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 Previous  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: 11598
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To get back on topic, another possibility would be to make any successful hit require a Running (or Agility, if you prefer) check to see if the character who got hit stays on their feet. Since what I originally suggested closely parallels some of the results on the Movement Mishap Table, this would open the door to other possibilities.

GM: "Well, you hit the stormtrooper, but he soaked the damage... hang on (rolls dice). Okay, so you didn't hurt him with your blaster, but the impact knocked him off balance so bad that he fell off the catwalk into the reactor shaft."
_________________
"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
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1452

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
GM: "Well, you hit the stormtrooper, but he soaked the damage... hang on (rolls dice). Okay, so you didn't hurt him with your blaster, but the impact knocked him off balance so bad that he fell off the catwalk into the reactor shaft."


I'm against adding more rolls to the combat system. Slows it down. Star Wars should be fast and furious.

What you describe above sounds more to me like a reverse complication. Or, a complication rolled by the trooper when he rolled his STR defense (which, I believe are throws meant to be complication free).



In fact, that idea may be a better way of doing what you're trying to do here. Instead of adding new rolls and changing the damage system, simply apply the Wild Die to the STR roll for defenders.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11598
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is that.

Since pretty much every level of "Wounding" for characters already includes some form of falling down, this probably isn't necessary.

However, the same can't be said for vehicles and ships. There's something to be said for applying this rule against a moving speeder or starship. After all, something that hits hard enough to do damage is going to throw the occupants around a bit. And since there are rules in place for passengers to be damaged when their vehicle takes a hit...
_________________
"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: Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
When Chewie was hit in TFA, he went down.
He's and Han are old men in that movie and who knows how souped up blasters are in the future. Probably all the Star Wars equivalents of Desert Eagles and Barrett sniper rifles. Seriously though, I don’t really care about activity in TFA. I look to the original movies for the tone I want in my games. And I prefer a really big, strong opponent having a chance at not dropping to the ground unconscious with any shot no matter how feeble. And Leia only has STR 2D+2 so she isn’t that hard to stun or wound absent her spending CPs or FPs. In ANH she was shot with a weapon set on stun which has different rules than getting stunned from a low damage shot from a blaster set on kill.

Quote:
A hold out does 4-19 damage, average of 11 points.
The standard hold-out blaster in the basic rule book does 3D6 damage (mean 10.5) which is also a fairly typical PC Strength rating. And while a standard blaster does 4D6 (mean 14) a heavy blaster pistol is what I see a lot of PCs and your better class of villain carry. It does 5D6 (mean 17.5). That's a difference of 7 points of damage compared to the hold-out.

Quote:
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.
Although I seem to recall somewhere seeing a sporting blaster attributed to Leia, The Movie Trilogy gives her a hold-out blaster (3D) as of the Battle of Yavin. For the next two movies she’s given a blaster pistol (4D).
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: Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
I'm against adding more rolls to the combat system.
Generally speaking I agree.

CRMcNeill wrote:
There's something to be said for applying this rule against a moving speeder or starship. After all, something that hits hard enough to do damage is going to throw the occupants around a bit.
Or the shot might just put holes in something (body, windscreen, control surfaces, aerials or sensors, etc.) without directly altering the vehicles trajectory or moving the occupants. I can see it going either way. But treating damage to the vehicle as adding to the movement difficulty will often make sense/seem reasonable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1452

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
A hold out does 4-19 damage, average of 11 points.


The standard hold-out blaster in the basic rule book does 3D6 damage (mean 10.5) which is also a fairly typical PC Strength rating.


Going by my 1E Core Rulebook, a hold out does 3D +1.



Quote:
And while a standard blaster does 4D6 (mean 14) a heavy blaster pistol is what I see a lot of PCs and your better class of villain carry. It does 5D6 (mean 17.5).


Han Solo uses a heavy blaster. Most other characters in the OT use standard blasters. Looking at NPCs in the game, the standard blaster is used a lot more than a heavy blaster.

I'd say the most common sidearm is the standard blaster.



