Here are the houserules we use currently for criticals and fumbles.\

1. Critical hit
- reroll d20: if you roll your skill or less, then it is a true critical, otherwise it is a 'half-critical'
- critical hit ignores all armor (except Armor of Honor) and automatically knocks the opponent down (or unhorses him). It doesn't do any extra damage.
- half-critical halves all armor and shield if any (except Armor of Honor) and automatically knocks the opponent down (or unhorses him). It doesn't do any extra damage.
- with jousting lances etc use rules as written: hits do normal damage

This was partially an effort to reduce the deadliness of the random element in Pendragon combat. Especially to keep those skill 8, dmg 4d6 bandits from one-shotting knights to death on a lucky damage roll. Now, there is still a risk, but the number of criticals is about half of that vs. knights with skill 15, which feels better. Bandits can still cause major wounds and kill, especially if they gang up on a knight, but they are no longer as likely to one-shot a knight.


2. Fumbles
- 20 is a potential fumble, UNLESS the skill is 20+, in which case 1 is a potential fumble.
- reroll d20: if the result is skill minus 10 or less, it is just a failure, but if it is over skill-10, it is a fumble.

We disliked the effect that skill 20+ would be immune to failure. Now there is still a chance that they will slip etc., but the chance is much less for a skill 25 expert than a skill 10 beginner.

Ah, critical and fumble rules. How could i forget about those.
Automatic failure
For skill 20+, any roll of 1 is a simple failure for 20+. I don't have automatic fumbles at that level.

My own critical rules affect only the tink-tink-BOOM feature of high skill combats:

Critical hit: For those with skill 20 or less, occurs when you roll exactly your skill. For those with skill 20+, occurs only if you roll a 20.
Special Hit: Occurs any time your roll is modified to 20 by high skill, but is not a natural 20.
E.g: a character with 23 skill rolls an 18. Under the standard rules, this is modified to 20, so it is a Special Hit.
Only people with skill 21 or higher can score Special Hits.
NB: Special Hit could just as easily be called a half-critical hit.

I have used several different variations of critical and special hits.

1. Modified Normal Damage
Critical: x2 damage dice as normal.
Special: x1.5 damage dice (rounding up)

2. Standardized Damage
Critical Hit: +4d6, for all characters
Special Hit: +2d6 for all characters
(Also tried +6d6 and +3d6).
Reasoning: A Giant doing, say, 8d6 damage is survivable if a crit does 12d6 (barely, with look), on 16d6 it's just splat. Really, doubling damage isn't necessary - any increase over the base when you do high damage is already impressive.

Inspired by Morien's rules, this idea occurred to me:
3. Special Effects
Critical Hit: x2 damage
Special Hit: normal damage, plus
* Half target armour points
* automatic knockdown, if damage exceeds SIZ

I use Crits and Fumbles as written ('then why post here, you charlatan?' but wait)

For Both-sides Critical I use both lose 1d6 HP (no armour affects) which is almost RAW


And I allow the Stunt/Feats from PenDragonPass http://www.poppyware.com/dunham/pdp/rules-r.html

Which (basically) allow any player to narrate some crazy fool high risk strategy and then roll against HALF of their skill.
If they Fail - this is treated as a Fumble and they are flat on the deck
If they Succeed - this is treated as a Critical at least

This provides one mechanic for a huge range of ideas and really wakes up combats

1. Modified Normal Damage
2. Standardized Damage


We were pondering about those options as well, when coming up with our house rules for criticals. The standardized damage did have its appeal, and our rules are actually pretty close to that in effect while in knight vs knight combat: 14 points of armor negated equals an average roll of 4d6. The armor negation is much more forgiving for the poorly armored foes, but usually their lack of armor is enough of a disadvantage anyway.

Damage x2 can be brutal even without a Giant (total agreement with you there): 5d6x2 is on average around 35 points, which is usually enough to end the battle there and then. 6d6x2 is ~42 points, enough to possibly kill a knight with a one blow. And there are always outliers. A roll of 25 with 5d6 is 50 points, pretty much a decapitation strike, with no chance of survival whatsoever. And these things will happen during the campaign.

