Topic: New house rules, need feedback

[ToM]

I am thinking on introducing some new rules-of-the-thumb.

First one is derivative from Ravenhart's own discussed in another topic.
Involves Poison/Disease and RR's. I feel that making RR against Poisons and Disease always at 1st level sounds good. Only, I patched the rule so that the RR gets a special bonus of +1/rank of Body Developement the character has.

Second, is about "coup-de-grace" attacks.
I think there is no official ruling for them. So, if the target is really immobile or helpless (paralyzed, lost senses, sleeping: NOT simply flat-footed or ambushed or severly hindered), I only have characters roll dice to hit to see if they fumble. If they don't, it's automatically a 150 result on the table. Any critical scored is modified by +1/rank developed in the weapon skill used. This bonus stacks with eventual Ambush, and in fact it works quite the same (+/- up to bonus to adjust critical strike, also "100" or "66" results can be obtained this way). The bonus is halved against Large and cut in 1/4 for Super Large creatures.

Finally, since my characters are approaching hi-levels and meleeing with many lesser opponents begins to become time-consuming, I was thinking about some sort of cinematic battle rules for stronger parties/caharacters against a large bunch of weenies (half characters level or so):

• Give all criticals scored by the tougher opponent a special bonus of +1/2 ranks in the weapon/attack skill, to use as and adjustement as per Ambush skill
• Give the tougher opponent the opportunity to make two or more attacks against non-flanking opponents at a -30 OB to each attack.

Need some feedback from you guys on all those topics. 

[Marc R]

I think the "Attacking helpless foes" rules are actually in the books.

[markc]

Any action upon a helpless target is assumed to succede. So if you want to kill them you do.
 
MDC

[Kristen Mork]

Any action upon a helpless target is assumed to succede. So if you want to kill them you do.

MDC, I don't remember seeing this in the rules.  Do you have a citation?

ToM, for coup-de-grace, your approach makes sense to me, as long as there is nothing else going on.  Otherwise, I'd use a normal attack, with all the modifiers for a prone target (maybe throwing in +30 because the target is static).  As always, my concern is PCs wading through a sea of Goblins rendered unconscious via Sleep spell.  The easier it is to butcher a sleeping target, the more powerful the Sleep spell becomes.

[Ravenheart]

Only, I patched the rule so that the RR gets a special bonus of +1/rank of Body Developement the character has.

That's a good idea! I start using it immediately because we anyway start with much higher Hit Points and not everyone bothers to use devs for Body Dev after a while.

Our formula for hit poits is: 50 + CO BONUS + SD BONUS + RANK ROLLS + ATHLETIC LEVEL BONUS.

Max for common man is 120, but every rank increases this by one.

Logic is the same that resulted in changing the RR vs poisons to be resisted at level 1.

[markc]

Peter Mork;
 I will look but I seem to remember somewhere a rule saying if the GM determines the action is simply enough then he can decide that the player does not need to roll and the action is a success.


 IMHO going up to a downed opponent and cutting their neck should be one of these tasks. Now if other things are going on or the PC is trying to be defensive or something else I might make them roll. But simply walking up a sticking a knife, dagger or sword blade in there neck is an action I would not require a roll for in a completely helpless situation.   


MDC

[Kristen Mork]

I'm not so sure.  Executioners needed really big weapons, and some training, to perform their jobs correctly.  And, it seems that you frequently hear of a victim with (n >> 1) stab wounds to the face and chest.  So, it seems that there are physical difficulties in executing a target, intellectual difficulties (a single dagger shot to the correct location), and emotional difficulties.  IMHO, the rules should not casually assume that characters are able to execute sleeping victims.  (Besides, what's to stop an NPC from turning the tables!)

[ToM]

Killing an helpless foe can't be a totally automatic action IMHO.
Not always swinging a deadly strike is so simple as it seems. Particularly if, like yestereday evening, "helpless targets" were actually full armored (TA15 with full helm) sleeping orcs. If you ever have seen tv series like "Deadliest Warriors" or some other HC shows, you'll guess that swinging a deadly blow is not simple even against a totally static (dead) target like pork meat. Against dummies with various types of armors, most of the blows landed were ineffective. So the "you can kill him if you want" approach doesn't make any sense to me and seems really too much D&Desque.

[markc]

OK lets try this again as my post got eaten by the update to the server.


1) IMHO in 10s you can do a lot of damage. A lot more than 1 swing.


2) IMHO a person who knows enough will strike the sensitive and vital areas of the "persons" body to kill them instantly or to provide a lethal wound that they can not recover from. Often these areas are armored but the target also has to have some flexibility in their armor. Those are generally the joint areas. Also they generally have to "sense" things, these sense organs can often be very prone to serious damage if they are struck in the right way.


3) I have seen the various TV shows and their weapon experiments. See #1 above.


MDC 

[Cormac Doyle]

If you are concerned that attacking a sleeping target is too easy by core rules (RMC states "GM fiat or allow a simple MM"), then weapon skills are irrelevant anyway.

You Want Ambush/Silent Kill/Anatomy/etc

A sleeping target is not actively defending themselves - so you do not need a "combat skill" - you need a knowledge of what to stab/cut/crush that will make sure the person never wakes up.

