Critical Effects: Critiques Wanted

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

Playtest #2 report:

Only two criticals this session, neither of which rolled above a 10 for severity, so not much to report... However, the new format/tables and all 1d20 rolls (for hit location, severity) greatly speeded implementation/understanding of your crit hit system.

 

[Lord Vangarel]

I really like it, but . . .

Hi DnDChick

I think your rules have real potential but two questions:

On determining hit location why not use a reversed standard size modifier from the SRD, so a Tiny creature gets a -8 on the d20 hit location roll and also apply the large creatures mod to the roll so a Tiny attempting to hit a medium creature would have a -8 modifier but against a colossal creature would have a -16 on the location roll.

The second question is slightly more complicated, one of the things I grew to dislike in the 2nd Edition criticals from the C&T book was the randomness. This was shown when a 13th level fighter with full hit points had a leg torn off by a skeleton wielding a longspear and died. Couldn't you replace the d20 severity roll with a roll matched against the current hit points as a percentage. So, for example, if the severity is less than 10% of the current hit points you get a minor effect, and so on. This way you still get the descriptive flavour but the chances of killing an relatively unhurt higher level character by a fluke are removed.

I plan on suggesting to my group we use your system but think the above two changes should be implemented first.

 

[Numion]

Game mechanics aside, I'd suggest you add some descriptive explanations to the critical effects. A la Warhammer FRP or RoleMaster. That'd do the trick!

 

[DnDChick]

Re: I really like it, but . . .

This way you still get the descriptive flavour but the chances of killing an relatively unhurt higher level character by a fluke are removed.

The reason I wrote this chart was to put the chance of getting killed by a weapon back into the game at higher levels.

Poisons can kill a high level character easily. Falling can kill a high level character easily. Drowning can kill a high level character easily. Certain spells can kill a high level character easily.

Why shouldnt getting thwacked in the head by a longsword be capable of killing a high level character easily?

The more severe critical effects are so rare on my table that I dont think having instant kill crits are that imbalancing. And besides, the victim is allowed a Fortitude save to avoid the more severe effects, so higher level characters are less likely to suffer an instant kill anyway.

If you want to base the crit severities on percentage of hit points you can, but thats added complications and bookkeeping that I was hoping to avoid.

Thanks for the input though!

 

[DnDChick]

Game mechanics aside, I'd suggest you add some descriptive explanations to the critical effects. A la Warhammer FRP or RoleMaster. That'd do the trick!

I purposefully left the crit descriptions bare bones and rules so that DMs could describe the wounds in their own way rather than reading a pre-scripted description that makes all broken arms sound alike.

I have found that players get bored with it all if you simply read the same description over and over again for a critical wound. Thats something my players told me during our Rolemaster games. "Yeah, yeah, foe is stunned 3 rounds and cannot parry for 2 rounds...get on with it..."

 

[Gothmog]

Hi, just wanted to let you know we used the critical effect tables this weekend in our weekend-long gaming marathon (26+ hours of gaming!!!) and scored several critical effects. The elf pinned an orc to a tree with a critical effect, the dwarven PC had his throat slashed with a serious effect- going unconscious immediately, and shortly before getting his throat slashed the dwarven player made a critical called shot to the groin of a troll with a warhammer that ended up breaking the troll's pelvis!! :O

Anyway, the players loved the critical effect tables. They enjoyed the added realism and risk in combat, as well as the possibility of even high level heroes (or villians) being taken down by a lucky shot. We are playing a Middle Earth campaign right now, and these critical tables seem to capture the feel of combat well (not just from the movies, but the books as well). I wouldn't hesitate to introduce these rules into any game out there. Nice work DNDChick!!

 

[DnDChick]

Great! Im glad they worked so well for you!

Ive been following the Middle Earth conversion thread and I know how everyone there has been trying to find ways to make combat a little more deadly and realistic, so these compliments from you are certainly appreciated!

 

[DnDChick]

Gothmog your post got me to thinking about trolls and brough to mind a few things I havent yet considered.

How do monsters with fast healing or regeneration deal with critical effects? How quickly do their recuperative abilities cope with broken bones and the like?

Further thinking on this point brought me to another question. Since I am relying on the cure spell names for my critical severities, how does the paladin's laying on of hands deal with crit effects?

To address the second question, I was thinking of letting a paladin's laying on of hands decrease any crit severities by 1 at 1st level, and by 1 additional severity every 3 levels. Thus, a level 1 paladin can decrease severities by 1, and level 4 can decrease them by 2, a level 7 can decrease severities by 3, and by 10th level a paladin can remove any critical severity by laying on hands. Is that fair? Should I bump up the severity decrease to 1 ever 4th level after 1st?

Also...how should I handle fast healing and regeneration?

 

[Gothmog]

DNDChick I didn't really have to deal with the whole regeneration issue for the ME trolls, since they don't regenerate, they are just ungawdly tough.

I like your thoughts on the paladin's ability lay hands. I think that sounds balanced and fair to all parties involved- it keeps the clerics as the majopr healers, but at high levels a paladin's lay on hands is nothing to scoff at.

For fast healing, I don't think the critical effects would be affected that much in the scope of one combat. From the way the entry reads in the MM, it allows for wounds to close up quickly, but does not allow for the reattachment of body parts or major repairs. I might suggest allowing the effects of a light or moderate injury to be repaired in 1d6 or 2d6 rounds respectively, and change the recovery times for serious and critical effects to 1 day and 1d6 days respectively. Since regeneration allows for the regrowing of even major body parts, you might want to allow the creature to make another Fort save every round against the original DC to reduce the effects of the critical effect. If the Fort save is successful, then the creature's injusry is downgraded by one severity level, and the DC to remove the next level of effect is reduced by 5. How does this sound?

 

[DnDChick]

True...Fast Healing wouldnt effect immediate decreases in crit severity, but as its name implies it would most certainly decrease the overall healing time. How about if a creature has Fast Healing, when they have the opportunity to make the DC20 Fort save to halve their healing time they divide the healing time by their Fast Healing rate rather than just halving it? This way, creatures with Fast Healing of 1 or 2 wont see any benefit from it in the long run, but those with 3 or better in Fast Healing will. That help keep things balanced in that regard?

But then again...how often is a monster's healing rate going to come into play? Most monsters end up dead at the end of combat anyway. LOL But...its always good to have rules to cover it just in case...

As for regeneration...I dont have handy access to my MM at the moment, but do the regeneration rules cover how long it takes to reattach a severed limb? In my rules, a severed limb is the result of a Fort save failure on a Critical severity. The rules might already have a healing time for us.

Again, with the paladin, do you think allowing them to decrease crit severity by1 every 3 levels or every 4 levels is better?

Every 3 levels allows a paladin to lay on hands and decrease crit severity thusly:

1st: 1 level
4th: 2 levels
7th: 3 levels
10th: 4 levels

Every 4 levels:
1st: 1 level
5th: 2 levels
9th: 3 levels
13th: 4 levels

I like the former, since it allows a paladin to "max out" at a nice round level.

Of course...by 4th level a paladin has access to cure spells anyway, and wont always have to rely on laying on hands.

Certainly a few minor chestnuts left to crack, but we are workin on 'em!