With the armor negation, we take some of the random deadliness away, while ensuring there are consequences on a critical roll. And sure, an outlier damage roll result especially on an already wounded knight might mean death, but it is much rarer now than it was earlier. The only PK death so far has resulted from an encounter with a Saxon half-giant rolling a crit against an already wounded knight. But this is partially due to the way we use glory points (need to start a new thread on that house rule).

Even a paltry 4d6 footman (I refuse to use 3d6 unless the soldier is infirm or just a levied peasant) might do 8d6 with the standardized damage. Now this is much more palatable than 4d6x2. Why? Because of the probability curve. It is more likely that you end up with something close to the average with 8d6 than if you just roll 4d6 and double the result. But in any case, what if bad things happen? With 8d6, the footman may do up to 48 points of damage. Yikes. Even with Reinforced Chain and a Shield, this is 30 points, a potential mortal wound for most knights. And if he was unlucky with his shield (not unknown to skill 15 young knights), then he is as good as dead. With the armor negation, the maximum the footmen will do is 24. Which may kill the knight if he is already wounded, but will not kill an unwounded knight with a one blow. Probably sends him to unconsciousness, though.

The lesser lethality does have its counterbalancing flipside, though; the criticals -hurt-. Without armor, the footman is doing ~14 points of damage to a knight. Make that 11 points due to Armor of Honor. This is probably not a Major Wound, yet, but it will make a knight sit and think. An Enemy knight is likely doing ~17 points, which becomes 14 points. Quite possibly a Major Wound. Since the damage is not doubled, we see less of an 'overkill', which in return makes CON more worth its value: the usual damage from criticals (reduced by AoH all PKs now have) is around 10 - 16 or so. So someone with CON of 18 can be pretty sure that he is (most often) safe. This prevents the nasty downwards spiral of stats, too, which my players absolutely hate. (Valid mechanic, they just lament each stat point vigorously.)

That is much more in line with how I wish my campaign to play out: I dislike my players' characters dying on 'speedbumps' because the dice hate them. (The dice have conceived a special dislike of the NPC banneret, it seems. Last session the banneret fumbled three rolls out of 4 and took a critical, too. All from a humble spearman. The PKs are now convinced that they will need to hire some French spearmen, since that wasn't the only occasion where those humble spearmen have shone.)

What about..having skills over 20 reduce the opponents WS AND set the max WS at 20.

Reduce the higher WS to 20, and reduce the lower WS by an equal amount. Thus

Knight # 1 Sword 25 fights Knight #2 Mace 17. Effective skills are

Sword 20
Mace 12

It removes criticals from the game more or less (except for the exact skill role), but makes up for it by making it more likely that you'll have a Failure and not get Shield protection for the less capable fighter.

The better fighter still has a big advantage (minimum partial success), but no tink, tink boom.

More drastically, you could covert to d100, still opposed, roll low instead of high, and use cricicals and special success from BRP/RuneQuest.

NT

For those worried about the all or nothing nature of Criticals (I'm not if I'm honest) I would recommend a look at:

Combat maneuvers from Mongoose RuneQuest II (a summary is on Mong's website)
Alexandre Luciani's Combat Resulst for RuneQuest III (on Tal Meta's website)
Steve Perrins Specials and Criticals rules (in SPQR and also again on Tale Meta's site)

Suggestion:
On a Critical player chooses ONE from the following

(Edged or Blunt Weapons only) Inflict Maximum Rollable Damage
(Impaling Weapons only) inflict double rolled damage
Bypass Armour completely and inflict normal damage
(Hafted weapons or Grappling only) Trip - auto prone but no damage
and so on
(On horseback or using a Shield only) Bash - if damage rolled is sufficient for knockdown no Dex or Horsemanship roll is allowed


NB: The author's of MRQII state categorically they hadn't read the other implementations afore writing and publishing so this may be a case of convergent (or is it divergent) evolution in RPG design; I however have nicked them outright from all 3 sources!

