Topic: Situationonal Crits

[markc]

  Do you like Situational crits? Such as if wearing helm then X, Y, Z if not wearing helm A, B, C. Or do you prefer just one crit for all?


MDC

[yammahoper]

I really like situational crits.   Of course, if optional crit tables were designed A-E for every AT, I'd buy them and use them.

[providence13]

Situational Crits work for me. You're already hit, armor in that area might reduce injury.

Were the sit crits added after the fact? It feels like it, but I could be wrong. 

It's a simple solution to the problem of additional armor with in the AT.

[markc]

I really like situational crits.   Of course, if optional crit tables were designed A-E for every AT, I'd buy them and use them.

 Yes that would be a lot of crit tables. But then again I can see the no armor or robes, E crit entries slicing off limbs. But again it would be quite a few more no armor, leather soft, leather ridged, animal, chain, plate, kinetic, combat and I think I forgot one or two in there.
MDC

[Lord Garth]

One more vote for situational crits. Not all over the place though, I don't think I'd like a gazillion "if foe is wearing X" crit results, rather I prefer a few per table.

[Magistrate]

Yes, I like Situational Crits, because this shows why you should wear a helmet.

[VladD]

Situational crits are the bomb: "if foe is wearing shield; it is broken; otherwise arm is broken" that kind of stuff is awesome. I've seen fighters don a really cool helm, only to have it destroyed instead of his face, in the next combat! This fighter will never leave home without his helmet again

But aren't such crits the bread and butter of the crit system? It is one of the reasons I would still use armor. Otherwise it is usually too restrictive.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I can't say that I'm a big fan of situational crits (except for the helm) because they're redundant with the AT itself. For instance, AT10 is defined as AT9 but "with leather greaves covering the forearms and lower legs", or AT14 defined as AT13 but "with greaves on the forearms, and lower legs". So not only would wearing an AT10 allows you to get less damage (and a lower crit) that an AT 9 in some cases, it would as well lower the effect of said crit? Same for every other AT (or almost) since within a category (soft leather, rigid leather, chain, plate), a higher AT is in a nutshell the lower AT with more covering.
To me, either you have a damage table that takes into account all the different ATs and critical tables where situational armour doesn't count, or you have a "category damage table" and critical tables that take into account the situational armours.

Situational crits are the bomb: "if foe is wearing shield; it is broken;"

True but, OTOH, a shield already gives an additional DB (which may mean already less damage and a lower crit). Why should it allow as well a lower effect on crits?

[arakish]

Situational crits are the bomb: "if foe is wearing shield; it is broken; otherwise arm is broken" that kind of stuff is awesome. I've seen fighters don a really cool helm, only to have it destroyed instead of his face, in the next combat! This fighter will never leave home without his helmet again

But aren't such crits the bread and butter of the crit system? It is one of the reasons I would still use armor. Otherwise it is usually too restrictive.

Absolute concurence.  Many times I have had players comment, "Damn glad I bought that helm/shield/grieve/etc."

I can't say that I'm a big fan of situational crits (except for the helm) because they're redundant with the AT itself. For instance, AT10 is defined as AT9 but "with leather greaves covering the forearms and lower legs", or AT14 defined as AT13 but "with greaves on the forearms, and lower legs". So not only would wearing an AT10 allows you to get less damage (and a lower crit) that an AT 9 in some cases, it would as well lower the effect of said crit? Same for every other AT (or almost) since within a category (soft leather, rigid leather, chain, plate), a higher AT is in a nutshell the lower AT with more covering.
To me, either you have a damage table that takes into account all the different ATs and critical tables where situational armour doesn't count, or you have a "category damage table" and critical tables that take into account the situational armours.

Situational crits are the bomb: "if foe is wearing shield; it is broken;"

True but, OTOH, a shield already gives an additional DB (which may mean already less damage and a lower crit). Why should it allow as well a lower effect on crits?

Because if s/he did not have the shield and got the same crit, then the arm is broken or severed (ouch).  If shield is present, then the shield is broken and no longer provides the additional DB and the arm would only be bruised (oof).

rmfr

[Mercenary30]

Also, there are other ways to attain various Armor Types beyond the physical armor configuration, so even if the AT takes into consideration arm and leg greaves, a magical AT or natural AT of the same number would likely not include the greaves.

[GrumpyOldFart]

True but, OTOH, a shield already gives an additional DB (which may mean already less damage and a lower crit). Why should it allow as well a lower effect on crits?

Also, there are other ways to attain various Armor Types beyond the physical armor configuration, so even if the AT takes into consideration arm and leg greaves, a magical AT or natural AT of the same number would likely not include the greaves.

In short, both AT and DB are generic, they apply equally to any hit, anywhere on the body (or if you prefer, to all attack rolls made, regardless of any other variables). "If foe has no helm, he is dead" is specific, and it doesn't matter what your AT or your DB is. You either have a helmet or you don't. Realistically AT 9 should have the same problems where shots to the arms are concerned, unless you add pauldrons and vambraces. In the real world, someone whose chest and legs are armored and that's all isn't AT 9 everywhere, they're AT 12 (hard leather, nominal "full coverage") on the chest and legs and AT 1 (unarmored) everywhere else.

