Thursday, 9 May 2013

House Rule: Daggers to Finish Fallen Foes

Quick Houserule: "When used on a fallen foe, a dagger can automatically critical with each successful attack. On an unsuccessful attack, the dagger does 1d10 damage. This reflects the wieldiness of a dagger for precision work."

9 comments:

  1. Excellent! I'm stealing this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what it's there for. Feel free to use it in your home game. Indeed, widderslainte, feel free to include it in published products so long as you attribute it.

      Delete
  2. I am not a fan of auto crits. If I am prone (have fallen down) and am attacked I may get hit but not necessarily take crit damage. I may just take a defensive wound, as they say, in the arms with no major organs being struck. Being prone is already making it more likely that I will get hit by the bonuses applied to the attacks on a prone individual. If those bonuses reduce the attack roll to , say a nine, and I get critted and die I would be very unhappy. Have you considered adjusting the crit range instead? So that, to use the previous example, on a roll of 9 I manage to get an arm up and take normal damage. But on a roll of 16 I take a critical hit as the blade moved around my arm and into my kidneys.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In this case, "fallen" is not intended to mean "prone", but rather a foe dropped to 0 hp who may, or may not, survive the experience.

      Delete
  3. Oh, Ok, that is something different. The way we have ran it has been you roll to hit if in battle with others if not then it's an auto death as they can do nothing to stop it. I, myself, just rule an auto death even in combat if those you are fighting are far enough away to not be able to do anything to stop it. At 0 you are unconscious so you can't fight back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The goal here was to create some uncertainty without bogging down the game.

      Delete
    2. I can see that. Though I would probably only roll if there was another member of the party that could potentially stop it if they could get there quick enough. Applying that rule equally from both sides of the DM screen. Otherwise what stops them from just repeatedly stabbing until they are sure the character is dead. In which case there doesn't need to be a roll because their is no chance of failure. But if a party member has a chance to save them then it could ratchet up the tension. Though I find it hard pressed, in most situations to say why they would have missed a target on the ground that is not fighting back....I will have to thank about that. And sorry to revive an old thread but I have been going through your posts as I find them very informative.

      Delete
  4. The goblin shivs the warrior before the party can stop him (no attack roll).

    The wizard wants to make sure the BBEG is dead before running from his minions (no attack roll).

    The archer wants to shoot the fallen BBEG another time (now an attack roll is required).

    The ghoul stops to feed (no attack roll).

    In DCC, critical hits also have specific effects apart from damage, so that getting that last attack, even if it doesn't kill the foe, is certain to have some interesting effect. It might even give you an extra stab.

    The house rule came about, though, because of the rules I had written for RCFG, which included the possibility of a person surviving an attempt to put him out of his misery. Part of the idea, of course, is that in the classic fantasy fiction, protagonists are left for dead with some frequency, and even sometimes survive an attempt to make sure they are dead. In RCFG, it was possible to get dropped to 0, and then wake up later with a few hit points restored. I think that this is a good model. It means that sometimes the giant serpent you thought you killed gets a last surprising attack. In DCC, monsters can do the same via Death Throes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have zero issues with that the way you described it. As I said, I have been going through your blogs and have enjoyed them a great bit. Thanks for clarifying this for me.

    ReplyDelete