I have used several different variations of critical and special hits.



Any more info on how the combats went with these modified values Darren (the +2d6 to +4d6 ones)?

Given the opportunity I'd probably keep the +3d6 for a crit if I were to modify things at all. On average that's enough to pretty much negate the average knights armour value and add an appreciable amount to the knockdown value and potential for a major wound as well.

I'd be reluctant to mix specials in though - seems a little too complex for the Pendragon vibe.

I have used several different variations of critical and special hits.



Any more info on how the combats went with these modified values Darren (the +2d6 to +4d6 ones)?

Given the opportunity I'd probably keep the +3d6 for a crit if I were to modify things at all. On average that's enough to pretty much negate the average knights armour value and add an appreciable amount to the knockdown value and potential for a major wound as well.


It worked really well. If you are just having one level of critical, I'd suggest using +4d6 rather than +3d6.
This means that for people with bandit stats, there is no loss or gain; people weaker than that benefit, and people stronger than that lose out - but since they are already good, it's not a big deal.

I'd probably try that Darren if I ever get the chance.

I was just reading a bit of Malory earlier this evening and wondered if the double damage criticals were pretty suitable for Pendragon after all...


Then anon they took their horses and overtook Sir Launcelot, and Sir Gilmere put forth his spear and ran to Sir Launcelot and Sir Launcelot smote him down that he lay in a swoon...

*******************************

...Therewithal they lept on their horses, and hurtled unto Sir Launcelot. And when he saw them come, he smote a sore stroke unto Sir Raynold, that he fell off his horse to the ground, and then he struck to the other two brethren, and at two strokes he strake them down to the earth. With that Sir Raynold began to start up with his head all bloody, and came straight unto Sir Launcelot...

Malory, Le Morte D'Arthur, Book VI, Chapter XII

In general the roll damage dice twice system for Pendragon seems to fit the literature quite well...

I've witnessed a player-knight generate enough damage to knock both rider and horse to the turf. A signature moment in that campaign, let me tell you. Was something like twice the Major Wound level of both, yet not instantly mortal. Those were heavily-damn-armored rider and horse...

I have a question: why keep normal rules for tourney jousting?

My group and I are still learning the rules as we go along, but are already developing a few questions. In running the introductory scenario, there was a small joust with tourney lances. However, because of a critical roll by one combatant, another almost died!

- That seems harsh since it's not the intent of a joust to score that kind of hit.

- We were wondering what happens down the road when every major knight has a 20+ score and is rolling crits left and right? Jousts look like they'll be more dangerous than Badon Hill!

We realize that we might be missing something, which is why I turn to here for clarification! :)

I have a question: why keep normal rules for tourney jousting?


Take a look at this thread: http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1455.0

I address the tournament rules from my perspective, and especially the risk involved for the knights engaged in jousting. Note: will contain some House Rules. :)

I have a question: why keep normal rules for tourney jousting?

My group and I are still learning the rules as we go along, but are already developing a few questions. In running the introductory scenario, there was a small joust with tourney lances. However, because of a critical roll by one combatant, another almost died!


It just occurred to me that there might be room for misunderstanding here... When you say normal rules, are you usual full normal damage and double that for criticals? Because that is wrong.

Tourney lances and rebatted weapons do normally half damage, and do full damage (double the halved damage) on a critical. It is much harder to kill a character outright by the normal 6d6 charger lance hit. Assuming your characters were wearing armor. If not, then yes, it is stupidly dangerous to be jousting in the first place! :)

No, we halved the normal damage for the tourney lances, but the thing that was confusing us is...it's not *that* difficult to crit and it's even easier as time goes on. For example, most Round Table knights probably have skills over 20, which means they're going to crit that much more often. So does that mean tourneys become out-of-control bloodbaths? I guess it's that later period that I'm really confused about. How are tournaments anything less than horribly deadly affairs?

