House-rule: Reckless Attack (6e)

[Morien]

I think that the Reckless Attack in 6e is too strong.

It mainly comes down to it not only giving +2d6 extra damage, but it also robs the opponent the shield bonus, so it is in effect +4d6 damage.

Sure, you suffer the penalty the opponent getting +5 to skill, but if you land a hit, it is almost guaranteed to be a fight ender. And if you are using a two-handed weapon to begin with, it is another +2d6, you don't have a shield bonus to discard, so in effect you are more than critting ever hit (base damage + 6d6) over a 1H weapon option. 

This is... too much. It makes Reckless Attack the de facto default attack option for the Great Weapon wielders, save when they are up against someone who has a significant advantage of skill already.

So, first thing we do is return the shield to the opponent (on a partial success). The damage bonus from Reckless is there to help you to get past the shield already, no need to further penalize the 1H weapon users. This lowers the damage bonus to a 'mere' +2d6 (+4d6 over the 1H weapon user). It still hurts a lot, when you are facing someone rolling 9d6+, but at least you will have 16+ armor (hopefully).

I was thinking of allowing the defender to hit on a partial success, but the +5 is already tilting the playing field in the defender's favor, assuming equal skills of 15 (about 70/30). (More about this later.)

So how does this stack up now?

Let's assume two knights of 5d6, one with a sword and a shield, the other with a great axe. Let's give them Armor 10. This results in:
A: Armor 10+6 on a partial, 5d6 damage.
B: Armor 10, 7d6+1d6 damage if A rolls a partial.

So on a level playing field, A is doing on average of 7.5 pts of damage on B, who is doing 14.5 points (A fail) or 12 points (A partial, more likely). Advantage is clearly B's, in this situation, even without considering knockdown. B will likely take A out on two average strikes, while A needs at least three. On the other hand, one tie and the advantage shifts dramatically, or if the two have some arrows flying at them as well. So this is probably more or less OK.

At higher base damage, the knockdown becomes almost certain for both, but B's damage is probably enough to one-shot A (Major Wound), while A likely needs three average hits to take B down (two might not quite be enough to get below UNC). At lower base damage, the knockdown advantage becomes bigger, and A's damage through B's armor starts to become minor. B's one-shot potential diminishes as well, but the damage/hit is still more than enough to make up for it.

Now if B switches to Reckless Attacks... he will one-shot A. The extra +2d6 is enough to make any average hit into a Major Wound. However, he needs to be able to land that hit, and the probabilities are that A will land a couple of hits before that. Still, this is likely not enough for A. Note that this ignores the Knockdown, which might alter things, depending on SIZ and DEX. If B is a big fella (SIZ 17) with a decent DEX (10), then the chance that he falls from two hits is only about 25% (half of the hits cause a Knockdown roll and half of those fail). Advantage is still B's. Regular-sized knights (SIZ 14) would have more to fear as they would be testing DEX with almost every hit (80%).

Hmm. Now, if A gets a hit in on a partial as well, then the Reckless Attack becomes more dangerous. B needs to trust that he gets that one hit in before A gets three hits in. In short, he needs to win either first or the second round. This would change the odds to about 50/50. Which would make the Reckless Attack suboptimal, compared to B's 2 vs 3 strikes advantage with normal attacks, unless time is of the essence. I am actually fine with this. Reckless Attack shouldn't be the go-to option for Great Weapon users, but more of a province of those who are either skilled, lucky, or suicidal. Or have the positional advantage, like attacking a guy who has been knocked down.

Of course, another thing to keep in mind is that Defend cancels out Reckless Attack. So if all Great Weapon users are doing Reckless Attacks, time to anticipate that and do a Defend at least now and again. And vice versa, if you need to crack that Defend.

So in the end, I think these would be my changes:
1. The Opponent does still get the shield armor bonus on a partial success.
2. The Opponent actually lands a hit as well on a partial success.

And if two guys with great axes are declaring a Reckless Attack on each other... +5 skill and +2d6 damage to each, both hit on any successful roll, and the cleaning crew will come over in a moment.

Comments? Am I being too harsh on Reckless Attack? Has it been too powerful in your games?

[Morien]

Udy mentioned in Discord his house-rule of Reckless Attack being -5 skill of the Reckless Attacker, rather than +5 skill of the defender. This changes the odds a bit (~60/25 with 15% mutual misses and ties), but the general analysis of the above stays the same. It does make Reckless attacking a bit more survivable when the opponent is not as likely to land an hit (on a partial, too, in my house-rule) or a critical, without that +5. So it probably would combine well with my other two changes.

Edited March 6 by Morien

[Udy Kumra]

On 3/6/2024 at 7:25 PM, Morien said:

Udy mentioned in Discord his house-rule of Reckless Attack being -5 skill of the Reckless Attacker, rather than +5 skill of the defender. This changes the odds a bit (~60/25 with 15% mutual misses and ties), but the general analysis of the above stays the same. It does make Reckless attacking a bit more survivable when the opponent is not as likely to land an hit (on a partial, too, in my house-rule) or a critical, without that +5. So it probably would combine well with my other two changes.

I don’t know that I would allow hitting on a partial with this house rule. With -5 to the attacker’s skill, the defender has a greater chance of landing a hit *at all*. I haven’t done the math on it though…but I’ll add that psychologically, taking ANY -5 is a tough pill for players to swallow. Knowing that the opponent will be able to hit back even on a partial will essentially mean they never use reckless attacks.

As a side note, I decided to call reckless attacks “power attacks” to mechanically separate them from the reckless trait. While a power attack might be used in a situation where it is particularly reckless to do so (like if you fight King Pellinore) it isn’t ALWAYS reckless (like if you are attacking a prone opponent).

[Mugen]

Oh, I missed the fact two handed weapons deal +2d6 damage in 6e. Brutal...

Question is : how do the 6e reckless attack compares to previous editions ? A +10 to skill represented a huge increase in crit chances, but also a guaranteed hit.

Without that +10, there's a 25% chance a knight with a skill of 15 takes a risk for 0 damage.

[ChildOfEru]

What was the rational for no shield bonus for either participant when making a reckless attack?    IMHO, feels wrong both mechanically and thematically.

One idea I had ( I have not convinced myself that is a 'good' idea) is to let a player switch to 'defending' when the other player declares a reckless attack regardless of the order they have declared their actions.    That rational being it is easier to see a reckless attack coming in than it is to see the normal feint and parry style of a normal attack.

 

 

[vegas]

That is (essentially) RAW in 5e. You may either 1) strike first unopposed or 2) take a matching +10 both strike opposed. (The difference with "Defense" tactics being the defender CAN do damage when faced with an Uncontrolled Attacker.)"