Topic: Reducing the lethality and bringing Skill into the effect of crits.

[intothatdarkness]

I'm going to throw out the "other genres" card here and say that some of these ideas likely won't work well when you start looking at weapons and combat other than specifically melee. If you're going to model firearms well (to toss out my favorite example), you have to take both hit location and different scales of damage into account as soon as you start working on things. The tables I've tested and used in games are divided by hit location (limb, head, center mass), and the actual ATs are broken down by weapon type and caliber. This system also uses more to-hit modifiers than most RM players typically see (like moving target penalties).

Firearm damage is simple because the basic maximum damage (base concussion hits) for just about any caliber can be determined using a formula. Crits can likewise be expanded or limited based on some givens with ballistic damage and wound profiles. With a robust system of to-hit modifiers you don't need defense rolls (and given the nature of most firearms combat I'd argue that such rolls would just be clogging the system). Random lethality in this kind of combat is also explainable (if not necessarily common).

I hate to say it, but I think a great deal of this sort of tension springs from the abstract nature of melee in RM when compared to the discrete nature of missile or magic attacks. Adding another set of modifiers or tables isn't likely to fix that.

[Spectre771]

Spinning off this same idea.
I was thinking of Allowing the attacker to adjust crit rolls, up or down, by 1 or 2 points per rank in the skill.
Yes combat can be random, but the more skilled a Fighter is, I believe the more they are able to reduce that randomness.

What are others thoughts on these ideas?

I've been thinking about this topic on and off since you posted it and it's been an interesting approach.  If the argument is that RM is too randomly deadly, then allowing the PC to directly modify the crit roll, makes it specifically more deadly.  The Ambush skill allows the user to directly modify a crit roll already.  If you employ your option of allowing even 1 point per skill rank, a person with 5 skills ranks can modify +/- 5 giving the player a differential of 10 to score a "66-Crit". A roll of 61-71 can now be made into a 66 which is pretty frequently a final blow to a target.

Along those  lines of allowing skill to come into play though, I came up with a few options to allow Critical Striking Skill to be included.  And, as with any RM optional rule, it's an optional rule.

1)  Allow only increases to the critical roll per skill rank.  5 skill ranks = +1 to +5 increase to the crit roll.  This only imparts 5 more chances to get the "66-crit"

2)  Allow only maximum skill rank to crit roll.  5 skill ranks = +5 to crit roll.  This only imparts 1 more chance to get a 66.  61 or a 66

3)  Allow the user the ability to reroll a crit #of ranks/5 (or #/3) round down.  5 skill ranks = 1 chance to reroll the crit. 
        A) Take the better of the 2 rolls
        B)  Must take the new crit roll even if it's worse than the first crit roll

I like the randomness of battle and consequences of snap decisions in the heat of battle with option 3.  Options 1 and 2 are too similar to the Ambush skill, but if I had to choose, I would opt for option 2.  I still want it to be difficult to get the yummy "66" on the crit table.  By allowing for a range of 11 chances (or more) to hit a 66, the excitement and rush of rolling that awesome crit is diminished.  The goal was to "reduce lethality and bring skill into the effect".  You can't make it overly easy to get the lethal crit rolls.

At the very least, I would make learning that skill nearly cost prohibitive.  DP cost of 10 for Arms users and DP=20 for Semi-Spell users, DP=30 for Spell users.  The rationale being, how do you know you are actually improving your critical strike by twisting this way or that way, or sliding up and over like this, or whatever technique is used without actually practicing it on someone or something?  You would go through slaughtering a lot of animals, or worse, people, trying to improve that particular Deadly Skill.  Unless maybe, you are a professional butcher who decides to go adventuring some day.

[Warl]

Hey Spectre thanks for the reply.

2 things.

this Is meant to be combined with expanding the tables idea in this same post

and

I only allow the 66 to apply on a natural roll

We/I treat 66 like a NAT 20 roll.

