allfearsalsa's page

Thanks all for the clarification!

I will add DR after the damage is calculated.

I can get by with these sort of rules in an unrealistic system. The rules are just a bit vague on this.

I'm not saying that each damage die would be applied to DR, but each weapon hit. I am simply saying that I would think that DR would apply initially, then damage that would bypass the DR would be multiplied by the crit.

When a critical hit is made, it is exploiting a weakspot or is a lucky shot. I can make an epic shot against the monster's eyeball, but if I can't initially pierce the hardened membrane, then I would think it would still be ineffective.

Going by the rule in the book, if I remember correctly, it says something like "A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together." One could argue that DR is a negative bonus to the damage, correct?

If it is official that the DR is applied after multiplying damage, then that's the rule and we will go by it. I won't be too surprised, it's not like this is a very realistic system!

Hi All!

I was having an argument with my players about how damage reduction works when being applied to critical hits. I know that you roll multiple times according to the multiplier and then add them together, however my players were arguing that DR should not be applied to each damage die. They say that since it is a critical hit, it should be allowed to be added together before DR is applied.

I highly disagree. I do not think that damage should be increased extra if you cannot bypass the DR to exploit the vitals/weakspot in the first place. Just like with a threat confirmation with crits, you can still get in a lucky shot but not do any damage.

I have looked everywhere and can't find a concrete answer to show them. The book says you roll multiple times on a crit and add your bonuses each time. I say that DR is a negative bonus, but they argue it isn't. I understand that rolling the damage multiple dice makes it more of an average damage on a crit than a random burst of a straight multiplier, but if DR is applied first on a straight multiplier before multiplying - then you'd have totally different numbers.

Example:

I crit a skeleton with a longsword with a 14 STR, it has DR 5/Bludgeoning-

Let's assume I roll the dice twice and apply DR afterwards (let's say I roll the same number for ease of math):
(4+2)+(4+2) - 5 = 12-5 = 7

Now, if I apply DR to each die:
(4+2 -5)+(4+2 -5) = 1+1 = 2

Now, if I did straight multiplication:
(4+2) -5, then *2 = 6-5, then *2 = 2

I know the math isn't hard, I am just displaying it to prove my point on how applying DR after doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Sorry for the wall of text, and thanks for any helpful input on this!

If it's just one unit vs. one unit, then it's going to be a slog, which was the intention. Eventually, as one unit gets worn down, it will be forced to start making morale checks for routing from losing too many men in one attack (though this is supposed to say in one round, so a unit with multiple attacks can trigger a rout more easily).

Ok, I'm slow but I got it now! I think the problem was we did our test fight with 10man 1HD units, so the unit strength was always at 1 no matter how many they lost. Thanks again for the help and all the other answers!

Great idea! You could even throw beginner heroes by themselves against small units of troops(like 10 lvl 1 spearmen warrs in padded). The scale would be different(a player's 1x1 fig vs an index card), but I'm sure the players would dig wiping out a unit of soldiers single-handedly!

I had a few more questions if you don't mind lol, you've been a great help so far!

First off, I had a quick query about morale/routing. I didn't see offhand any specific rules for route checks for losing troops. For example: What if two groups of 100 warriors are meleeing, but one group eventually loses a LOT more than the other(say the first group loses 80, while the second only loses 10)? Or, what if during combat one unit gets dropped to about 10% or less of its regular unit count? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything about morale checks or route checks for just large losses of troops. It just seems like the unit will fight to the last man if they don't get in a specific situation on that list that would enable a route check. I would wing it and make them have discipline checks, but I was just checking if there was an official rule.

The second thing was initiative. If I was reading it right, the better scout/tactics check lets that person place second-which is obviousily better since you can react to your opponent's placements. But it seems that if you win initiative, you go FIRST-which seems to be bad, for the same reason as placement(it's at least contradictive).

The last question was about turn order. I understand the order, ranged attacks go first etc. The question is, does the person that goes first do ALL of those steps then the opponent, or do they alternate on each phase of the turn? I hope it is the latter, that would make going first if you wining initiative make a bit more sense.

Thanks for all your help, I know I'm being annoying!

-edited for EPIC run-on sentences!

Thanks for the answers. With my group it would be MUCH better to go for simplicity over realism (one fo the reasons that they hate playing GURPS instead of D&D).

This isn't rule-related, but any suggestions on how to sell this system as a campaign to people that don't really use tactics normally? When I bring this system up as a campaign, they sem to think of this as more of a chore than something cool to try (these are players that like to do nothing tactical-except for charging everything in melee!). I wonder if there are any good ideas floating around that simplify this system even further to make it more appealing to these types of players.

I had a quick question about the actual combat part. I probably missed it, but I was wondering about the facing during combat. I understand a unit can only attack its facing, but how much of that side must be adjacent to the enemy in order to attack?

For example, what if a unit only has 1/4 of its facing adjacent to an enemy unit. Would they get to attack for full damage since only a fraction of the surface area is available? What if i have my unit do a 90 degree turn (not a wheel) and attack on that side, since i only have them attacking with maybe half of the area that I would from the front?

And one last thing on this, what if a uint had wheeled 45 degrees and becomes positioned so the front corners are the only thing touching two seperate fronts of enemy units(that may be hard to visualize, let me know and I can elaborate more)?

Oh, and before I forget! What about the rules for blocking ranged attacks and for measuring distance? Is it a line from center to center, or it it like in regular combat where you can use a corner?

Thanks in advance, and thanks for all the great answers in this thread so far!