| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| I think what we need is a cap, the way other weapons have a damage cap. If a Karkardon's bite had a max damage (7D), then the doubling wouldn't be so bad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| darkwing2k6 wrote: | | the way i like to understand it is the additional (+d) damage - not STR, sets a limit on the actual physical weapon ie if you double your strength then the weapon is on the verge of breaking BUT if you then add on the additional (+d) bonus then you are puuting too much force into the weapon and it will break/shatter/snap etc. just the way i like to rule it in my opinion. hope this makes sense? |
That sort of works for external weapons. Not sure about natural weapons...would the Rancor break his own claws? teeth? arms? jaws? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darkwing2k6
Cadet
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| if you can stub a toe and snap a nail off then why not a rancor. at the end of the day its still only sinew etc holding it on. great whites teeth are fairly loose and often lose some when they eat. putting too much pressure on these teeth/claws etc its feasable that they could break etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nevertheless, if you're not talking about losing ALL of the teeth, then it wouldn't make a difference to the bite damage. If we're talking about losing all the teeth due to an overpowering bite, then the creature itself might be at risk of injury just from using it's natural attack, which is stupid:
Player: I spend a force point to punch the guy in the face.
GM: Roll damage.
Player: Whoa! My wild die exploded! Twice! Three times! Another 6! And another!
GM: Okay; you punched him so hard that both his head and your fist explode. You're incapacitated.
Player: Goodbye. I'll find another group. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14174
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have had that happen from rolling a 1 on the wild.. As the complication.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LOL! But at least it wasn't due to overwhelming success. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Given strength is used for both dealing damage and soaking it it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the strength componant of a damage roll could also be used to soak any Newtonian consequences of the same damage roll.
That would mean that natural weaponry providing additional bonuses above and beyond the basic strength could leave someone with a gap between what damage they deal and what damage they soak but Naaman is right. Punishing a player in that way for an exceptional success doesn't make for a fun game.
I've had a GM who thought there could be such a thing as rolling too high but he always made the problems that generated fun to deal with. When my character punched someone too hard he ended up with his target lodged on his fist, hampering his movement.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The way I like to think of it is like this:
The higher you roll, the closer you get to your exact intent. The lower you roll, the farther you get from your exact intent.
I'll use an example from d20: if shooting into a melee, you take a -4 penalty on your attack. A lot of GMs rule that if you roll within that 4-point gap, then you hit the wrong guy (using the line of thinking that the higher you roll, the closer your shot gets to the target). On the surface, it makes sense. However, in this case, it's better to miss by a greater margin, which doesn't make sense to me.
So, I rule that if the d20 roll is a natural 1-4, then you hit the wrong guy (this actually increases the percentage of hitting the wrong guy, since even if the total is high enough to overcome the penalty, you sill hit the wrong target, even though you were "this close" to killing the bad guy). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, that can of worms I opened was not clearly labeled as such...
As far as the RAW goes, it looks like Naaman is winning this one to me, but I may not actually follow the RAW  . Fortunately, The character in question isn't complete and hasn't been introduced yet, so I feel awful comfortable making adjustments to him at this stage.
| Bren wrote: | | Not sure about natural weapons...would the Rancor break his own claws? teeth? arms? jaws? |
Biologically speaking, probably not.
The average man could break his own arm with it's own bicep;they're that strong. Fortunately for those of us who like our arms, though, that kind of stress causes pain, which provides a natural governor to the practical strength of a muscle. The pain says: "This hard. No harder."
So why do our bodies build all that muscle strength if they can't use it? Turns out they can. Adrenaline works, not only by releasing stored energy, but by suppressing pain. This is why there are stories of average men lifting average pickup trucks off of their daughters after auto accidents. It's also why it's not a good idea to pick up bear cubs in the wild.
The reason I said "probably" way back up at the top, is that I could conceive of force point use being linked to a massive release of adrenaline. The reason I said "probably not" is that that same force point is doubling the soak at the same time.
