Critical Effects: Critiques Wanted

[DnDChick]

Re: What about helmets?

To take into account helmets, how about this: The helmet must be destroyed before one can roll crit effects to the head.

Aside from that, I love it. It seems fairly streamlined to me...

Although this might slow things down some as a player has to bookeep the condition of his armor, I dont see why we cant add this as an optional rule, depending on the DM's preference. it certainly makes sense!

The problem is, would we do the same for greaves, bracers, sheilds, and breastplates?

 

[Quickbeam]

I agree to a reasonable extent with your thoughts on weapon and opponent size being factored in given your save DC.

As for the torso vs. leg question, please let me rephrase what I was asking. The last time I saw your tables, the torso was the most likely body part to be struck in combat with a critical hit. And per your tables, a torso strike is more likely to result in a dramatic effect than a leg strike (if I understood things accurately). I agree that one's torso is more likely to be hit in combat than a leg, but if you allow for this probability then you are increasing the number of massively horrible effects -- which may be your intention. I know that another poster suggested altering the d20 body part table to reflect a decrease in torso/head strikes to limit the death count from criticals, and this is what I was referring to. If this has already happened, I'm sorry I didn't re-check your charts. If not, are you satisfied that a more realistic system (higher chance for torso strikes) leads to more drastic critical effects?

BTW, I'm also anxious to hear what others have to say with respect to such a system favoring weapons like the rapier and scimitar.

 

[DnDChick]

Me too! Lets let a few others weigh in on the subject. It seems now that the biggest issue is the hit locations: how to make it realistic while balancing out the more lethal potential of a head/chest crit.

The one part that bugs me the most is is the healing and recovery rules. Are they fair? Is it reasonable to saddle a character with a -4 modifier for months at a time if he somehow doesnt have the benefit of magical healing? then again, in your average DnD campaign, how many adventurers DONT make use of any and all magical healing they can? Are the healing rules fair enough?

Also...I would like to address an issue brought up in the other Crit rules topic just to have it nipped in the bud from my point of view:

I see no need to invent special healing spells to cover broken bones or organ damage as in Rolemaster. Since we are ramping up the lethality of the game as a whole with these rules, in all fairness it helps balance things out by letting Clerics and others use their standard healing abilities to counter them. After all...this is divine magical healing, so its not unreasonable to assume that a cure spell can manage bone and muscle repair along with the hit point damage.

 

[DnDChick]

I agree to a reasonable extent with your thoughts on weapon and opponent size being factored in given your save DC.

Ok. To help my illustration above, a fighter with an 18 strength wielding a broadsword +2 will on average inflict 22 points of damage on a crit, for a Fort save of 32 for the higher crit effects. Our old red dragon could make a 32 Fort save by rolling a 9 or better: still a good chance that the fighter can really hurt him but the odds are still in the dragons favor. Another fighter of equal calibre would have to roll very good to avoid a lethal effect.

As for the torso vs. leg question, please let me rephrase what I was asking. The last time I saw your tables, the torso was the most likely body part to be struck in combat with a critical hit. And per your tables, a torso strike is more likely to result in a dramatic effect than a leg strike (if I understood things accurately). I agree that one's torso is more likely to be hit in combat than a leg, but if you allow for this probability then you are increasing the number of massively horrible effects -- which may be your intention. I know that another poster suggested altering the d20 body part table to reflect a decrease in torso/head strikes to limit the death count from criticals, and this is what I was referring to. If this has already happened, I'm sorry I didn't re-check your charts. If not, are you satisfied that a more realistic system (higher chance for torso strikes) leads to more drastic critical effects?

That certainly is food for thought. How do we balance hit-locations with fairness?

BTW, I'm also anxious to hear what others have to say with respect to such a system favoring weapons like the rapier and scimitar.

 

[Quickbeam]

How about...

Now I see three remaining issues of focus and concern:
-- Fairness vs. reality as they relate to which body part is struck in combat.
-- Are the recovery periods/lasting damage effects overly harsh?
-- Does a system of critical effects such as this ruin weapon choice and balance?