[Kristen Mork]

You really should only get one shot for free.  Most sleeping people will wake up when they're slugged.

[Marc R]

One of the fiat things is that a lot lies in the details.

Pushing a boulder off a 100' cliff on a sleeping giant may or may not kill them. . .

It's not instant to kill someone, in armor, snoozing at their guard post, by choking them. . . .

If you have the guy tied, unarmored, you're straddling his back, with your left fist tangled in his hair pulling his head back to offer lots of neck, and you have a two foot long, razor sharp knife held to the underside of his neck, yelling at his friends "One step closer and I kill him!"

A lot depends on the details, with the boulder I'd do a maneuver to see how well you did shifting the rock, with a fall/crush attack resolved after, with the choke I might allow a first grapple attack at massive bonuses, and likely a surprise bonus to initiative on the next round, but the guard can fight back. . .the tied prison is more like a "Make a Maneuver and don't fumble"

[ToM]

If you are concerned that attacking a sleeping target is too easy by core rules (RMC states "GM fiat or allow a simple MM"), then weapon skills are irrelevant anyway.

You Want Ambush/Silent Kill/Anatomy/etc

A sleeping target is not actively defending themselves - so you do not need a "combat skill" - you need a knowledge of what to stab/cut/crush that will make sure the person never wakes up.

Disagree. Combat skills by themselves represent the ability to strike more efficiently were it hurts.
Anatomy also, if related to combat strikes.

[pastaav]

I think that what makes an executioners job hard is the idea that he should cut the head off from the victim. There is a very real difference between delivering an instant death injury and just a mortal injury.

I would not demand a roll to kill a bound helpless prisoner, if he is helpless and unmoving then there are really not much of a random factor at play.
If the killing should be done without sound to be heard then the Silent Death skill might be needed depending on the circumstances.
If the killing should be done in a showy fashion like cutting off the head then I would most certainly demand a roll and a relevant skill.

[Marc R]

I'd ask a roll for the helpless kill, only because in real life people have survived having their throat cut, being stabbed a dozen times, shot in the head at point blank range, etc. Should be a chance, even if it's tiny, that the person survives a one shot helpless kill.

OTOH if the declaration is "I saw his head off" or "I hit the body with my club until it's a pile of meat paste" and the attacker has enough uninterrupted time to do so, then you can guarantee death. That depends on things like "OK, the other PC will get there in 8 rounds, the villian goes to cut the throats of all six prisoners before they can be rescued." It makes sense to make rolls there. . .if the villian has the 6 prisoners and hours to kill them, they're dead unless he's sloppy, it's not really necessary to make rolls to see how long it takes.

[VladD]

Lord Miller is right: people have survived worse, such as being blown in half or a pick axe to the brain, so it is only logical to allow a roll: I award E criticals to the assassin, modified by either his ambush skill or his silent kill skill skill ranks. If the target has some sort of natural armor, I'd look on the attack table to award a critical corresponding with the highest critical severity possible on that table. It protects dragons and the like from instant kills. It favors assassins and rogues who have developed ambush skill.

Results of stunned and stunned and unable to parry simply add to the confusion a sleeping victim is in, so I figure in a surprise round for the sleeper, so those are 2 free crits and if he is still alive and probably severely wounded, normal combat is initiated.
That usually gives a 2:3 chance of an incapacitated foe and about 2:5 instant death.

This is why they awarded the death penalty in the Roman army for falling asleep on a watch.

Game On!

[markc]

  Another thing in my game the PC's are the heroes and I let them do or succed at things I would make othes/NPC's roll for.
  I also ask myself does it eat up time I could be using for something else? Is there a dramatic element to the action?
 
 I got tied up but will look for the rule in the RMSS book today.
MDC

[Ecthelion]

I'm not so sure.  Executioners needed really big weapons, and some training, to perform their jobs correctly.  And, it seems that you frequently hear of a victim with (n >> 1) stab wounds to the face and chest.  So, it seems that there are physical difficulties in executing a target, intellectual difficulties (a single dagger shot to the correct location), and emotional difficulties.  IMHO, the rules should not casually assume that characters are able to execute sleeping victims.  (Besides, what's to stop an NPC from turning the tables!)

Fully agree. Plus even using the normal RM rules an attack vs. a sleeping target gets a +50 bonus for a prone foe and Qu DB will not apply. Together with his OB even a combatant with only average talent will in most cases achieve a 150 on the attack table. Of course the critical might yield only mild damage, but the chance for more severe damage is quite high. And a second attack might do the rest. Therefore a house rule is IMO not necessary.

[yammahoper]

executioners used really bug weapons because they were not skilled armsmen, but bloody amatuer hacks.

The cinamatic rules cover helpless foes well with a simple mod: if your OB/DB is double your opponents then one attack will count as THRE against it instead of three foes.  This requires 100% activity.

[rdanhenry]

Killing people quickly and cleanly is not easy. Messing them up to the point where they'll die without advanced medical care is much easier. When it comes to finishing off the wounded, I'd allow it to be automatic, one a round, if the character assumes they are incapacitated. Which would also mean that someone who was faking would automatically get in a surprise attack.