Regardless, my point was that a hold out does pretty good damage, and a stun is as powerful as a blaster shot sans the lasting damage. Thus, it's not unusual to expect to see a Wookiee put down by a stun from a hold out.



House Rule: Maybe a nice house rule for strong beings like Wookiees and Rancor would be, using the 1E Core Rulebook Damage System, that when the STR roll is twice that of damage, there is no Stun. The Stun is shaken off.

That way, only very strong beings have the ability.
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
Going by my 1E Core Rulebook, a hold out does 3D +1.
There are various models with various damage ratings. (Off the top of my head the damage range is ~ 2D+2 to 4D.) The last place I'd look for equipment stats is the 1E Core Rulebook.

Quote:
Regardless, my point was that a hold out does pretty good damage, and a stun is as powerful as a blaster shot sans the lasting damage.
This is almost always false. Blasters set on stun have a different damage outcome in the 1E Rules Companion and in the 2E and 2ER&E rulesbooks. In all three cases DR < SR = No Effect. The standard Wookiee template has STR 5D. Compare STR 5D to 3D, 3D+1, even 4D damage and you will see that the most likely result is No Effect.

Quote:
Thus, it's not unusual to expect to see a Wookiee put down by a stun from a hold out.
Only in basic 1E.

Quote:
House Rule: Maybe a nice house rule for strong beings like Wookiees and Rancor would be, using the 1E Core Rulebook Damage System, that when the STR roll is twice that of damage, there is no Stun. The Stun is shaken off.


1. I'm glad you now like what I suggested. Very Happy
2. That is the official rule outlined in the 1E Rules Companion. Which is where I got the idea from in the first place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1452

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
Going by my 1E Core Rulebook, a hold out does 3D +1.
There are various models with various damage ratings. (Off the top of my head the damage range is ~ 2D+2 to 4D.) The last place I'd look for equipment stats is the 1E Core Rulebook.


Even if your go-to game is 1E?





Quote:
Regardless, my point was that a hold out does pretty good damage, and a stun is as powerful as a blaster shot sans the lasting damage.
This is almost always false. Blasters set on stun have a different damage outcome in the 1E Rules Companion and in the 2E and 2ER&E rulesbooks.[/quote]

The Rules Companion isn't 1E. It's modified 1E.

In 1E, DR < SR = Stun.




Quote:
Thus, it's not unusual to expect to see a Wookiee put down by a stun from a hold out.
Only in basic 1E.[/quote]



Well, that's where this part of the discussion started, with 1E and the above comment about the Rancor-hold out blaster stun "problem".





Quote:
1. I'm glad you now like what I suggested. Very Happy
2. That is the official rule outlined in the 1E Rules Companion. Which is where I got the idea from in the first place.


That's a good import from the RC.
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
Bren wrote:
There are various models with various damage ratings. (Off the top of my head the damage range is ~ 2D+2 to 4D.) The last place I'd look for equipment stats is the 1E Core Rulebook.

Even if your go-to game is 1E?
My go to game isn’t 1E. (I think I’ve been pretty clear about that.) But if it were and if I wanted to discuss the game with other people on the Forum, most of who appear not to just use 1E then yeah I wouldn’t just look in 1E for equipment. A lot of equipment was added to the game in the numerous adventures and the many supplements WEG published starting with 1E and continuing up until they lost the license.

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
The Rules Companion isn't 1E. It's modified 1E.
True. I intend to say or imply otherwise. Certainly the Rules Companion is different than and supplementary to the 1E rules so it can't be the same. I was pointing out that your claim only applies to the 1E rule book and does not even include the 1E Rules Companion.

It isn’t that I don’t understand how damage works in the basic 1E rules. It’s that I don’t like how damage works in the basic 1E rules.

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
Quote:
Thus, it's not unusual to expect to see a Wookiee put down by a stun from a hold out.
Only in basic 1E.

Well, that's where this part of the discussion started, with 1E and the above comment about the Rancor-hold out blaster stun "problem".[/quote]If we’re going to get technical this thread started with CRMcNeil who was “thinking about a variation on the 1E Damage rule.” Looking beyond the 1E rules, say at the 1E Rules Companion, seems to me like a great place to look for a variation on the 1E Damage rule.