[choc]

Martial Arts Companion provides the skill "Vital Points Lore" to adjust the critical roll by 2 points during melee combat for this or next round, requires 25% action.
Weapon styles can also allow to adjust the critical roll by 1-3.
Ambush in open combat is IMHO very dangerous to the system and balance.

But if you want to make the system more deadly and faster, then apply the level to the crit roll.

A drawback to your intention of a skill/roll are the accidents. Do accidents get crit adjustments? Do accidents have another roll for the adjustment?

[intothatdarkness]

Ambush, to me, was always a poor compromise intended to reflect aiming. I created a Sniping skill in my modern stuff to deal with that, and it works differently than Ambush.

[Spectre771]

Ambush, to me, was always a poor compromise intended to reflect aiming. I created a Sniping skill in my modern stuff to deal with that, and it works differently than Ambush.

I've never liked the way Ambush works and a couple of the GMs from my gaming days didn't like it either, while a couple of them did.  We treated Ambush as the ability and knowledge to using existing materials and environment to set up a "successful ambush" on a target, a caravan, or an army, etc.  We then gave a one time bonus or a static bonus such as OB=Ambush roll - 100.  i.e.: Whatever value over 100 was applied to your first attack roll.  Needing to break 100 to show a successful ambush then the carry over is the bonus you received.  Or the party had +10 to +25 DB while attacking from cover, or targets are flatfooted for a round and unable to act.

I like the idea that Warl is trying to implement.  The critical strikes are a bit more skill based and a nicer replacement for Ambush.

Sniping is a skill from a later companion too.  I think it's in Arms Companion?  There is also Spell Sniping as well to allow the Sniping skill for mages. 

[Spectre771]

I only allow the 66 to apply on a natural roll

We/I treat 66 like a NAT 20 roll.

Perfect solution.  66 is a magical, off-limits number that can only be obtained naturally.

What is this "natural 20" to which you refer?  Is that a demon dice roll from some made up world? 

[Warl]

Martial Arts Companion provides the skill "Vital Points Lore" to adjust the critical roll by 2 points during melee combat for this or next round, requires 25% action.
Weapon styles can also allow to adjust the critical roll by 1-3.
Ambush in open combat is IMHO very dangerous to the system and balance.

But if you want to make the system more deadly and faster, then apply the level to the crit roll.

A drawback to your intention of a skill/roll are the accidents. Do accidents get crit adjustments? Do accidents have another roll for the adjustment?

Cho, thanks for your response,
WHat do you mean by Accidents?  are you talking about fumbles?

[intothatdarkness]

Ambush, to me, was always a poor compromise intended to reflect aiming. I created a Sniping skill in my modern stuff to deal with that, and it works differently than Ambush.

I've never liked the way Ambush works and a couple of the GMs from my gaming days didn't like it either, while a couple of them did.  We treated Ambush as the ability and knowledge to using existing materials and environment to set up a "successful ambush" on a target, a caravan, or an army, etc.  We then gave a one time bonus or a static bonus such as OB=Ambush roll - 100.  i.e.: Whatever value over 100 was applied to your first attack roll.  Needing to break 100 to show a successful ambush then the carry over is the bonus you received.  Or the party had +10 to +25 DB while attacking from cover, or targets are flatfooted for a round and unable to act.

I like the idea that Warl is trying to implement.  The critical strikes are a bit more skill based and a nicer replacement for Ambush.

Sniping is a skill from a later companion too.  I think it's in Arms Companion?  There is also Spell Sniping as well to allow the Sniping skill for mages.

My Sniping actually works differently from the Companion version. It's based on a couple of factors (compensating for range and 'spotting' your shot), and is tailored specifically for firearms.

[Spectre771]

Ambush, to me, was always a poor compromise intended to reflect aiming. I created a Sniping skill in my modern stuff to deal with that, and it works differently than Ambush.

