The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

"Less Than" Damaged
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> "Less Than" Damaged Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11577
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:55 pm    Post subject: "Less Than" Damaged Reply with quote

I've been thinking about a variation on the 1E Damage rule (specifically, the part about a target taking stun or ionization damage even if it beat the damage roll).

What I'm thinking is adding a couple short-term effects that kick in if a target takes a hit, but then beats the Damage roll by 10 points or less. Something like:
    Strength Roll > Damage Roll by # = Result:

    0-5 = Knocked Down. Character falls to the ground and can take no actions for the rest of the round. Standing up counts as a Standard Action for MAP purposes.

    6-10 = Jolted. Character isn't hurt, but suffers a -1D penalty to all further actions that round.

As the topic title suggests, the characters don't suffer any lasting injury beyond the effect itself, but don't just simply ignore any hit that doesn't do damage. Something similar could be written up for vehicles and starships, drawing results from the Movement Mishap tables for a vehicle spinning out of control for a round, or something similar.

Thoughts?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11928
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If they are knocked down and can't take any further action, how then do they 'stand up for normal MAP"? Or is that in the following round?
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3605
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For damage ratings less than the Strength roll to resist I'm inclined to use the rule from 1E as modified in one of the interim rule sets. So the full damage table would like like the following:

    2xDR < SR No Effect
    DR < SR Stunned (as per the 2ER&E rules for stun)
    DR > SR by 0-3 Stunned (exactly as in the 2ER&E rules)
    DR > SR by 4-8 Wounded
    DR > SR by 9-12 Incapacitated
    DR > SR by 13-15 Mortally Wounded
    DR > SR by 16+ Killed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11577
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
If they are knocked down and can't take any further action, how then do they 'stand up for normal MAP"? Or is that in the following round?

The following round.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11577
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
For damage ratings less than the Strength roll to resist I'm inclined to use the rule from 1E as modified in one of the interim rule sets.

That's what got me thinking about this but, as with my redo of the Starship Damage Chart, I wanted to eliminate duplicate results. Having a Stunned result both above and below the Soak threshold wasn't working for me.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3605
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The purpose for me is twofold.

First purpose is to mitigate (not eliminate) the blaster-proof Wookiee syndrome. That's why I use the multiplier rather than a flat 10 point difference.

Second purpose is to incentivize all players to treat someone holding a blaster on them as a real threat rather than have them think they can easily spend a CP or two to avoid any damage from a holdout blaster. Which is why I also add +1D damage at point blank range.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MrNexx
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 1232
Location: Houston

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was skeptical at first, but I dig it. However, I would probably shrink the threshholds to 3-4 points instead of 5... there is, after all, plenty of room in genre for the big dude you gets punched and just smiles at their puny attacker.
_________________
"I’m telling you, you’ll never have a deeper sleep than curled up in a Wookie’s lap."
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1452

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
First purpose is to mitigate (not eliminate) the blaster-proof Wookiee syndrome.


Just to point out: I've noticed that many of the rule peculiarities like this (the blaster-proof Wookiee) were only born after the original rules were mucked around with, twisted and made to fit something different.

In First Edition RAW, there is no Blaster Proof Wookiee problem. If a Wookiee is hit, he's going down with the minimum of a Stun, just like every other character.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MrNexx
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 1232
Location: Houston

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
Bren wrote:
First purpose is to mitigate (not eliminate) the blaster-proof Wookiee syndrome.


Just to point out: I've noticed that many of the rule peculiarities like this (the blaster-proof Wookiee) were only born after the original rules were mucked around with, twisted and made to fit something different.

In First Edition RAW, there is no Blaster Proof Wookiee problem. If a Wookiee is hit, he's going down with the minimum of a Stun, just like every other character.


Yes, instead of a blaster proof wookie, you have a rancor stunlocked with a holdout... a different problem, but not necessarily a better one.
_________________
"I’m telling you, you’ll never have a deeper sleep than curled up in a Wookie’s lap."
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3605
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
Bren wrote:
First purpose is to mitigate (not eliminate) the blaster-proof Wookiee syndrome.


Just to point out: I've noticed that many of the rule peculiarities like this (the blaster-proof Wookiee) were only born after the original rules were mucked around with, twisted and made to fit something different.

