Optional Damage Rules

[Robin Smallburrow]

So we playtested these Optional Damage Rules last night, two combatants:

1 had skill of 2, Armour 3d+4 (chain + helm), Body 5 & Great Axe as weapon (Slashing, does 9 Damage, Injury Rating 20)

vs opponent Weapon Skill 3, Club (4 Damage, Injury Rating 14), Body 3, Armour 2d+1 (Leather + Cap).

Stances had little effect, in nearly all cases the first combatant (with the higher body and heavier armour) ending up winning, usually only took three rounds in most cases, so combat is certainly faster and more deadly. The only time the lighter armoured and less strong opponent won was when he had Initiative and was in Forward Stance - the other stances actually gave the other combatant even more of an advantage, and when the stronger guy had the initiative - OUCH!

They both hit each other about the same, but the heavier, stronger opponent did more damage and thus ended up winning most times.

We will go with the RAW for the next combat and then I will ask the players' opinions - we may also try out Morgoth's ideas as they sound good.

I haven't considered Adversaries but I would certainly add a modifier for any Adversary that had Great Strength (or similar), I will have to give that one some more thought.

Robin S.

[Morgoth]

Yeah, sounds like it would make combat deadlier. Interesting playtest.

If you try my way, let me know what you think.

[Falenthal]

Sorry to deviate a bit from the post, but has anybody tried the "optional damage rules" of limiting the maximum number of successes depending on the combat position?

I recall having read two propositions:
1) Defensive allows a maximum of one extra succes of damage, Open allows 2 (as per RAW), and Forward allows 3 (the problem here is that nowhere in the rules are 3 successes allowed).

2) Defensive allow 0 extra successes, Open allows 1, Forward allows 2. I feel this option might lower the damage done too much, making combats last longer, but haven't tried it yet.

[Glorelendil]

Sorry to deviate a bit from the post, but has anybody tried the "optional damage rules" of limiting the maximum number of successes depending on the combat position?

I recall having read two propositions:
1) Defensive allows a maximum of one extra succes of damage, Open allows 2 (as per RAW), and Forward allows 3 (the problem here is that nowhere in the rules are 3 successes allowed).

2) Defensive allow 0 extra successes, Open allows 1, Forward allows 2. I feel this option might lower the damage done too much, making combats last longer, but haven't tried it yet.

Oh, funny, I just mentioned option 2 in another thread as a counterbalance to a proposal for a 'taunt' combat task.

[Bomilkar]

I''ve been using option 1 with my groups for a while now. As I understand the rule, it cuts both ways, so if you are in a defensive position, you can only score one extra success of damage, but the enemy can also score just one success. So far, we like it because it makes the choice of stance even more interesting. I expect this will also solve the perceived problem of higher-level characters reverting to defensive as their standard stance (which they might otherwise do, because they will hit anyway).

[Glorelendil]

I''ve been using option 1 with my groups for a while now. As I understand the rule, it cuts both ways, so if you are in a defensive position, you can only score one extra success of damage, but the enemy can also score just one success. So far, we like it because it makes the choice of stance even more interesting. I expect this will also solve the perceived problem of higher-level characters reverting to defensive as their standard stance (which they might otherwise do, because they will hit anyway).

Oh I like the addition of limiting, by stance, the number of successes your opponent can add.

[Falenthal]

I think that all changes should be applied to players and monsters alike, don't you? In fact, both sides apply damage in the same way (number of successes add a number of times Attribute/Body damage).

I seem to like the first version better (1/2/3 successes). Only the second one seems more in line with the rules (maximum of 2 successes).

[Rich H]

... Just remember that enemies effectively have a neutral Stance - ie, they don't select a Stance they simply engage PCs so, personally, I wouldn't limit an adversaries damage in the ways described above.

I've actually used this rule for a number of adventures now and it works fine. By not limiting the number of successes that enemies can apply to their damage it gives the players a real option with regard to adopting a defensive stance and making them harder to hit or moving into a more aggressive stance so they can increase their damage output.

Mind you, I don't think combat house rules can be reviewed in isolation as they all shape to how the mechanics work. For instance, I use some damage reduction in my game for metal armour, but it only applies to PCs. So, in my game these two rules, both only applying to PCs, provide some interesting options.

[Falenthal]

Well, I like the combination. And if it's been playtested, then there's an insurance that it can work.

How much is your Damage Reduction, Rich?

[Bomilkar]

Just to clarify: The way we play it, it is the players' stance that limits their own successes as well as that of their opponents. It makes some sense, especially with high-level characters (who might still choose to go offensive, even though they would hit in any stance) or against high attribute monsters, like Mountain Trolls (who will usually hit, no matter your stance). The opportunity to potentially maximise the damage you deliver or minimise the one you receive is something that is well-received by my players.