| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:55 pm Post subject: "Less Than" Damaged |
 |
|
I've been thinking about a variation on the 1E Damage rule (specifically, the part about a target taking stun or ionization damage even if it beat the damage roll).
What I'm thinking is adding a couple short-term effects that kick in if a target takes a hit, but then beats the Damage roll by 10 points or less. Something like:
Strength Roll > Damage Roll by # = Result:
0-5 = Knocked Down. Character falls to the ground and can take no actions for the rest of the round. Standing up counts as a Standard Action for MAP purposes.
6-10 = Jolted. Character isn't hurt, but suffers a -1D penalty to all further actions that round.
As the topic title suggests, the characters don't suffer any lasting injury beyond the effect itself, but don't just simply ignore any hit that doesn't do damage. Something similar could be written up for vehicles and starships, drawing results from the Movement Mishap tables for a vehicle spinning out of control for a round, or something similar.
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: 14174
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
If they are knocked down and can't take any further action, how then do they 'stand up for normal MAP"? Or is that in the following round?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
For damage ratings less than the Strength roll to resist I'm inclined to use the rule from 1E as modified in one of the interim rule sets. So the full damage table would like like the following:
2xDR < SR No Effect
DR < SR Stunned (as per the 2ER&E rules for stun)
DR > SR by 0-3 Stunned (exactly as in the 2ER&E rules)
DR > SR by 4-8 Wounded
DR > SR by 9-12 Incapacitated
DR > SR by 13-15 Mortally Wounded
DR > SR by 16+ Killed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | If they are knocked down and can't take any further action, how then do they 'stand up for normal MAP"? Or is that in the following round? |
The following round.
_________________
"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: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | For damage ratings less than the Strength roll to resist I'm inclined to use the rule from 1E as modified in one of the interim rule sets. |
That's what got me thinking about this but, as with my redo of the Starship Damage Chart, I wanted to eliminate duplicate results. Having a Stunned result both above and below the Soak threshold wasn't working for me.
_________________
"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: Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The purpose for me is twofold.
First purpose is to mitigate (not eliminate) the blaster-proof Wookiee syndrome. That's why I use the multiplier rather than a flat 10 point difference.
Second purpose is to incentivize all players to treat someone holding a blaster on them as a real threat rather than have them think they can easily spend a CP or two to avoid any damage from a holdout blaster. Which is why I also add +1D damage at point blank range. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was skeptical at first, but I dig it. However, I would probably shrink the threshholds to 3-4 points instead of 5... there is, after all, plenty of room in genre for the big dude you gets punched and just smiles at their puny attacker.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1448
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | First purpose is to mitigate (not eliminate) the blaster-proof Wookiee syndrome. |
Just to point out: I've noticed that many of the rule peculiarities like this (the blaster-proof Wookiee) were only born after the original rules were mucked around with, twisted and made to fit something different.
In First Edition RAW, there is no Blaster Proof Wookiee problem. If a Wookiee is hit, he's going down with the minimum of a Stun, just like every other character. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | First purpose is to mitigate (not eliminate) the blaster-proof Wookiee syndrome. |
Just to point out: I've noticed that many of the rule peculiarities like this (the blaster-proof Wookiee) were only born after the original rules were mucked around with, twisted and made to fit something different.
In First Edition RAW, there is no Blaster Proof Wookiee problem. If a Wookiee is hit, he's going down with the minimum of a Stun, just like every other character. |
Yes, instead of a blaster proof wookie, you have a rancor stunlocked with a holdout... a different problem, but not necessarily a better one.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | First purpose is to mitigate (not eliminate) the blaster-proof Wookiee syndrome. |
Just to point out: I've noticed that many of the rule peculiarities like this (the blaster-proof Wookiee) were only born after the original rules were mucked around with, twisted and made to fit something different.
In First Edition RAW, there is no Blaster Proof Wookiee problem. If a Wookiee is hit, he's going down with the minimum of a Stun, just like every other character. |
Notice I said mitigate, not eliminate. I don't want every shot to drop a character. Chewie dropping to the minimum die roll from a tiny holdout blaster is not a good thing, but a bad thing from the original rules. And even a worse thing if it happens on the round Chewie spent his one and only Force Point.
