Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 Running the Realms
 Thoughts on Critical Hits

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]
Rolling Eyes [8|] Confused [?!:] Help [?:] King [3|:]
Laughing [:OD] What [W] Oooohh [:H] Down [:E]

  Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
The Sage Posted - 09 Jul 2003 : 15:36:20
I was sitting in class tonight, thinking about Critical Hits.

I think it is a little flat and plain to simply apply the extra damage to the critical hit. Here is an alternate system I have been thinking about -

On a roll of 1d6

1-2: Equals an arm hit. This results in a -2 temporary penalty to Strength, and a free Disarm attempt with no Attack of Opportunity.

3-4: Equals a torso hit. This is normal extra damage.

--5: Equals a head hit. The target is then stunned for one round.

--6: Equals a leg hit. This results in a -2 temporary damage to Dexterity, a free trip attack with no Attack of Opportunity, and finally a -5 speed. If both legs hit are struck, then no movement which requires legs is allowed (though the character can still fly, levitate, etc).

30   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
The Sage Posted - 20 Jul 2003 : 07:03:10
Agreed. Most of my players actually enjoy using these tables for critical hits. But then they are all pretty level-headed gamers. My epic level campaign that is running though has several 'power-gamers' who originally abused the first table I generated (especially when you consider the BAB of some epic level fighters). I had to remove that table from the campaign, and resort to using the regular system.

So I really think it comes down to what both the DM and the players think about it.

Bookwyrm Posted - 20 Jul 2003 : 06:24:32
Indeed, that's why I was thinking it might be more trouble than it's worth. Still, up to the actual user . . . .
Acaus Bellum Posted - 20 Jul 2003 : 06:12:16
Sage and all DMs that might be listening, I know many have had success with Crit hit charts but my experience is that they can grow out of control and before you know it you have to throw them out. Keep it simple and how you like it and in this case don't let players have any say in the matter.
The Sage Posted - 20 Jul 2003 : 03:54:09
Thank you .

Although, I have received some very interesting feedback, and suggestions for improvement. I am still working on a new table (amongst about one-hundred other projects), which will hopefully acknowledge a much more improved and streamlined combat session with regards to critical hits.

Salabasha Posted - 20 Jul 2003 : 01:50:53
quote:
Sage of Perth

On a roll of 1d6

1-2: Equals an arm hit. This results in a -2 temporary penalty to Strength, and a free Disarm attempt with no Attack of Opportunity.

3-4: Equals a torso hit. This is normal extra damage.

--5: Equals a head hit. The target is then stunned for one round.

--6: Equals a leg hit. This results in a -2 temporary damage to Dexterity, a free trip attack with no Attack of Opportunity, and finally a -5 speed. If both legs hit are struck, then no movement which requires legs is allowed (though the character can still fly, levitate, etc).



I do believe that the critical hits system could have some work done on it. Your concept is more feasible and enticing then that of the older one, the only problem being one of two things. 1 of course is that there aren't, as I am sure others have said, leg hits, head hits etc. in the game. The second is that, and from fighting experience, not all those creatures that we fight have those body parts .
Nonetheless, it is still quite good.
The Sage Posted - 19 Jul 2003 : 17:42:37
I am curious as to why you suggested that making use of this idea would be like 'opening up a can of worms with purple worms in it'?. What is it exactly about this idea that made you think that?.

The Sage Posted - 19 Jul 2003 : 17:38:35
There are some interesting points there Acaus, particularly the vulnerabilities to certain rolls when wearing armor, and the gauntlet guarding a hand. It certainly adds a new level to this idea of a modified critical hit chart.

Acaus Bellum Posted - 19 Jul 2003 : 11:25:16
Several things you should think about because I believe that your goal was to add realism. The type of armor an individual wears would affect his vulnerabilities to certain rolls on any chart. I try to keep it simple because I believe you are opening up a can of worms with purple worms in it. I wonder if any of you have ever fought with swords/sticks you get hit in the hand constantly and you get used to it. Also say for instance you got hit in the hand on a crit hit what if you were wearing gauntlet or your weapon has a guard on it. I think a good idea would be to keep it as simple as possible. Say seventy percent of crit hits will hit torso regular damage(as in x2or x3) but if you wearing armor its damaged AC reduced by 1. Ten percent chance hit either head arms or legs. The effects are arms Base Attack -4 does normal damage(not crit its a arm not a vital organ), head stun lose action next turn regular crit damage, and legs normal damage non-crit AC -2 or -4. Fairly simple more realistic and you can say that certain armor or protection will negate certain results. I leave off other possiblities because I prefer simplicity .
The Sage Posted - 16 Jul 2003 : 02:17:52
Those charts are all good. At least for my campaigns. I particularly liked the first chart, although I found that it did slow my combat sessions down a little. That may also be partly attributed to the resistance some players had to utilising these tables also.

Herr Doktor Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 19:48:18
There are a couple of Critical Hit and Fumble charts for download here: http://www.dndadventure.com/dnda_dm_resources.html

I haven't playtested either of the tables, or even looked at the second one, but I plan to give at least the first one a try.
The Sage Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 17:33:41
AraznBlair, I'll post my chart up here as soon as it is finished. I should be able to get to work on it tomorrow, after my second exam for the week. I can spare some time between then and the third exam on Friday.