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
That's a good import from the RC.
Naturally I agree. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ninja-Bear
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 26 Sep 2016
Posts: 123

PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If STR wasn’t tied to Damage rolls but a separate characteristic then you would eliminate the Wookiee blaster proof problem and Storm Tried opera with only 2D STR .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ninja-Bear
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 26 Sep 2016
Posts: 123

PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Been why do I want a Wookiee stronger than Chewie? Because I can and the rules allow it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11938
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ninja-Bear wrote:
If STR wasn’t tied to Damage rolls but a separate characteristic then you would eliminate the Wookiee blaster proof problem and Storm Tried opera with only 2D STR .


But what would you make that other characteristic?
_________________
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
MrNexx
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 1235
Location: Houston

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Ninja-Bear wrote:
If STR wasn’t tied to Damage rolls but a separate characteristic then you would eliminate the Wookiee blaster proof problem and Storm Tried opera with only 2D STR .


But what would you make that other characteristic?


You could go a few routes. One might be an independent characteristic. You might also make it a derived characteristic, which reduced advantage high strength gave. d6 Space did the second... You started at 1D damage resistance, and added a pip for every die of strength. The uber-wookie, with 6D strength, had 3D damage resistance (1D + 6 pips = 3D)... significant compared to a Stormtrooper, who would have 1D+2 when naked, but less significant compared to an armored strormtrooper with 2D+2 v. physical, 2D energy.
_________________
"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
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11598
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

IMO, those who complain about the bulletproof Wookiee generally aren’t aware of exactly how tough an organic being can be. Physically, humans are wimps compared to pretty much every similarly sized organism on the planet, never mind a high-threat environment like Kashyyyk.
_________________
"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
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2409

PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I haven't read the whole thread, but wanted to throw this in real quick:

Thinking about d20, there are special moves that characters can do, such as trip or grapple or overrun, etc. In these special moves, the attacker must make a "touch attack" (an attack roll that has 0 chance of doing damage, but that ignores the target's equipment bonuses to armor class). If successful, both characters make opposed strength or dexterity checks. If the attacker wins, then the target is knocked down. If the defender wins, he gets a chance to "reverse" the effect onto the attacker.

The main thing I wanted to point out was the opposed strength roll. The fact that the attacker must actually win at something in order to generate the desired effect.

In the case of the rule you present here, the attacker has won the attack roll, but lost the damage roll. In my opinion, such a rule shifts value away from the strength attribute (as well as wearing armor) and moves it to the dodge/melee parry skill. This is magnified by the fact that armor usually imposes a penalty to dexterity, thus making it even more likely that the target will be knocked down or jolted. When combined with the RoE rules (more damage is gained if the attack roll is high), the jolted or "getting up" penalty only further reinforces the value of not getting hit vs. having a high toughness/expensive armor.

I think that this idea is probably not compatible with the RoE damage rules (which I'm assuming you are using) because those rules already convert a successful hit into greater damage, such that it takes a significantly higher strength roll to resist a "well placed" hit.

The final question is, "what do you consider a successful attack roll to simulate?" If the answer is that the successful attack roll simulates a momentary advantage gained in the fight, then, these rules make sense. But if the attack roll simulates mere "contact" of the intended strike, then there is nothing there that would suggest that just because the attack "hit" means it's powerful enough to affect the target. For example, I can punch a Star Destroyer all day long, but... (in d20 terms, most of the attacks would register as a "miss" or else be absorbed by the target's damage reduction). Similarly in d20, a "touch attack" ignores armor bonuses. In d20, a "hit" represents a hit in the gooey flesh, not mere contact with some part of the target's (armored) form.

In any case, if you were to drop the RoE optional rules, you could then convert the overage from the successful attack roll into one of these effects. Alternatively, you could allow the player to choose (before the damage roll, perhaps) which effect he wants: more damage or a knock-down/jolted effect).
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 2 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