Criticals, Specials and Martial Arts

[frogspawner]

Am I right in my reading of the BRP rules for these? Successful Martial Arts adds an extra damage roll to normal hits and specials, but gives no benefit at all to criticals?

E.g. Daggers (d4,Impaling) would (when the attack roll is also an MA success of any degree) do 2d4 on a normal hit, 3d4 on a special hit but just 4hp (through) on a critical (which would happen anyway, without MA(dagger) skill)?

[RosenMcStern]

I would read it as "normal for Martial arts", i.e. with an additional die. It says "as above", after all. One interesting question is: criticals allow to choose between max damage and special effect, i.e. for a dagger it is eiter 2d4 through armor or 4 through armor. What happens with martial arts? Do you get to choose between 3d4 and 1d4+4 (or even 8?)

[frogspawner]

Similarly, I can't seem to find any reference to penalties for not having the required STR/DEX for a particular weapon. So is a character with less than the stated stats simply unable to wield that type of weapon?

[vagabond]

Similarly, I can't seem to find any reference to penalties for not having the required STR/DEX for a particular weapon. So is a character with less than the stated stats simply unable to wield that type of weapon?

I believe so. IIRC, that's how Stormbringer handled it.

-V

[frogspawner]

I would read it as "normal for Martial arts", i.e. with an additional die. It says "as above", after all.

Yes, perhaps so. It says "damage is rolled normally", but you wouldn't roll damage for a regular critical anyway. (No offence, but I was hoping for a more authoritative answer, though... ...Mr. D?)

One interesting question is: criticals allow to choose between max damage and special effect, i.e. for a dagger it is eiter 2d4 through armor or 4 through armor.

Ah, but that's only against unarmoured opponents (and even then the option to do a special effect instead is at GM discretion).

What happens with martial arts? Do you get to choose between 3d4 and 1d4+4 (or even 8?)

I'm not yet totally convinced that Martial Arts add to Criticals at all.

But I'm glad you agree the wording is somewhat less than unequivocal. For the benefit of those yet to receive their copy, here're the relevant words about Martial Arts...

"SUCCESS: If the rolled result is less than the skill rating in both Martial Arts and the appropriate combat skill, roll for base damage twice and total the result. Your character’s damage bonus is never doubled.

SPECIAL: As above. If the combat roll is a special success, the additional base damage roll is added to the effects of the special hit, if any.

CRITICAL: As above. If the combat roll is a critical success, any armor possessed by the target is ignored, and damage is rolled normally."

(Re.: Apparent Total Inability to use weapons with less than the required STR/DEX)

I believe so. IIRC, that's how Stormbringer handled it.

Thanks. But... yuk!

[Jason D]

Official Answers (or close enough to):

- The extra damage from martial arts should be added to critical hits, or armor is ignored (just as it is with normal criticals). I need to go kick Sam's butt for not making that clear - he wrote the skills chapter.

- There should be a note somewhere (it might have gotten left out inadvertently) stating that using a weapon you don't have the relevant STR/DEX requirements for is Difficult (1/2 skill chance). It's in the listing for Shields (on page 264) but is missing for some reason on page 257.

[frogspawner]

Thanks for the (speedy) clarifications!

The extra damage from martial arts should be added to critical hits, or armor is ignored (just as it is with normal criticals).

But... "or"? Sorry, I'm still not quite clear on this. Shouldn't that be "extra damage and armour is ignored"?

There should be a note somewhere (it might have gotten left out inadvertently) stating that using a weapon you don't have the relevant STR/DEX requirements for is Difficult (1/2 skill chance). It's in the listing for Shields (on page 264) but is missing for some reason on page 257.

Brill! Whether or not the errant note turns up, that's exactly what it should be! Thanks again.

[RosenMcStern]

- The extra damage from martial arts should be added to critical hits, or armor is ignored (just as it is with normal criticals). I need to go kick Sam's butt for not making that clear - he wrote the skills chapter.

Please spare Sam's backside But, ahem, the rules that are in the PDF do not say the same as you are stating here:

Attack achieves a critical success. Attack does full

damage plus normal damage bonus (or attacker may

choose a special success instead). Defender’s armor

value is bypassed.