The Sage Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 17:31:38
I'll get back to you on that Bookwyrm.

Bookwyrm Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 15:52:47
Now, Sage, you asked about possiblilities . . . what sort of situations did you have in mind?
Bookwyrm Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 15:50:52
Arazn, the prerequisite for any of the Deformity feats is the feat "Willing Deformity" -- so no, I don't believe the character would want to get it healed . . . .
Bookwyrm Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 15:49:07
Yck!

That's some pretty nasty stuff in there. I wouldn't call the book actually 'vile' -- but it's certainly unpleasant.
AraznBlair Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 15:26:47
Like I said before this system was created for 1E and was able to be used for 2E. I'm not really sure how it will work with 3E though.

The idea of losing an eye and then fighting I think would cause the PC/NPC to take a severe lose of AC due to being blinded on one side. I'm not familiar with the Deformity Feat, nor am I sure how you can have such a feat, honestly I think that a PC/NPC would try and get the deformity fixed but thats just me.

Sage let me know how that chart works in 3E and if you have any changes to it that makes it work let me know so I can update my chart.
Bookwyrm Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 15:02:46
Okay, I'll do that. I've got it on a PDF here . . . .
The Sage Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 13:43:25
Oh, and Bookwyrm, let me know what you think about the possibilities of using the 'Deformity' feats.

The Sage Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 13:42:20
Actually before I post my revised system, I'd like to see what suggestions people have on possible alternate skill penalties.

Bookwyrm Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 11:50:18
Skill penalties are what I was thinking about. And they might work. Maybe.

"Deformity" feats . . . I guess I ought to take a look at the BoVD.
The Sage Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 06:18:32
That is an interesting point Herr Doktor. I have been considering the Deformity feats for the alternate charts I have been slowly working on. I have been using them to determine many different aspects of battle wounds and the like as well as these other aspects you describe.

More work is needed though.

Herr Doktor Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 03:50:17
You could just have it cause misc penalties to certain skill checks instead, I suppose.

Maybe something like the Deformity Feats from the Book of Vile Darkness.

Perhaps massive scarification or wounding could even grant the victim a bonus to Intimidate checks or Diplomacy or Bluff checks when trying to impress a band of battle-scarred pirates... sounds a little complicated though.
Mournblade Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 03:49:57
Arazyn, your chart is Impressive... most impressive.

BUT Like Bookwyrm mentioned with the EYE comment, it seems to open up another component you have to deal with. Such as an accurate system for fighting with powdered limbs, and shredded necks. I like your system, I just wouldn't use it for the 3rd edition. I would for the 2nd, becuase there were so many contradictory or EXTRA rules.

The Sage Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 02:33:41
And as for being an 'exceedingly awkward' system, well while I agree with you on that, I like the idea of being able to create a system which doesn't suffer from some of the problems already associated with this method.

Anway, I am using AraznBlair chart as my guide, incorporating what I feel are changes necessary to address all the issues mentioned here so far. I'll post it here when I have something definite.



The Sage Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 02:31:02
I am going to try both methods anyway. I like play-testing these sorts of fan-created systems. Your point does have some validity though Bran. Although I think it would also serve as a measure of how competent a DM really is in a game.

Bookwyrm Posted - 14 Jul 2003 : 21:58:03
Bran, I might actually have to agree with you for once . . . .
branmakmuffin Posted - 14 Jul 2003 : 21:26:20
Sage of Perth:
quote:
Without actually running this system yet, I can say, that yes, it would be a charima penalty excluding magic. Although after play-testing...who knows?.
I guess I'll just have to find out.

You'd have to keep track of two diferent "charismas". I guess you could call one "mental charisma" and the other "physical charisma". Or heck, just add a stat for "appearance".

That sounds exceedingly awkward and hardly worth the bother just to impelment a "house rule" critical hit chart.
Bookwyrm Posted - 14 Jul 2003 : 16:59:05
How would you deal with a character who has lost an eye? Would (s)he be vulnerable to flanking attacks in an extra square? (Assuming you can follow the picture I have in my head right now . . . .)
Bookwyrm Posted - 14 Jul 2003 : 16:56:17
Bardic abilities, yes, but arcane spells? They have to deal with the way the bard is in tune (avoiding any hippie jokes, much as they want to come out ) with magic around him.

And I guess it would really have to do with where the source of the character's charisma (the type that he adds to diplomacy) comes from. If it's looks (like, say, with the character of Lockhart from Harry Potter) then the damage is normal. But you don't need looks to be charismatic. Steven Hawkings has a very charismatic personality, but he isn't what anyone would call handsome. He has limited hand movements, and has to use a computer to do his talking. (The Microsoft Sam voice, which is preloaded into Windows XP, if anyone wants their computer to sound like his . . . . )

Then again, many people are easily swayed by looks. If someone is "horribly disfigured" they would be uncomfortable around him. I'm like that myself, to some degree. My biggest problem, though, is dealing with people with limited intelligence. I'm always afraid I'll get upset with them for being so "slow" and so I try to stay away from them. I've got a bit of a temper, and I don't want to take it out on someone who can't help how they act.
The Sage Posted - 14 Jul 2003 : 16:00:34
I was actually considering the overall effect regarding charisma and general appearance and looks. The point about the Bard though is valid.




Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000