I've never liked the way Ambush works and a couple of the GMs from my gaming days didn't like it either, while a couple of them did.  We treated Ambush as the ability and knowledge to using existing materials and environment to set up a "successful ambush" on a target, a caravan, or an army, etc.  We then gave a one time bonus or a static bonus such as OB=Ambush roll - 100.  i.e.: Whatever value over 100 was applied to your first attack roll.  Needing to break 100 to show a successful ambush then the carry over is the bonus you received.  Or the party had +10 to +25 DB while attacking from cover, or targets are flatfooted for a round and unable to act.

I like the idea that Warl is trying to implement.  The critical strikes are a bit more skill based and a nicer replacement for Ambush.

Sniping is a skill from a later companion too.  I think it's in Arms Companion?  There is also Spell Sniping as well to allow the Sniping skill for mages.

My Sniping actually works differently from the Companion version. It's based on a couple of factors (compensating for range and 'spotting' your shot), and is tailored specifically for firearms.

Ohhhhhh. Firearms.  I misinterpreted "modern stuff" to mean re-curve bows, repeating crossbows,  and the latest finery released from the Dwarfen Forges. LOL

[intothatdarkness]

No worries. Most of my re-tooling of RM has revolved around more modern settings (aside from the whole thing we did for my world).

[Peter R]

I always liked the highly lethal nature of melee but I like the Hollywood style where the heros can meet and dispatch minions on the run. If you get into an attrition battle at the very first gatehouse the entire guard is raised and they can kill you all in a volley of arrows before you have killed the two really stupid guards the PCs normally encounter first.

To stop things being over too quickly I use choreography and have the defenders or the evil dudes minions come at the players in waves from different directions. This is what happens in all the classic fantasy films and TV series so I try and copy in game. Of course if the fight is going too easily for the party then you can create a few more minions and if it is going badly then hold off a few. This also means you can create lulls in the combat if the party need to heal or pile more minions on a player that needs the challenge.

The suggestions above I think would make things more leathal because of the critical rolls being shifted by higher level combatants rather than making things safer. Additioanlly statistically 1 in 20 (5%) criticals will be open ended. If I have adrenal move speed and two weapon combo with thrown dagger I can throw 4 knives at you. If you are in platemail then I would have to be blind and facing the wrong direction and at extreme range not to do at least an A crit because people in platemail are unmissable they just don't take much damage. That would give me about a 20% chance typically of getting an open ended critical (4 chances at that 5%). Under the existing rules only a critical roll of exactly 100 would be lethal.

[Peter R]

Another thought.

If you read the existing critcal tables left to right the locations of the critcals are either the same or not specified for any particular roll. eg all rolls of 81-85 are to the foes side regardless of weapon or damage type.

If you have a blade that does a secondary fire critical but two levels lower (E becomes C etc.) then the results of the one critcal dice roll read as an E on the slash table and as a C on the fire table will both give a coherent result. Your super tables would have to consistent across all the damage types and all the possible critical severities so you do not slice off your foes nose and burn his foot with the same blow.

[Spectre771]

Another thought.

If you read the existing critcal tables left to right the locations of the critcals are either the same or not specified for any particular roll. eg all rolls of 81-85 are to the foes side regardless of weapon or damage type.

If you have a blade that does a secondary fire critical but two levels lower (E becomes C etc.) then the results of the one critcal dice roll read as an E on the slash table and as a C on the fire table will both give a coherent result. Your super tables would have to consistent across all the damage types and all the possible critical severities so you do not slice off your foes nose and burn his foot with the same blow.

The issue you are referring to was adjusted in the RMSS.  One of the new features touted for the system was that the criticals now matched body locations across the tables.  In RM2, we just changed the wording of the secondary critical to match the body part/area of the first critical.  It was for that very reason that I bought a couple of the RMSS books, but after weighing the cost of getting the new books vs. the amount of money already invested in RM2, I stopped.

[Peter R]

I am still firmly in the RM2 world.

I'm still not convinced open ended criticals are the way to go. You are multiplying the chances of a A crit killing you by a factor of 5 and the skill adjustment to the critical magifies the relative danger even more.