Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 senko Mar 04, 2009 6:05:26	I'm dabbling with an alternate damage system to take advantage of my wounds/hitpoints system and I'm down to two options and thought I'd get some outside advice. Essentially this system has vitality points (die + Con Mod) and wounds (con) when wounds are gone you die, damage to wounds is nasty e.g. on an average person (con 10) 8 + wounds in one hit = instant death even if you have hitpoints left. Anyway the two variants are . . . 1) Critical hits based. The way this version works is as follows if you roll in your threat range you roll again and if you confirm the hit (note in my system a natural 20 doesn't = an automatic hit) it does *X damage (with X being your damage multiplier) as normal. If your re-roll is within the threat range you roll again. If you confirm a second time then the attack automatically does maximum damage e.g. if you normally do 2d10 damage you'd do (2d10 * 2 = 4d10) maximized or 40 points of damage. If you get in your threat range and confirm a third time then you revert to normal damage but do it straight to wounds even if there's vitality left. The problem with this version is that it tends to encourage munchkin style design where you seek to maximize your critical hit chance e.g. I only do 1d8 + 4 (str) but I critical on 13-20 and auto-confirm my criticals. 2) Simply basing it off a constant in this case natural 20's. If you roll a natural 20 you move onto this variant (anything else resolve as normal), if you roll a second natural 20 (again anything else resolve as a normal critical, this one will also be a critcial) then you do max damage, if you roll a third natural 20 in row then revert to normal damage done straight to wounds. The problem here is that anyone even someone who isn't a fighter has an equal chance of getting a horrific blow to their opponent (unlikely as it is). Anyway those are the options, feedback would be appreciated.
#2 kilrail Mar 04, 2009 12:29:26	I am thinking I would prefer the second option you have there. The reason being is that since you are using a vit/wounds system it makes for a more balanced and easily recognizable crit system that makes everyone equal. I take it that you are going for a more realistic style of gameplay and what not. I myself prefer that way of playing in Modern so I can tell you from personal experience that it can get frustrating when your Tough here constantly crits while your poor Dedicated hero is stuck simply running around looking retarded trying to bring down the behemoth that has a rediculous amount of HP. By using your second version it would allow for the unknown to happen, such as you see often in todays movies where the unsuspecting villain is take down by the lowly "red shirt" at the last moment. It will also keep it balanced as you said in your first paragraph and keep the munchkins to a minimum. Thats my two cents Carry on.
#3 senko Mar 04, 2009 18:05:42	Thanks I prefer that one myself actually.
#4 MechaPilot Mar 04, 2009 19:57:47	Out of the 2 options, i prefer the second one. If you are going for realism, i would suggest this as well. There are many times people get into fights and someone accidentally gets killed. I think the second system best represents that. Of course, you may want to layer the 2 systems, using the first for lethal attacks and the second for things like unarmed combat; where lethality is generally less of an issue but still a present threat. I confess i don't care for ramping up the lethality of combat, but the people i play with generally prefer a more heroic style of play (where death is just in the room and not steaming up their glasses).
#5 senko Mar 04, 2009 20:59:28	To each their own I guess, the poeple I play with don't feel the game's worth playing unless there's a genuine chance you'll die permanantly. We had 4 PC deaths in the last vampire game we played. So for now I'll go with the second option and see how the playtesting works out.
#6 fhyl Mar 06, 2009 13:37:43	I'm personally trying to build yet another system by using the Damage Threshold and Vitality combined and by inspiring myself from DnD 4e. Simply put, when damage goes over the Damage Threshold of the character, he has to make a Fortitude save (DC15) : if s/he saves, damage is received normally; if s/he doesn't save, Vitality takes damage equal to the Threshold value and Wound Points takes damage equal to the difference between the Threshold and total amount of damage (thus, if a Con10 character is hit for 15 damage and fails his save, Vitality takes 10 damage and Wound takes 5 damage). Any damage to Wound Points makes the character Disabled until s/he takes a short rest (any form of healing also cures this condition). Criticals work the same way as before (2x damage if confirmed). I'm still hesitating about whether I should include a Fortitude save, make the Damage Threshold or the Wound Points grow over time, etc. As for your two systems, I agree with the comment of MechaPilot. Even though the second system makes everyone as likely to score a critical hit, it still is very unlikely anyone will roll three 20s in a row. Wouldn't it be better if you settled for Max Damage on a natural 20 and Normal Damage to WP on two 20s in a row?
#7 senko Mar 07, 2009 4:13:26	The thing with that one is trying to fit it in with critical hits, if you get max damage on a 20 and then confirm the critical hit 5% of your attacks and every critical using gun will do max damage. Still I suppose that could work, it'd help explain why guns replaced other weapons too since they'd seem more deadly as every good shot does more damage unlike a bow that could still do poor damage on a good shot. Also with regards to your system the same issue I have with critical hits being the determinant is a problem with fort saves to resist wound damage blows. It'd mean a character with a good fort save is going to be better able to resist them. While that makes sense for non-combat classes e.g. smart I think smart and strong both have poor fort saves (relatively speaking) even though they're fit combat classes.