I'm afraid I'm unrepentantly Ultra-orthodox. RAW and tink tink boom seem fine to me. (Player, GPC at 513) it keeps combat dangerous, and helps keep glorious deeds glorious. The real risk of death is what keeps jousting with King Pellinore with lances of war worth doing. The reward is equal to the risk.

Having played stick-tag in the SCA at a reasonably high level, and witnessed my share of world class fighting, i do think that greg has hit on a system that gives a decent refection of actual combat.

And as the man said, "Who wants to live forever?" the higher the risk, the higher the reward. He who does more is more worthy.

I'm afraid I'm unrepentantly Ultra-orthodox. RAW and tink tink boom seem fine to me. (Player, GPC at 513) it keeps combat dangerous, and helps keep glorious deeds glorious. The real risk of death is what keeps jousting with King Pellinore with lances of war worth doing. The reward is equal to the risk.


I am not sure which point you are answering, Dan... I think phimseto was talking about jousting for love, with tourney lances, designed to break easily. That thing is supposed to be a sport, a dangerous sport sure, but not one where you are likely to get hurt badly enough to spend the rest of the adventuring season healing. And really, the issue comes down to the connection between criticals and high skill, which means the RTKs start maiming young knights in tournaments. Which is not fun. Hence, my suggestion in the thread mentioned upstream was to make the jousting lances do full damage on the person who fumbles, rather than on a crit of the opponent.

Anyone jousting with war lances deserves every bit of hurt they get. Those things are deadly weapons, not toys. It is like playing paintball with real guns while wearing kevlar vests.

Tink-tink-boom is a separate issue still. I have expressed my feelings about that here: http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1176.0 .

Morien,

My Apologies, it was unclear.

I was talking to your initial post.
It seems that the main thrust of the critical adaptations was to reduce mortality and mitigate unpredictability. - I think those two things are key to the mechanics success.

My example of Jousting with Pelinore was non specific. It could just have well been, "riding into they fray against a horde of footmen" " Facing the Beast of Modron Alone" or "leading an Escalade"

On the Jousting front, I think novice knights should be risking life & Limb if they ride against RTKs. Again, the high risk justifies the high reward if they succeed.

I've switched crits to be +5d6 damage in all cases.

This is less to reduce mortality and more to disincentivise SIZ and STR increases.

It also makes Old Knights scarier.

I've switched crits to be +5d6 damage in all cases.
This is less to reduce mortality and more to disincentivise SIZ and STR increases.
It also makes Old Knights scarier.

Just for the record
I like how the old characters develop--simultaneously getting better, but weaker
There is even a quote about it in Malory somewhere about how old knights are foolish to fight young knights on foot

On the Jousting front, I think novice knights should be risking life & Limb if they ride against RTKs. Again, the high risk justifies the high reward if they succeed.


I don't feel too strongly, but I would disagree. I mean...my game is a long way from the tourney phase of the campaign, but it just seems so strange and silly that the tourneys would be this dreaded death match because every other knight you face is going to crit crit crit against you. I'm of a mind, as far as tourney lances and conditions go, to eliminate the damage doubling and just use the critical as a way of determining the victor.

Now, if and when we ever get to Mordred's blood tourneys...that's something else entirely, but there doesn't seem to be anything Romantic about,

"Lo, I shall now joust Sir Sagramore and alack, I am slain by his own tourney lance!"

Maybe my jaundiced 485 "chainmail only covers 10 damage, along with a few more for shield" eye sees things catastrophically and I'll feel better when everyone is comfortably packed in plate, but for right now I can't imagine tourneys as something a player would look forward to. Dying in battle or quest is one thing. Dying in sport is quite another.

I've switched crits to be +5d6 damage in all cases.

This is less to reduce mortality and more to disincentivise SIZ and STR increases.

It also makes Old Knights scarier.