It looks like you get to choose between max damage and special damage, not between max damage and bypass armor. Which one is true?

[Shaira]

My reading is as follows:

Non-Martial Arts Critical: Do max rolled damage (1D8+1 = 9, frex) plus normal rolled damage bonus, bypassing all armor. If your target is unarmored, you have the option of doing Special Damage instead (ie an Impaling Weapon rolls damage twice, plus once rolled damage bonus).

Martial Arts Critical: Do max rolled damage PLUS max Martial Arts damage* (1D8+1 becomes 2D8+2 = 18!!!), plus normal rolled damage bonus, bypassing all armor. Arguably, against unarmored targets you would have the above option of doing Special Damage instead**.

*The ambiguity IMHO comes of course from the phrasing "If the combat roll is a critical success, any armor possessed by the target is ignored, and damage is rolled normally." (Italics mine) Curse that "normally"! I would argue it means "normally for a Critical Hit", ie you do Max Damage. You could however play it that you do Max Weapon Damage + Rolled Martial Arts Damage + Rolled Damage Bonus, all bypassing armor - although I don't think Jason means this, but the "18-point total" example I gave above.

**I'm unclear what Special Success Martials Arts damage with, say, an Impaling Weapon is. The wording "the additional base damage roll is added to the effects of the special hit, if any" implies that you treat the Martial Arts damage the same way as the weapon damage. This would mean a 1D8+1 impaling weapon would do 4D8+4 on a Special Martial Arts Critical! You could make a case for only adding the Martial Arts damage once, but I don't think that's what's meant by the wording.

All IMHO of course. The upshot seems to be, when facing a Martial Arts specialist armed with an Impaling Weapon, run for the hills!

Cheers,

Sarah

[Jason D]

*The ambiguity IMHO comes of course from the phrasing "If the combat roll is a critical success, any armor possessed by the target is ignored, and damage is rolled normally." (Italics mine) Curse that "normally"! I would argue it means "normally for a Critical Hit", ie you do Max Damage.

That is indeed what it means. You roll your damage normally as if you'd scored a critical success.

[Trifletraxor]

Similarly, I can't seem to find any reference to penalties for not having the required STR/DEX for a particular weapon. So is a character with less than the stated stats simply unable to wield that type of weapon?

I liked the old version, that gave you -5% to your skill per stat point below the requirements you have.

SGL.

[vagabond]

As far as not having minimum STR/DEX requirements for weapons:

Elric!/SB5 halved your skill.

SB1-4 was much much harsher. The skill defaulted to the better of 5% or

your Attack/Parry bonus. Given the requisite stats for most weapons, 5%

would probably be the higher.

However, it gets worse. If you lack STR, you always strike last. It is

assumed you are too weak to swing the weapon quickly enough.

If more than one character is lacking the minimum DEX in combat,

the one with the highest DEX goes first.

If you lack the minimum DEX, you do half damage. The assumption is

you lack the control to get a solid strike.

-V

[frogspawner]

Non-Martial Arts Critical: Do max rolled damage (1D8+1 = 9, frex) plus normal rolled damage bonus, bypassing all armor. If your target is unarmored, you have the option of doing Special Damage instead (ie an Impaling Weapon rolls damage twice, plus once rolled damage bonus).

Yep (but the special damage v unarmoured is at GM discretion).

Martial Arts Critical: ... You could however play it that you do Max Weapon Damage + Rolled Martial Arts Damage + Rolled Damage Bonus, all bypassing armor...

Yes, I would argue that! But it seems MA doesn't benefit criticals...

You roll your damage normally as if you'd scored a critical success.

But, if you score a critical success, you don't "roll" your damage (normally)!

OK, though, I hear what you're saying - it's like I suspected at the start: Martial Arts give no benefit to critical hits. Which seems odd

I liked the old version, that gave you -5% to your skill per stat point below the requirements you have.

Well I like this new version better - i.e. the under-statted have to roll at half skill.

(But this is a debate for the Difficulty Modifiers thread... )

[Trifletraxor]

Well I like this new version better - i.e. the under-statted have to roll at half skill.

