| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pakman
Commander
Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 488
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2025 7:06 pm Post subject: Minimum Damage Result Optional Rule - or - No Soaking. |
 |
|
TLDR:
What do people think of this optional rule;
| Quote: | Minimum Damage Result
If the modified damage die code is equal to or greater than the modified resistance die code, the target suffers at least a STUN result (or its equivalent).
|
example;
Mike the bounty hunter is hit with a stick from an ewok, that does 2D damage. Mike has a 3D Strength, so no minimum result.
Fred shoots the rancor with his hold out - it has 3D+1, rancor has 8d - no minimum result.
Longer Version;
to start off....
yes, I know this has been brought up before. I read the various threads - there did not seem to be any strong rules or consensus in those threads - although they did validate that some folks feel soaking damage is indeed immersion breaking).
This is more about making solid hits with decent weapons (i.e. NOT a slingshot against a Rancor) FEEL more effective when playing the game.
Call soaking dangerous hits just immersion breaking, or demoralizing on the players part (especially if they spent character points to make the shot hit) and then you just roll terrible (or the opponent rolls really well) - and get nothing - repeatedly in combat.
(yes, our houserules already have ways to increase damage - but soaking dangerous attacks just feels... well, not fun and or immersive - and feels like it happens more than just once in a while).
I based it on damage dice as that covers blasters most of the time - but also other really damaging attacks (as opposed to be hit with a rock... that does 2D damage - unless you are an Ewok.... but I digress).
This should cover most blaster attacks and other big things (thermal detonator , vehicle accidents, falls from great heights etc.) but allow characters to have a better chance of not getting stunned like crazy from really weak attacks.
Note - I put in Modified - to represent armor, or extra whatever from other sources (your house rules may vary).
Questions / Thoughts?
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon....
Last edited by pakman on Tue Jul 01, 2025 10:45 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16402
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2025 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My 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 |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14348
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2025 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
As that other thread mentions, before we got off onto the whole template vs making your own pc tangent, you have two extremes..
Stun locking (where any hit causes a stun, and enough stuns ko a target, no matter how strong they are.
and the "bullet proof wookie"..
The latter is BTB, the former, though makes big 'tough' monsters, easy to lock up...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pakman
Commander
Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 488
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | As that other thread mentions, before we got off onto the whole template vs making your own pc tangent, you have two extremes..
Stun locking (where any hit causes a stun, and enough stuns ko a target, no matter how strong they are.
and the "bullet proof wookie"..
The latter is BTB, the former, though makes big 'tough' monsters, easy to lock up... |
That is why my rule is designed that way - to 100% avoid this.
I am guessing that was not clear?????
I should have put in an example;
Mike the bounty hunter is hit with a stick from an ewok, that does 2D damage. Mike has a 3D Strength, so no minimum result.
Fred shoots the rancor with his hold out - it has 3D+1, rancor has 8d - no minimum result.
Both of the concerns are addressed in my house rule.
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14348
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So only when the base weapon damage is above the resistance rating base, BEFORE rolling, is there any min damage possible.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pakman
Commander
Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 488
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | So only when the base weapon damage is above the resistance rating base, BEFORE rolling, is there any min damage possible. |
Yes, this means tougher characters (or those in good armor - as it is the modified dice) are not going to get shaken from attacks from small critters, or weak attacks.
Likewise - bigger tougher creatures etc. are also immune to automatic results as well - so shooting a rancor with a blaster pistol - will result in no minimum result either.
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14348
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ahh.. Gotcha.. But there's no issue with say a wookie completely shurgging off an e-web shot!
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pakman
Commander
Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 488
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Ahh.. Gotcha.. But there's no issue with say a wookie completely shurgging off an e-web shot! |
I am not sure if this is a joke, a question or an observation.
This topic is getting a lot less engagement than I was hoping for.
But assuming that was a ....validating conditional statement..
A target with a modified STR of less than the hitting weapon modified STR WOULD have shaken as a minimum result.