| Naaman wrote: | The way I like to think of it is like this:
The higher you roll, the closer you get to your exact intent. The lower you roll, the farther you get from your exact intent. |
I do exactly the same thing.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | Not sure about natural weapons...would the Rancor break his own claws? teeth? arms? jaws? |
Biologically speaking, probably not. |
I intended this as a response to the comment that exceeding weapon max damage might be allowed, but might break the weapon. If there is a max damage that a man (or a Wookiee) can do with a broadsword (and there is in the RAW), why wouldn't there be max damage that an animal can do with its teeth or claws? Doubling both the STR and the bonus will exceed the max damage that many weapons will do. It just seems wrong that, for the same creature, teeth and claws will do more damage than weapons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | I intended this as a response to the comment that exceeding weapon max damage might be allowed, but might break the weapon. If there is a max damage that a man (or a Wookiee) can do with a broadsword (and there is in the RAW), why wouldn't there be max damage that an animal can do with its teeth or claws? Doubling both the STR and the bonus will exceed the max damage that many weapons will do. It just seems wrong that, for the same creature, teeth and claws will do more damage than weapons. |
Some melee weapons don't have maximum damages, and in the instances of those which do, I don't think they're high enough. (That said, I'll save you the trouble of reminding me that I'm in the official rules section, not house rules.)
I think the crucial point, however, is not whether the maximum damage surpasses that of a weapon, (because a wookiee using the same force point would do the same damage without any form of weapon) but whether the teeth have reason to be doubled or not.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Some melee weapons don't have maximum damages, |
I believe that all the melee weapons listed in the 2E Revised rules have a maximum. From that I conclude that WEG weapons without a maximum are just the result of an editing error or a careless author. I think there is ample precedent in multiple areas for that conclusion.
Personally, I have a problem with a rule that results in a Wookiee soing the same damage with or without ryyk blades or a vibroaxe. That is exacerbated by having a species that do more damage without a weapon (due to teeth or claw adds) than they can do with a weapon. But I'll say no more on this since as you rightly point out, this is the Official Rules section. 
| Quote: | | I think the crucial point, however, is not whether the maximum damage surpasses that of a weapon, (because a wookiee using the same force point would do the same damage without any form of weapon) but whether the teeth have reason to be doubled or not. |
I see them as related questions since to me it is silly for a large creature to do more damage with it's claws than when wielding a 2H vibroaxe. But that is really a House Rules issue.
I agree, the rules are clear that special abilities are doubled - though sadly no example is provided that illustrates these double damage teeth.  I just disagree with the rule as written. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4850
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm wondering why this is a big deal. Yes, the person has the potential of rolling up to 10D if they max their strength and roll a FP. But really, how often does that happen? The FPs are there so that the characters can do awesome cinematic things under intense pressure. In my games, they may only get a handful of FPs during the course of the story arc, so it isn't like they can throw these things around left and right. Assuming that everyone is as stingy as I am, to assume that they'll use it on an attack roll seems to be assuming too much. Or is it the mere possibility of its use against something like a speeder or a walker what bothers you?
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cheshire wrote: | | ...to assume that they'll use it on an attack roll seems to be assuming too much |
(1) I see FPs used for attack rolls often.*
(2) A character with STR 5D and Claws 1D would do 12D damage (the same as a STR 6D Wookiee). Which in 2E R&E is the equivalent the Quad Lasers on an X-wing. That seems unlikely. Han should actually have been worried when Chewiee yells and bashes things while repairing the Falcon. If Chewiee used a FP he could actually break the Falcon - and I don't mean a system, I mean the whole ship.
(3) I find it bizarre that a STR 5D, Claws 1D character does more damage using a FP with his claws (12D) than he does using a FP and a vibro axe (max 7D) or a Jengardin Double-Bladed Vibroblade (max 8D)
(4) And yes it's just a game. And yes amazing things happen. And yes FPs are relatively rare. And yes YMMV.
* Do you treat a FP as affecting all rolls in the round or just one action? If the latter, that would mighthow FPs are used. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds to me like the problem is with the Force point mechanic, more than with the peripheral issues, here.
Seeing as how no-one likes what happens when a Jedi spends a Force point, or when a wookiee spends a force point, or when a great white shark spends a Force point... instead of coming up with dozens of variations of lightsaber combat and making inconsistent rulings just for balance's sake, maybe Force points themselves need a revision.
Maybe the solution could be something like this:
Roll double the dice, but only total up an amount equal to your actual skill. So, if a Force point is spent and a character makes a brawling check (skill 3D+2), he rolls 6D, picks the highest 3 and adds 2.
Another possibility could be that spending a Force point causes all dice rolled to become character point dice (6s explode).
Or, perhaps since Force points are meant to be used in dramatic moments, the player could describe his course of action ("I grab the chain, swing down over the lava pit, grab the princess using my legs and decapitate the villain, and land on the other side of the chasm!"), and then he elects to spend his Force point to complete the task; Doing so eliminate any MAPs he would have suffered, but doesn't other wise increase his rolls. Or, this option could combine with the one above (all dice explode).
Just some ideas... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