I've been thinking of doing the same. How are you finding it? Are you adding +5D6 for ALL crits, eg with Bows, knives, daggers, etc? My only slight concern was that a highly skilled guy with a dagger would not be that much less effective than one with a sword, 9D6 vs 10D6.

I've switched crits to be +5d6 damage in all cases.

This is less to reduce mortality and more to disincentivise SIZ and STR increases.

It also makes Old Knights scarier.


I've been thinking of doing the same. How are you finding it? Are you adding +5D6 for ALL crits, eg with Bows, knives, daggers, etc? My only slight concern was that a highly skilled guy with a dagger would not be that much less effective than one with a sword, 9D6 vs 10D6.


We've not actually had a javelin/dagger/bow crit since the switch. It certainly makes the PKs a little more wary of archers.

It's been going fine overall.

I've switched crits to be +5d6 damage in all cases.

This is less to reduce mortality and more to disincentivise SIZ and STR increases.

It also makes Old Knights scarier.


I never felt the need to the house-rule the crit-rules. But I love this one; simple and subtle! Might steal it in the future.

Had our first 'low damage' crit last session. Interstingly it was a PK. Fighting a shapshifting dragon/goblin smith who had magically rusted away his weapons and armour Sir Uwain decided not to reach for the hate-infused enchanted swords in the smithy. He instead went after the faerie unarmed (in Goblin form thankfully at this stage but still had a 6d6 hammer vs an unarmoured knight). Uwain got a crit and punched the Knucker out for 42 damage.

Sir Uwain le Chevalier du dragonnelefacepunchez.

Awesome. Still happy enough with the house rule.

Here are the houserules we use currently for criticals and fumbles.\

1. Critical hit
- reroll d20: if you roll your skill or less, then it is a true critical, otherwise it is a 'half-critical'
- critical hit ignores all armor (except Armor of Honor) and automatically knocks the opponent down (or unhorses him). It doesn't do any extra damage.
- half-critical halves all armor and shield if any (except Armor of Honor) and automatically knocks the opponent down (or unhorses him). It doesn't do any extra damage.
- with jousting lances etc use rules as written: hits do normal damage

This was partially an effort to reduce the deadliness of the random element in Pendragon combat. Especially to keep those skill 8, dmg 4d6 bandits from one-shotting knights to death on a lucky damage roll. Now, there is still a risk, but the number of criticals is about half of that vs. knights with skill 15, which feels better. Bandits can still cause major wounds and kill, especially if they gang up on a knight, but they are no longer as likely to one-shot a knight.


2. Fumbles
- 20 is a potential fumble, UNLESS the skill is 20+, in which case 1 is a potential fumble.
- reroll d20: if the result is skill minus 10 or less, it is just a failure, but if it is over skill-10, it is a fumble.

We disliked the effect that skill 20+ would be immune to failure. Now there is still a chance that they will slip etc., but the chance is much less for a skill 25 expert than a skill 10 beginner.


I handle this with trait rolls, both valor and prudence rolls may be used as saves against critical attacks and serious or mortal wounds In my experience ordinary people can't do critical attacks at all, while the valiant ones normally do critical attacks (which are either blunted to normal attacks if the foe is valiant and makes a prudence roll, put another way if both combatants are valiant and one wins a prudence roll his attack goes through while if both make their prudence rolls the attacks are negated. When both combatants make their attack rolls the one with the higher valor wins, getting to succeed while the other gets the +6 to armor due to his shield or +6 to armor with his weapon, but with the weapon breaking if he fails a prudence roll or being lost if it's a sword and they fail their prudence roll.

I use prudence as a saving throw against fumbles with any any skill or weapon breakage. Reckless 16+ characters negate the normal rules, allowing no prudence saves against them and if they both characters make their attacks it's a double kill situation where both attacks do their damage. This is a double critical if both are valiant. A vindictive 16+ character may also do a double kill being willing to sacrifice their limbs and life to kill a foe...some people are just such soreheads ;)