Target: 5D, Damage: 8D
Minimum result - Stunned.
But lets not go down the wookie hole....
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14348
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It was a statement of my now understanding you...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10522
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2025 12:57 am Post subject: Re: Minimum Damage Result Optional Rule - or - No Soaking. |
|
|
| pakman wrote: | to start off....
yes, I know this has been brought up before. I read the various threads - there did not seem to be any strong rules or consensus in those threads - although they did validate that some folks feel soaking damage is indeed immersion breaking). |
I'm sure Soaking Blaster Bolts was a thread that you read, but perhaps you missed the post in that thread that as a "strong rule" of mine from and linking to my Rancor Pit subdomain: Star Wars D6 Damage, which is devoted to damage-related house rules. It is also a minimum damage rule, but when applied it eliminates the "soak" result specifically for blasters on the normal damage setting, which was the greatest source of broken immersion for me in the RAW damage system.
Regarding "consensus", please be advised that this site does not officially venerate consensus as it can have the effect of marginalizing minority views on things. I would like every GM to feel empowered to make the best judgments for their own game, so consensus seems like a more worthy goal within your own player group than among multiple GMs around the world who don't game with each other. That being said, of course you can still value and hope for consensus if you find it helpful, but based on my experience, you should not expect to find much consensus here about almost anything anyway.
| pakman wrote: | TLDR:
What do people think of this optional rule;
| Quote: | Minimum Damage Result
If the modified damage die code is equal to or greater than the modified resistance die code, the target suffers at least a STUN result (or its equivalent).
|
example;
Mike the bounty hunter is hit with a stick from an ewok, that does 2D damage. Mike has a 3D Strength, so no minimum result.
Fred shoots the rancor with his hold out - it has 3D+1, rancor has 8d - no minimum result.
Longer Version;
This is more about making solid hits with decent weapons (i.e. NOT a slingshot against a Rancor) FEEL more effective when playing the game.
Call soaking dangerous hits just immersion breaking, or demoralizing on the players part (especially if they spent character points to make the shot hit) and then you just roll terrible (or the opponent rolls really well) - and get nothing - repeatedly in combat.
(yes, our houserules already have ways to increase damage - but soaking dangerous attacks just feels... well, not fun and or immersive - and feels like it happens more than just once in a while).
I based it on damage dice as that covers blasters most of the time - but also other really damaging attacks (as opposed to be hit with a rock... that does 2D damage - unless you are an Ewok.... but I digress).
This should cover most blaster attacks and other big things (thermal detonator , vehicle accidents, falls from great heights etc.) but allow characters to have a better chance of not getting stunned like crazy from really weak attacks.
Note - I put in Modified - to represent armor, or extra whatever from other sources (your house rules may vary).
Questions / Thoughts? |
I really like this idea. It is simple (easy to remember and implement), and would seem to address the general "soak" issues you identified. However, my initial thought about it is to only apply it to normal damage, meaning soak is still possible for stun and ion damage even when the modified/rolled damage dice value is more than the rolled resistance value.
And this rule would need a specification of comparing the average result values of the die codes involved, because modified/rolled dice values can end up outside of the unmodified stats die code value progression (e.g. 2D+6 vs 3D+3 = 13 vs. 13.5).
And I'm thinking of using this rule in conjunction with my Minimum Blaster Damage rule which would supersede it, meaning that a lower rolled blaster dice value against a higher resistance rolled dice value would still often have a minimum result of stun.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pakman
Commander
Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 488
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2025 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fair points Whill - perhaps I should say "consistent perspective" rather than consensus.... 
Once of my goals in all my house rules is to make them as streamlined as possible - one goal is "don't need to look it up on a chart" ....
Can that be done with everything? no - but where we can - the better.
