| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:07 am Post subject: Optional Brawling Damage Rules |
 |
|
This is based off of the Stun damage rules on pg. 97 of the 2R&E Rulebook.
New Stun Result Rules:
Stunned characters suffer a penalty of -1D to skill and attribute rolls for the rest of the round and all of the next round. Multiple Stunned results have a cumulative result, but the penalty is reduced by 1D per round. However, even when the penalty is reduced, it is still affecting the character for the next 30 minutes, unless he can sit and rest for 1 minute per Stunned result.
If a character is affected by a number of Stunned results equal to or greater than his Strength dice (rounded to the nearest whole value for pips), the character is knocked unconscious for 2D minutes (but can be revived on an Easy First Aid total). Any Stunned results above and beyond what is needed to knock the character out are counted as normal damage.
When inflicting Brawling damage, Brawlers are initially limited to Stun damage and use the following Damage chart:
0-3 = 1 Stun
4-8 = 2 Stuns
9-12 = 3 Stuns
13-16 = 4 Stuns
Each additional 4 points = +1 Stun
Example:
A Wookiee, with Strength of 6D, lands a punch on an Imperial Army trooper with a Strength of 2D. The Wookiee rolls a # 22, while the trooper rolls a 5 to resist. The Wookiee got a 17 for damage, resulting in a total of 5 Stunned results. However, the trooper only has a Strength of 2D, and only needs 2 Stunned results to be knocked unconscious (for 5 minutes). The remaining 3 Stunned results are then counted against the results on the standard Damage chart; 3 damage levels = Incapacitated. The trooper is KTFO, and is Incapacitated to boot, but it is still better than being killed outright, as he would've been had the Wookiee used the RAW damage rules.
_________________
"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 |
|
 |
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Those are intriguing. Have you had a chance to play test them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So to kill the stormtrooper via brawling, the Wookiee would have to hold the stormie up with one paw and continue hitting him with the other.
Interesting.
Last edited by Bren on Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Raven Redstar wrote: | | Those are intriguing. Have you had a chance to play test them? |
Nothing yet. I was reading posts over in the Bowcaster topic about Wookiees inflicting more damage with their bare hands than with the bowcasters and started playing around with the idea in my head. This is what popped out.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | So to kill the stormtrooper via brawling, the Wookiee would have to hold the stormie up with one paw and continue hitingt him with the other.
Interesting. |
Or absolutely clobber him just once, like the scene in ANH where Chewbacca takes out the landing bay officer on the Death Star. I know in the novels, on the rare occasions that Wookiees get in brawling fights, there is discussion of general mayhem and a lot of people ending up on the floor, but not so much for high body counts. A rule like this would allow a Wookiee or other high Strength character to really let go and use his Strength to full effect in a fight without worrying bout killing a bunch of NPCs.
_________________
"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 Sep 13, 2011 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Or absolutely clobber him just once... |
Of course. I was just referencing your example of "Incapacitated."
| Quote: | | ...A rule like this would allow a Wookiee or other high Strength character to really let go and use his Strength to full effect in a fight without worrying bout killing a bunch of NPCs. |
Not all high STR characters worry about killing, but I get your point.
Your rule modification seems more realistic, reasonable, and interesting to have brawling damage be less fatal than weapon damage. It also means there is an in-game difference between a Wookiee attacking with his fists and one attacking with a Ryyk blade. Also makes an in-game difference between attacking with fists or (dishonorably) with claws. I like the modification.
I also like the fact that continuing to hit people beyond the point of unconciousness is more likely to kill them. That allows a sadistic beating to have a greater likelihood of severe damage or death than a bar room brawl. That seems very in keeping with a Star Wars / space opera tone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm actually quite tempted to give these a try in my upcoming game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I assume a creature with claws simply does normal damage as default rather than stun damage?
What about called shots? If the Wookiee attempt to tear someone's arm off the difficulty of the attack is raised but the damage become lethal rather than stun?
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Esoomian wrote: | | I assume a creature with claws simply does normal damage as default rather than stun damage? |
Not my house rule, but I'll toss out an opinion. Maybe or maybe not. If so, then I would eliminate or reduce the bonus to damage most creatures get for natural weapons. Many of those bonuses always seemed ridiculously high when compared to a knife or sword or even when simulating two creatures engaged in intraspecies combat.
Alternately, just leave the bonus alone but switch to brawling damage. The damage bonus will often move damage up to being at least partially lethal against any creature with a similar STR and for natural predators, once the prey is unconcious, it can be dragged away and devoured at leisure so out right death isn't required.
| Quote: | | What about called shots? If the Wookiee attempt to tear someone's arm off the difficulty of the attack is raised but the damage become lethal rather than stun? |
Maybe, or just raise the damage. Just because the Wookiee wants to tear someone's arm off, that doesn't mean they necessarily succeed. Maybe they only dislocate it. 
Good questions though. I'll be curious how crmcneil responds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Esoomian wrote: | | I assume a creature with claws simply does normal damage as default rather than stun damage? |
Bren covered the bases pretty well on this one. I'm still not sure which one I would go with, as they both have their ups and downs. Ultimately, IMO, that would best be left up to personal preference.
| Quote: | | What about called shots? If the Wookiee attempt to tear someone's arm off the difficulty of the attack is raised but the damage become lethal rather than stun? |
The direction I was thinking of going is to allow characters with martial arts training of some sort to be able to choose between normal and stun damage, either as part of the Martial Arts rules in RoE or under somebody's home-brew version.
As far as a Wookiee ripping someone's arm off, I would put that under the Game Option: Severe Injuries rule on pg. 98 2R&E. In game terms, when a Wookiee tears someone's arm off, its because they rolled enough damage to get a Killed result, but the character chose to inflict a permanent disability rather than killing his opponent outright (similar to a Jedi maiming someone with a lightsaber).
_________________
"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: Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:30 pm Post subject: Re: Optional Brawling Damage Rules |
|
|
Just want to clarify my understanding.
| crmcneill wrote: | Example:
A Wookiee, with Strength of 6D, lands a punch on an Imperial Army trooper with a Strength of 2D. The Wookiee rolls a # 22, while the trooper rolls a 5 to resist. The Wookiee got a 17 for damage, resulting in a total of 5 Stunned results. However, the trooper only has a Strength of 2D, and only needs 2 Stunned results to be knocked unconscious (for 5 minutes). The remaining 3 Stunned results are then counted against the results on the standard Damage chart; 3 damage levels = Incapacitated. |
Are the three levels: wounded, wounded x 2, and incapacitated? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:58 pm Post subject: Re: Optional Brawling Damage Rules |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | Just want to clarify my understanding.
Are the three levels: wounded, wounded x 2, and incapacitated? |
That's what I was thinking, adding the Wounded Twice as a further buffer.
Although Seriously Wounded, Badly Wounded or Severely Wounded sounds much more serious and ominous than "Wounded Twice".
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Slightly more than wounded? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Raven Redstar wrote: | | Slightly more than wounded? |
LMAO. I'm just saying that we have Stunned, Wounded, Incapacitated, Mortally Wounded and Killed. These are all rather ominous sounding in their own way. And then we have Wounded Twice. It just fails on so many levels...
_________________
"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: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I'm just saying that we have Stunned, Wounded, Incapacitated, Mortally Wounded and Killed. These are all rather ominous sounding in their own way. And then we have Wounded Twice. It just fails on so many levels... |
It's a gamist rather than a narratavist definition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