I'll grant you that location specific, situational crits are a clumsy attempt to address that... but at they least they are an attempt to address that, and I can't say I could come up with any better solutions. I haven't seen any mechanics address damage location and differences in both coverage and attack type well in any RPG yet.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Because if s/he did not have the shield and got the same crit, then the arm is broken or severed (ouch).  If shield is present, then the shield is broken and no longer provides the additional DB and the arm would only be bruised (oof).

Except if he "did not have the shield", he may not have had the same crit (nor the same damage) than if he had one. In other words, a shield already makes a difference. Making it doing so again through a situational crit is redundant. Either don't make it add DB and use situation crit, or make it add DB and don't have situation crit, not both.

Realistically AT 9 should have the same problems where shots to the arms are concerned, unless you add pauldrons and vambraces. In the real world, someone whose chest and legs are armored and that's all isn't AT 9 everywhere, they're AT 12 (hard leather, nominal "full coverage") on the chest and legs and AT 1 (unarmored) everywhere else.

It's why I suggested to rather have a "armour category" attack table with situational crits rather than having attack tables that already break the armour categories into situational coverage yet have situational crits.

I haven't seen any mechanics address damage location and differences in both coverage and attack type well in any RPG yet.

I personally did but such a system requires quite a bit of bookkeeping.

[yammahoper]

True but, OTOH, a shield already gives an additional DB (which may mean already less damage and a lower crit). Why should it allow as well a lower effect on crits?

Also, there are other ways to attain various Armor Types beyond the physical armor configuration, so even if the AT takes into consideration arm and leg greaves, a magical AT or natural AT of the same number would likely not include the greaves.

In short, both AT and DB are generic, they apply equally to any hit, anywhere on the body (or if you prefer, to all attack rolls made, regardless of any other variables). "If foe has no helm, he is dead" is specific, and it doesn't matter what your AT or your DB is. You either have a helmet or you don't. Realistically AT 9 should have the same problems where shots to the arms are concerned, unless you add pauldrons and vambraces. In the real world, someone whose chest and legs are armored and that's all isn't AT 9 everywhere, they're AT 12 (hard leather, nominal "full coverage") on the chest and legs and AT 1 (unarmored) everywhere else.

I'll grant you that location specific, situational crits are a clumsy attempt to address that... but at they least they are an attempt to address that, and I can't say I could come up with any better solutions. I haven't seen any mechanics address damage location and differences in both coverage and attack type well in any RPG yet.

Well said.

[rdanhenry]

I like them.

As for shields... if I were doing a Viking campaign, I'd go through and put in a lot more "if shield, it breaks... else..." crits. Shields and breaking shields were a big part of period combat, and putting it in the crits is a lot more convenient than other methods for breaking shields. As for redundancy, even if the shield DB isn't assigned to me, if I hit someone's arm where it has a shield covering it, the shield is going to provide protection. Without some "redundant" results in crit table, a second or third foe isn't hindered by that big slab of wood at all.

[intothatdarkness]

I also like situational crits. Never had an issue with them, and since AT adjusts damage it is in a way reflected in the probability of getting a crit. I honestly don't see a need to add another slew of tables.

[jdale]

The really realistic thing with a crit to a shield arm is not that the blow fails to break the shield arm, but that it strikes a leg instead because that is the area that would be open.

That said, I think the combat tables undervalue armor, so it makes sense for the crits to try to compensate for that. But if one is going to launch such an effort, it would be much easier to redo the tables.

Helms are especially undervalued, because they don't affect your AT. Crits that depend on whether a helm is present are the only advantage of helms, so those simply must be in there.

[Ynglaur]

+1 vote for situational crits, though I agree that every critical result does not need them.

[markc]

The really realistic thing with a crit to a shield arm is not that the blow fails to break the shield arm, but that it strikes a leg instead because that is the area that would be open.

That said, I think the combat tables undervalue armor, so it makes sense for the crits to try to compensate for that. But if one is going to launch such an effort, it would be much easier to redo the tables.

Helms are especially undervalued, because they don't affect your AT. Crits that depend on whether a helm is present are the only advantage of helms, so those simply must be in there.

 I agree that helms are under valued and I have them give a DB bonus as well as a penalty to observation. I think there is a great way to apply more situation crits to the system I am writing but again it does have it flaws still that I have to work out.


MDC

[jaranka]

I like situational crits.  I can see how the extra DB from a shield will already change what crit you get, but how else do shields get broken other than through those special crits?  I don't really see a downside to the redundancy as long as it remains balanced.

[RandalThor]

Yeah, I think they are a good thing and help reinforce the idea that having armor on when fighting can be a good thing. (Not so much when you want to go swimming though.)