EDIT: Scooped by Nexx and his stun locked Rancor. 
In practice I don't find high STR characters are blaster proof. Part of that is that I'm going to question a player who wants to run a maxed out STR Wookiee. Why should your Wookiee be stronger than Chewbacca? How will that make play fun and challenging for everyone? The highest PC STR I've seen in play was probably 5D+1. That character has a 50-50 chance to be stunned by a normal damage shot from an ordinary blaster rifle or heavy blaster pistol.
And there are ways of increasing the damage above the normal damage (extra damage for accuracy, called shots, combined fire, wild die, and for key villains spending CPs to do extra damage) so the Wookiee shouldn't feel safe ignoring blaster fire.
Sure the Wookiee could spend a Force Point and boost their STR that round into the 10D range which will make them nearly blaster proof to all but a combination of added damage. But Force Points are limited (most PCs only have 1-3 FPs even after considerable play) and so are character points (most PCs have 5-7 CPs at any one time and they need to save some if they want to improve their skills).
And to be honest I don't see a 1E rule where the player spends a Force Point and then is stunned by a holdout blaster causing them to fall and lose all their actions that round thereby effectively wasting their FP as a better rule than the stun rules in 2E+. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MrNexx wrote: | | I was skeptical at first, but I dig it. However, I would probably shrink the threshholds to 3-4 points instead of 5... there is, after all, plenty of room in genre for the big dude you gets punched and just smiles at their puny attacker. |
That works, too. It's interesting that the result window for "Wounded" on the RAW Damage chart is a 5, while Stunned and Incapacitated are each 4 and Mortally Wounded is a 3.
_________________
"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: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | The purpose for me is twofold.
First purpose is to mitigate (not eliminate) the blaster-proof Wookiee syndrome. That's why I use the multiplier rather than a flat 10 point difference. |
In the end, it seems our disagreements are more a matter of scale than methodology
| Quote: | | Second purpose is to incentivize all players to treat someone holding a blaster on them as a real threat rather than have them think they can easily spend a CP or two to avoid any damage from a holdout blaster. Which is why I also add +1D damage at point blank range. |
I like that idea for Point Blank.
_________________
"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: 14174
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MrNexx wrote: | | Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | First purpose is to mitigate (not eliminate) the blaster-proof Wookiee syndrome. |
Just to point out: I've noticed that many of the rule peculiarities like this (the blaster-proof Wookiee) were only born after the original rules were mucked around with, twisted and made to fit something different.
In First Edition RAW, there is no Blaster Proof Wookiee problem. If a Wookiee is hit, he's going down with the minimum of a Stun, just like every other character. |
Yes, instead of a blaster proof wookie, you have a rancor stunlocked with a holdout... a different problem, but not necessarily a better one. |
Simple solution there.. Make creatures like the Rancor be higher scale (say speeder or possibly even walker) and make it that the 'any hit stuns at the bare minimum' ONLY apply to character vs character scale.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1448
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MrNexx wrote: |
Yes, instead of a blaster proof wookie, you have a rancor stunlocked with a holdout... a different problem, but not necessarily a better one. |
But, so much easier to correct with 1E by making Rancor's immune to stun. Not so easy to correct with a different damage system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1448
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | I don't want every shot to drop a character. Chewie dropping to the minimum die roll from a tiny holdout blaster is not a good thing, but a bad thing from the original rules. |
When Chewie was hit in TFA, he went down. When Leia was hit in RotJ, she went down (and when she was stunned in ANH).
A stun packs the same punch as a blaster bolt. Same damage is rolled. A stun just doesn't have permanent damage.
A hold out does 4-19 damage, average of 11 points.
A standard blaster pistol does 4-24 damage, average of 14 points.
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.
The hold out does the same damage as an archaic rifle, to put it into perspective. The hold out isn't the equivalent of a blaster 0.22, but it's easy to come to think of it that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
