opponent. This is a useful method for getting a seriously injured man out of a combat.

Fleeing: To flee from combat, a character simply turns and runs up to his full movement rate. However, the fleeing character drops his defenses and turns his back to his opponent.

The enemy is allowed a free attack (or multiple attacks if the creature has several attacks per round) at the rear of the fleeing character. This attack is made the instant the character flees: It doesn't count against the number of attacks that opponent is allowed during the round, and initiative is irrelevant.

The fleeing character can be pursued, unless a companion blocks the advance of the enemy.[/sblock]The 1E equivalent appears to be this paragraph, which briefly described how melee combat works:
[sblock]Participants in a melee can opt to attack, parry, fall back, or flee. Attack can be by weapon, bare hands, or grappling. Parrying disallows any return attack that round, but the strength "to hit" bonus is then subtracted from the opponent's "to hit" dice roll(s), so the character is less likely to be hit. Falling back is a retrograde move facing the opponent(s) and can be used in conjunction with a parry, and opponent creatures are able to follow if not otherwise engaged. Fleeing means as rapid a withdrawal from combat as possible; while it exposes the character to rear attack at the time, subsequent attacks can only be made if the opponent is able to follow the fleeing character at equal or greater speed.[/sblock]I think that's saying the same thing, but I'm not entirely fluent in Gygaxian. In either case, it relies on the interpretation that standing next to an armed enemy means you're in melee with them, and running past them means you're trying to flee from that melee. Which seems like a perfectly reasonable interpretation to me, honestly, though I do wish they'd spelled that out more clearly. I also wish that Gygax had explained what a 'rear attack' was supposed to entail.

If you do use that interpretation, then running past the fighter would resolve similarly in either AD&D or 3E, except that the 3E fighter only gets one attack of opportunity in a round and the 2E fighter can potentially make 7/2 attacks at each orc running past.

Saelorn said:

The 1E equivalent appears to be this paragraph...

Click to expand...

Although the rules are very badly organized, 1e combat bears a very close resemblance to 3e combat which was, I would think, very much designed to be a faithful by clearer, simpler, and more balanced and tactical derivation of it. A stronger example of 1e 'attack of opportunity' rules can be found on page 70 of the DMG, under the heading, "Breaking off from melee."

"At such time as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and flee the melee. To do so, however, allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a stunned opponent. When this attack is completed, the retiring/fleeing party may move away at full movement rate..."

Needless to say, with such dire penalties on breaking off combat, it was not something that was very often worth attempting. The 3e rules are generally fairer and allow more mobility than 1e. Scattered about, you'll find similar prohibitions against doing things while in melee that are not actually engaging in melee.

Gygax does explain what a rear attack entails, its just that he doesn't do it any where near the place he references said rules and its not at all obvious where you'd go to find them. As best as I recall, such an attack was made at +4 to hit and the opponent was denied the use of shield.

Celebrim said:

Although the rules are very badly organized, 1e combat bears a very close resemblance to 3e combat which was, I would think, very much designed to be a faithful by clearer, simpler, and more balanced and tactical derivation of it. A stronger example of 1e 'attack of opportunity' rules can be found on page 70 of the DMG, under the heading, "Breaking off from melee."

"At such time as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and flee the melee. To do so, however, allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a stunned opponent. When this attack is completed, the retiring/fleeing party may move away at full movement rate..."

Needless to say, with such dire penalties on breaking off combat, it was not something that was very often worth attempting. The 3e rules are generally fairer and allow more mobility than 1e. Scattered about, you'll find similar prohibitions against doing things while in melee that are not actually engaging in melee.

Gygax does explain what a rear attack entails, its just that he doesn't do it any where near the place he references said rules and its not at all obvious where you'd go to find them. As best as I recall, such an attack was made at +4 to hit and the opponent was denied the use of shield.

Click to expand...

Sounds about right.

I tweaked this to give the flee-er a chance to catch the foe off-guard - if the foe isn't surprised (normal odds, usually) then the free attack is given.

But neither of these reference simply going past an opponent; these rules are specific to the break-off-and-flee action when already engaged. It isn't until 3e that simply passing near a foe gives an AoO, which presents a whole new slew of headaches and illogics.

Bawylie said:

Here’s what I’m doing re lethality.

1.) If you’re not wearing armor of some kind, you take double damage when damaged.
2.) Called Shot: you can attack at disadvantage to bypass armor (thereby dealing double damage). Enemies can do this too.
3.) Any attack that deals damage in excess of a creature’s constitution score forces that creature to make a death saving throw. If they fail, they are dying/dead. (Usually enemies without names are just dead while named NPCs and PCs are dying). Even if they succeed in that saving throw, there may be an additional effect such as dismemberment or a wound.

Because I have these rules in place, the fighter player is often attempting decapitations. She’s racked up about 6 or 7 over 5 levels. The Rogue has also done well just on sneak attack without attempting any called shots.

So far, the players have only been forced to make a handful of death saving throws. Maybe 6 each over those same 5 levels. And no PC has yet died.

Click to expand...

I'm a bit curious as to how this system incorporates the barbarians and monks of the world. I guess barbs can wear light or medium armor(at least in 5e). And even casters could wear armor without penalty if they can get the proficiency somehow (or cast mage armor?). But monks would be at some crazy disadvantages.

Gammadoodler said:

I'm a bit curious as to how this system incorporates the barbarians and monks of the world. I guess barbs can wear light or medium armor(at least in 5e). And even casters could wear armor without penalty if they can get the proficiency somehow (or cast mage armor?). But monks would be at some crazy disadvantages.

Click to expand...

I don’t have any monk PCs, but if I did, they would be at a disadvantage when damaged.

Lanefan said:

But neither of these reference simply going past an opponent; these rules are specific to the break-off-and-flee action when already engaged. It isn't until 3e that simply passing near a foe gives an AoO, which presents a whole new slew of headaches and illogics.

Click to expand...

It's been 25 years or more since I played 1e, but I don't think you can move past an opponent in 1e. I think it's an illegal move. I think once reach melee you must stop your movement and enter it. Thus, any attempt to move past an opponent would fall under the above 'leaving melee' rules.

[MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION], I suspect at higher levels, perhaps 8+, this would become unmanageable.
Victims of failed fireball-type spells would likely see two saves with your system and particular monster attacks would also rack up the damage. You have to be very careful which monsters you'd use, especially those that have multiple damage types - poison, necrotic...etc

Another thing, picking opponents with smaller damage output assist with the Concentration checks.

Granted this is all white room talk. Playstyles and combat design vary greatly from table to table.

EDIT: Your house rules certainly add another layer of tactics. GWM and SS with their +10 damage would be great in forcing death saves.