(But this is a debate for the Difficulty Modifiers thread... )

It's easier as its the same for all, but doesn't differentiate whether you have 1 STR below the requirements or 10.

SGL.

[RosenMcStern]

This is exactly the point. Many cunnng players used understatted weapons at "just -10%". Now they cannot.

[SDLeary]

But, if you score a critical success, you don't "roll" your damage (normally)!

OK, though, I hear what you're saying - it's like I suspected at the start: Martial Arts give no benefit to critical hits. Which seems odd

(But this is a debate for the Difficulty Modifiers thread... )

Even with Jason's clarification, I still don't read it that way. You would still add in the MA damage. Or, perhaps the MA damage should be rolled, as with the characters Damage Bonus.

SDLeary

[frogspawner]

Even with Jason's clarification, I still don't read it that way. You would still add in the MA damage. Or, perhaps the MA damage should be rolled, as with the characters Damage Bonus.

Yes, I'd prefer it to be that way, too, but I'm still not clear about it, even after Mr D's help.

Let's use a simple example so I might be able to understand: A dagger (d4, Impaling) does a critical hit which is also a success for Martial Arts(dagger) (and let's assume the attacker has no damage bonus, and the target is armoured).

Is the damage...

A: 4 (max rollable for crit only)

B: 4 + d4 (max rollable for crit plus rolled MA bonus)

C: 4 + 4 (max rollable for crit plus max MA bonus)

...?

[Jason D]

B: 4 + d4 (max rollable for crit plus rolled MA bonus)

This one. Plus (or minus) any applicable damage bonus, rolled.

My apologies for the vagueness and lack of attention to the thread... I've been pretty busy at work and haven't got my rulebook .pdf handy (and haven't got a final print copy yet).

[Enpeze]

Well I like this new version better - i.e. the under-statted have to roll at half skill.

(But this is a debate for the Difficulty Modifiers thread... )

Yes. I am not convinced about all this "halving" and "doubling". It gets a little bit out of hand when high skills are involved and thus is not very intuitive.

I would have prefererred plain simple modifiers like the SB1 5% per point or so. I like also the "strike last" and "half damage" option alot. I assume Ken St. Andre did it right in those days.

[frogspawner]

This one. Plus (or minus) any applicable damage bonus, rolled.

YES! That's just the one I was hoping for (though trying not to lead the witness). Thanks yet again, Mr.D!

[RosenMcStern]

SB/RQ formula: Skill - (Required STR - Actual STR) *5% - (Required DEX - Actual DEX) * 5%

BRP formula: Skill / 2

Which one is simpler?

Plus make one SAN roll for endorsing Ken St.André, you Tunneling Troll

[frogspawner]

I assume Ken St. Andre did it right in those days.

I'm not so sure - people often mention something that's "St.Andre's Fault".

[frogspawner]

Plus make one SAN roll for endorsing Ken St.André, you Tunneling Troll

Hey! I cut my teeth on Tunnels & Trolls - I might still be playing it now, if I hadn't run out of six-sided dice...

(Mind you, if it hadn't been for T&T, I might've made the investment in Original D&D stuff - and now be reaping a tidy little profit! So Boo! to you, KStA! :mad:)

[Enpeze]

Hm???

Whats wrong with Ken? Am I missing something?

[Enpeze]

SB/RQ formula: Skill - (Required STR - Actual STR) *5% - (Required DEX - Actual DEX) * 5%

BRP formula: Skill / 2

Which one is simpler?

Plus make one SAN roll for endorsing Ken St.André, you Tunneling Troll

Your formula is a little bit disturbing. I prefer the following definition: -5% per lacking point STR or DEX.

Halving or doubling devalues the skill. Using this mechanique is not easy to evaluate and thus unintuitive and arbitrary. Eg halve a 80% to 40% means that this poor chap loose suddenly all the skill training he got the last 10y, while another one who has the same problem and who is at a basic 20% looses only 10%. Halving and doubling is maybe a easy calculation for some GMs but its not a clever rule design.

I understand that in there are alot of BRP/RQ-GMs out there which take skills rather easy. (even inventing new ones on the fly for specific game situations) For them maybe its ok and fun to give vast boni that skills go easily over 150% or cut a skill in half without thinking twice. But not me.