Here are my answers and possible solutions:
1) Offer two options, one which favors realism and more damaging effects based on a larger number of head and torso blows, and one which minimizes the chances of such areas being struck. This is more labor intensive for you DnDChick, but it may satisfy the needs/wants of more gaming groups.
2) I think that months of recovery time is overly harsh, especially since you have the stages of recuperation stacked. Unless a limb is lost, an eye is blinded, or a major organ's function diminshed, I'd ease up a bit. I can't offer a more constructive means of listing recovery time or penalties, but I think you're a fair-minded gal whose entirely capable of tweaking this on your own . I also tend to agree with those that feel administering magical healing to a severaly wounded character would diminish or eradicate these effects.
3) How's this for a solution to my own reservations -- the critical effects tables apply only when a natural 20 is rolled, regardless of the weapon used during the attack. Any threat that isn't the result of a natural 20, deals damage per the PHB. This simple fix completely erases two concerns posted herein:
First, it leads to fewer critical effects rolls overall, and thereby diminishes occurences of unfortunate PC death and dismemberment.
And second, it maintains the weapon balance intended by our wise game designers !! Rapiers will still be more likely than Heavy Flails to deal extra damage based on their higher threat range, but they will be less likely to deal critical effect damage b/c the DC for their saving throws will be lower.

 

[Gothmog]

Hmmm. After looking at the points you made about the damage DCs for large creatures DNDChick, I can see your point that larger creatures are already going to achieve more serious results on average than the PCs will, so maybe that part doesn't need tweaking.

As far as the long recovery times and penalties associated with them, I think they are a good idea. In real life, a broken bone can take weeks or months to heal, and movement with the affected body part is severely hampered long after the initial injury. What I might suggest is that the heavy penalties are assessed for a number of days equal to 10 minus the character's Con modifier, then after that 1/2 the penalty is suffered until the wound is completely healed. Also, after the penalty is halved, the penalty should only apply to physical actions with that body area. Hope that makes sense.

Also, this table brings to mind a new type of magical weapon- ones which allow a bonus to the critical effect roll. Not the kind of weapons a "good" character would probably use, but something all us DMs might take some joy in.

 

[DnDChick]

As far as the long recovery times and penalties associated with them, I think they are a good idea. In real life, a broken bone can take weeks or months to heal, and movement with the affected body part is severely hampered long after the initial injury. What I might suggest is that the heavy penalties are assessed for a number of days equal to 10 minus the character's Con modifier, then after that 1/2 the penalty is suffered until the wound is completely healed. Also, after the penalty is halved, the penalty should only apply to physical actions with that body area. Hope that makes sense.

I think I will keep the long recovery times in as well, but I have made a modification to the healing rules to allow for quicker healing. I think that will speed things up for most PCs and maintain the realism. But...no one can get by with having a shattered bone and be up and sprightly in only a few days. Serious wounds take serious healing time.

And besides...in a fantasy game at least, most PCs have ready access to magical (or in sci-fi games, technological) healing, so the long recuperation times will only come into play rarely.

Now...using these long healing times in a modern setting will surely tick off a few players, since there is no magical or Dr McCoy instant fixes for serious injuries!

 

[DnDChick]

BUMP! Major edit to the crit effects page, mostly in the areas of hit location and healing. Check it out!

this time, I think I may have gone too far in a few areas, so critique away! I need the feedback!

Also, if anyone else uses these rules in a game, please let me know how it went so I can address specific concerns, or know what works and what doesnt.

 

[Quickbeam]

Our group plays Friday night, and I think we're gonna give your tables a whirl . Look for a post sometime on Saturday, and thanks for sharing your hard work and ideas.

 

[Dieter]

We have a house rule regarding wounds and blood loss.

Anytime a character takes more than half of their current HP in damage, they have to make a FORT save (DC 10). If they succeed, no gave effect, their mighty constitution allows them to shirk off the effects of a nasty wound.

If they fail, the PC receives a -2 to all checks for the duration of combat. It is reflective of the fatigue and blood loss associated with continuous combat.

Future failures are CUMULATIVE, with a further -2 for each failed save. This is reflective of the grievous nature of multiple stab wounds, bruises, spell effects. The character is slowly bleeding to death and going unconscious.

(i.e. Conan has 100 HP at the beginning of first round. A demon attacks him, scoring a nasty critical doing 51HP of damage. Conan takes over half his HP and must make his FORT save. He rolls a 2, and despite his mighty CON, Krom is not with him this round. Conan is now at -2 to all checks, attacks, etc. Next round, the demon decides to do a tail attack on Conan, another mighty hit against our hero, doing 20pts of damage...not over half of Conan's current HP, so it's all good. The next round the demon batters Conan (yeah, Conan is having a bad day) for another 20pts of damage. Having only 29HP after the last attack, Conan makes his check and fails again. Conan is now at -4 to all future rolls. Conan now ponders what Krom is like and prepares to meet him on the other side.)

Note: This favors fighters and the like with high FORT saves, which makes sense since they are the ones who should be taking the hits for the party. Wizards beware.