Also - yes - I had read your damage rules and other threads - and my rules was in spired by the idea of not wanting to make a lot of exclusions (except for rancors etc.) so the rule I came up with - was not based on specifics - just a simple comparison.
| Quote: | And this rule would need a specification of comparing the average result values of the die codes involved, because modified/rolled dice values can end up outside of the unmodified stats die code value progression (e.g. 2D+6 vs 3D+3 = 13 vs. 13.5).
|
Interesting - in my game there are usually no values like that - the 2D + 6, 99% of the time never have modifiers like that - pips are converted to die codes, and typically use shifting difficulty ranges etc. However - if you have the need for that in your game - makes sense.
I will keep it for stun affects - it makes sense from a simplicity and consistency stand point.
Still - may have to play with it a bit - I will keep track in our next sessions to see how many times it would come into play. One of the benefits of an active game with a bunch of trigger happy players.... (or sometimes very trigger happy NPCs....depending on other factors).
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10522
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2025 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | Game Option: Minimum Blaster Damage
At GM discretion, blaster weapons using the normal damage setting have a minimum damage of stunned, at least for soft fleshy target species such as humans. GMs electing to use this optional rule may decide that certain conditions still allow a no effect outcome if one is rolled, such as species with tough exteriors or characters wearing non-Stormtrooper armor. |
| pakman wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | And I'm thinking of using this rule in conjunction with my Minimum Blaster Damage rule which would supersede it, meaning that a lower rolled blaster dice value against a higher resistance rolled dice value would still often have a minimum result of stun. |
I had read your damage rules and other threads - and my rules was in spired by the idea of not wanting to make a lot of exclusions (except for rancors etc.) |
I get that, but your rule alone would still not eliminate what for me would be disbelief-suspending results, such as almost any unarmored (or stormtrooper-armored) soft-fleshy character soaking a blaster-bolt in cases where the character's rolled damage resistance is equal to the rolled damage value, such as a standard blaster pistol vs. a Strength 4D character could be. It is not difficult for me to apply my sometimes/exceptional rule because I can, in any situation, decide if I feel a character should be able to soak a blaster bolt or not immediately after the result is rolled. Me applying a rule like yours to what I already do would eliminate those decisions when the blaster damage code is higher than the resistance code, so I would be applying my exception less often.
And your rule alone does not eliminate the "blaster-proof Wookiee" syndrome in general, as Wookiees (or other strong species) have strength codes higher than a lot of blaster damage codes. With my rule I can still apply a minimum blaster damage result of stunned if I deem it necessary to not break immersion when the Strength is higher than the blaster's damage code. I also prevent OP PCs (and reduce disbelief suspension) by not allowing any PCs to have a Strength (or any other attribute) above 5D even if the species stat max is more, so Wookiees stronger than that exist in my SWU but only as very rare NPCs.
| pakman wrote: | | Quote: | | And this rule would need a specification of comparing the average result values of the die codes involved, because modified/rolled dice values can end up outside of the unmodified stats die code value progression (e.g. 2D+6 vs 3D+3 = 13 vs. 13.5). |
Interesting - in my game there are usually no values like that - the 2D + 6, 99% of the time never have modifiers like that - pips are converted to die codes, and typically use shifting difficulty ranges etc. However - if you have the need for that in your game - makes sense. |
Not just my game. That is the way The D6 Classic System works in general - Pip are not converted to die codes when multiple stats/modifiers are added together for a roll. The die codes add together and the pips add together without die codes. 2D+2 + 3D+2 = 5D+4.
This highlights an important consideration for these types of discussions. This isn't just a situations where two GMs both house rule something differently. Your game system is based on an uncommon variant of D6, so it is overall far more "exceptional" than mine. Your game system is based on D6 Legend, but you are asking for feedback from GMs who mostly all run D6 Classic, which should be considered the default basis for these discussions. My responses are based on my game system, and for how die codes add together, I am RAW in that respect.
You keep posting as if your system has much more in common with ours than it actually does. Here and on Facebook, I'm going to have to ask you to please always put some bold label/disclaimer at the top of your threads that you run D6 Legend. These discussions often get to these points where it makes a difference.