In First Edition RAW, there is no Blaster Proof Wookiee problem. If a Wookiee is hit, he's going down with the minimum of a Stun, just like every other character.
Notice I said mitigate, not eliminate. I don't want every shot to drop a character. Chewie dropping to the minimum die roll from a tiny holdout blaster is not a good thing, but a bad thing from the original rules. And even a worse thing if it happens on the round Chewie spent his one and only Force Point.
EDIT: Scooped by Nexx and his stun locked Rancor. Laughing

In practice I don't find high STR characters are blaster proof. Part of that is that I'm going to question a player who wants to run a maxed out STR Wookiee. Why should your Wookiee be stronger than Chewbacca? How will that make play fun and challenging for everyone? The highest PC STR I've seen in play was probably 5D+1. That character has a 50-50 chance to be stunned by a normal damage shot from an ordinary blaster rifle or heavy blaster pistol.

And there are ways of increasing the damage above the normal damage (extra damage for accuracy, called shots, combined fire, wild die, and for key villains spending CPs to do extra damage) so the Wookiee shouldn't feel safe ignoring blaster fire.

Sure the Wookiee could spend a Force Point and boost their STR that round into the 10D range which will make them nearly blaster proof to all but a combination of added damage. But Force Points are limited (most PCs only have 1-3 FPs even after considerable play) and so are character points (most PCs have 5-7 CPs at any one time and they need to save some if they want to improve their skills).

And to be honest I don't see a 1E rule where the player spends a Force Point and then is stunned by a holdout blaster causing them to fall and lose all their actions that round thereby effectively wasting their FP as a better rule than the stun rules in 2E+.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11577
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
I was skeptical at first, but I dig it. However, I would probably shrink the threshholds to 3-4 points instead of 5... there is, after all, plenty of room in genre for the big dude you gets punched and just smiles at their puny attacker.

That works, too. It's interesting that the result window for "Wounded" on the RAW Damage chart is a 5, while Stunned and Incapacitated are each 4 and Mortally Wounded is a 3.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11577
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
The purpose for me is twofold.

First purpose is to mitigate (not eliminate) the blaster-proof Wookiee syndrome. That's why I use the multiplier rather than a flat 10 point difference.

In the end, it seems our disagreements are more a matter of scale than methodology

Quote:
Second purpose is to incentivize all players to treat someone holding a blaster on them as a real threat rather than have them think they can easily spend a CP or two to avoid any damage from a holdout blaster. Which is why I also add +1D damage at point blank range.

I like that idea for Point Blank.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11928
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
Bren wrote:
First purpose is to mitigate (not eliminate) the blaster-proof Wookiee syndrome.


Just to point out: I've noticed that many of the rule peculiarities like this (the blaster-proof Wookiee) were only born after the original rules were mucked around with, twisted and made to fit something different.

In First Edition RAW, there is no Blaster Proof Wookiee problem. If a Wookiee is hit, he's going down with the minimum of a Stun, just like every other character.


Yes, instead of a blaster proof wookie, you have a rancor stunlocked with a holdout... a different problem, but not necessarily a better one.


Simple solution there.. Make creatures like the Rancor be higher scale (say speeder or possibly even walker) and make it that the 'any hit stuns at the bare minimum' ONLY apply to character vs character scale.
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1452

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:

Yes, instead of a blaster proof wookie, you have a rancor stunlocked with a holdout... a different problem, but not necessarily a better one.


But, so much easier to correct with 1E by making Rancor's immune to stun. Not so easy to correct with a different damage system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1452

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
I don't want every shot to drop a character. Chewie dropping to the minimum die roll from a tiny holdout blaster is not a good thing, but a bad thing from the original rules.


When Chewie was hit in TFA, he went down. When Leia was hit in RotJ, she went down (and when she was stunned in ANH).

A stun packs the same punch as a blaster bolt. Same damage is rolled. A stun just doesn't have permanent damage.

A hold out does 4-19 damage, average of 11 points.

A standard blaster pistol does 4-24 damage, average of 14 points.

The damage a hold out does isn't that much less than a standard blaster pistol. Hold outs do the same damage as Leia's sporting pistol that she uses in ANH.

The hold out does the same damage as an archaic rifle, to put it into perspective. The hold out isn't the equivalent of a blaster 0.22, but it's easy to come to think of it that way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 1 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0