View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16175 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb Commodore
Joined: 07 Apr 2017 Posts: 1448
|
Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16175 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Bren Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010 Posts: 3868 Location: Maryland, USA
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Bren Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010 Posts: 3868 Location: Maryland, USA
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb Commodore
Joined: 07 Apr 2017 Posts: 1448
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Bren Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010 Posts: 3868 Location: Maryland, USA
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
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 |
|
|
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb Commodore
Joined: 07 Apr 2017 Posts: 1448
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
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 |
|
|
Bren Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010 Posts: 3868 Location: Maryland, USA
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ninja-Bear Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 26 Sep 2016 Posts: 209
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Ninja-Bear Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 26 Sep 2016 Posts: 209
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Been why do I want a Wookiee stronger than Chewie? Because I can and the rules allow it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14033 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
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? _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MrNexx Rear Admiral
Joined: 25 Mar 2016 Posts: 2248 Location: San Antonio
|
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
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've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16175 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Naaman Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011 Posts: 3191
|
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
|