Adding die codes together with pips converting to dice skew the dice rolling probabilities vs. not converting pips to dice (as in RAW). In general, success-counting as in D6 Legend skew the dice rolling result probabilities as it is.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pakman
Commander
Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 488
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2025 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don't understand the text on the stormtrooper reference.
But I think we are in overall agreement on the concepts of wanting more immersive soaking?
Also - we chose to solve "the wookie problem" another way - wookies don't get 5D STR. They get the same STR as anyone else as fur and muscles don't make you immune to plasma bolts. (they do however, get a +2D bonus to lifting, which our house rules uses for an input into melee damage, just as many other house rules here).
ON pips Stacking.
That is an interesting clarification - have to think about it, but for clarification - we don't add pips that way because of ANYTHING other than personal preference and our perception of consistency.
Back to Soaking
Was not aware of the FAQ clarification on stacking pips - so yes, that would change things - sounds like converting to averages would be more applicable for those times when multiple unrelated bonuses would be contributing.
I was unaware of that ruling even back in the day before any house rules overhaul.
Very interesting point indeed, and nice find on listing all the adventure journal faq topics.
On labeling posts
Where relevant - I do label. It was not relevant for this post - as our stacking pips is independent considerations (that and our house rules are designed for both additive and success bases).
I will continue however, if a post is related to a house rule (like my force power overhaul, or advanced skills, etc.) continue to post references where necessary - I mean - I know a ton of us us a ton of house rules - after all.
(side note: I do need to post up more of my force power overhaul - as there has been some tweaking now that my players are getting much higher skilled - as while overall the powerscaling is working in areas of known problems - some other new issues have popped up after playing for several years... sigh ...life of house rules )
Finally...back on topic...
Feels like others agree that blaster weapons should have a minimum damage result in most cases. My basis for taking the target's STR into account - seems to cover many of the outliers in the previous conversations.
thanks for all the insights.
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10522
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2025 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pakman wrote: | However - if you have the need for that in your game - makes sense...
I was unaware of that ruling...
On labeling posts
Where relevant - I do label. It was not relevant for this post - as our stacking pips is independent considerations (that and our house rules are designed for both additive and success bases). |
But the "additive" basis of D6 Classic is not just my house rules like your success-based system is. Adding up the die roll values is Star Wars D6 RAW.
It became relevant when you framed an aspect of D6 Classic RAW (that you have since admitted you were not aware of) as a probably house rule I had inserted into my game out of some personal need. It was actually the case that I had no reason to change that RAW for my house system so didn't, thus maintaining that aspect of RAW. Since you were not aware of the ruling, it seems you also did not change it out of any personal need. You've just been running it that way. I admit I am not well-versed in D6 Legend (it has been a long time since I played it), so I thought maybe your conversion of pips into dice came from that. Regardless, my way of adding die codes together is not a house rule.
| pakman wrote: | | Also - we chose to solve "the wookie problem" another way - wookies don't get 5D STR. They get the same STR as anyone else as fur and muscles don't make you immune to plasma bolts. (they do however, get a +2D bonus to lifting, which our house rules uses for an input into melee damage, just as many other house rules here). |
You probably mentioned that at some point elsewhere. That's one way to do it.
I view skills defaulting to attribute as a fundamental aspect of the D6 system, and I like Wookiees naturally being better at brawling, climbing, jumping, stamina, and swimming (as well as lifting).
| pakman wrote: | | Don't understand the text on the stormtrooper reference. |
According to filmic evident, stormtrooper armor does not appear to offer definitive protection against blaster bolts. We don't see what the game defines as stunned results for stormtroopers. We don't see what the game defines as wounded results (they never get back up the next rounded after being blasted, so they don't unless it is offscreen).
While armor in general may provide an exception to my minimum blaster damage rule, stormtrooper armor does not provide this exception, so stormtrooper armor does not allow you to soak blast bolts in my game. This was discussed in the Soaking Blaster Bolts thread shared above.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
