Monday, April 22, 2024

Leaner, Cleaner ... still Mean. Lethal Fighters 3.0, now using X-in-6 rolls.

 After more work, and a very helpful feedback session on the NSR Discord, I come back to you now (at the turning of the tide?). My Lethal Maneuver rules to make Fighters more bodacious still use the same logic, but they've moved from the d20 to a simple X-in-6 roll on 2d6, measuring 0, 1, or 2 Successes. This sets it apart as a distinct, plug-and-play subsystem that is simple and feels distinct from normal to-hit rolls (this is meant to be fairly system-agnostic, something you can plug into most OSR-adjacent systems that might like a cooler Fighter). There are various little changes, too, but I think this is the best iteration yet among my recent proposals. 

If you're familiar with my recent posts, you can probably skip down past the "Terms" section, but I've fleshed things out there to clarify what I'm up to. The actual procedure, once you get into it, is pretty lightweight. To reward you for making it to the bottom of the page, we'll look at some specific examples, with pictures.  Ooooh shiny.  

Also: I removed the bit about slaughtering many much weaker foes with a single dice roll. I still love that idea, but rather than keeping it in and adding complexity to my Lethal Maneuvers (where it becomes an all-or-nothing storm that kills a ton of mooks or just gets you hurt) - instead, I suggest simply adding multi-attacks as a separate Fighter ability. Doing so makes fewer changes to the normal combat loop. So, to build a more generous version of the ol' Swords & Wizardry multi-attacks rule....

+ All Fighters may make multiple attacks per turn (equal to the Fighter's level) against targets with HD at or under 1/2 the Fighter's level (round up).

+ Also, all Fighters may make Lethal Maneuvers (see below).

When facing diverse foes, the Fighter must choose whether to spend their action attacking a foe once, attacking much weaker foes multiple times, or attempting a game-changing Lethal Maneuver. (Simple) choice is good for game design. 



FIGHTERS' LETHAL MANEUVERS, 3.0


TERMS & CONDITIONS:


Combat Stunt: a maneuver to gain positional or contextual advantage in combat, but without causing direct damage to a foe. Often, Stunts will inflict the Staggered condition on a target. Stunts must make fictional sense (per GM determination). Any character may attempt such a stunt; doing so takes a combat Action and is resolved per your system’s normal task resolution procedure (e.g.: PC rolls an Ability Check; target makes a Reflex Save, etc.). If your system does not include a procedure that you like for resolving combat stunts, you can use the X-in-6-chance maneuver roll described below (but only rolling once for binary success/failure). 


Lethal Maneuver: a stunt that causes direct harm to its target, beyond and with more narrative specificity than mere HP loss. These include Maiming Strikes and Killing Blows. Only PC Fighters may attempt Lethal Maneuvers. Lethal Maneuvers must be attempted in melee - not by ranged attacks. Like other stunts, Lethal Maneuvers must make narrative/contextual sense (per GM’s discretion). Players should clarify intended results with the GM before rolling. Such maneuvers require risky engagement at intimate range - if an attempted maneuver is failed or poorly executed, the consequence for the PC can be very dangerous.


Staggered: a target unable to fight to their full potential; mechanically, an NPC target at 1/2 max hp or lower, OR that has been affected by a suitably discombobulating combat stunt. Often, an affected character may recover by taking a suitable action. The Staggered condition makes a target more vulnerable to special Lethal Maneuvers by Fighters. Per GM discretion, Staggered targets also may grant advantage when being attacked via normal to-hit rolls, and/or suffer disadvantage when attacking. NB: by treating targets at 1/2 hp as Staggered, at least regarding Fighters’ Lethal Maneuvers, the rest of the party can whittle down foes to help ‘set them up’ for a Fighter’s attempted maneuver). Teamwork! 


Maiming Strike: sever the ogre’s hamstring; hew off the giant scorpion’s stinger; stab out the cyclops’ eye; cut off Sir Ronald’s guilty sword-hand. These maneuvers (semi-)permanently change the target’s abilities, imposing the Staggered/Maimed condition, and (as narratively appropriate) limiting or preventing use of certain special abilities. If poorly executed, the attempting PC 


Killing Blow: these risky, one-shot maneuvers kill or incapacitate the target (player’s choice) with a single flourish of arms. 




LIMITS: 


Before attempting a Lethal Maneuver, check the Fighter’s level relative to the target’s HD. A Fighter’s predatory, intuitive gaze can read the battlefield well; after the start of combat, a Fighter may freely assess (free action) how a foe they can see ranks relative to them.



Vs. Much Higher HD ( foe w/ 6+ HD beyond own level): 

  • may attempt a Maiming Strike against a Staggered target
  • May not attempt Killing Blows


Vs. Higher HD (foe 2-5 HD beyond own level): 

  • may attempt a Maiming Strike against a Staggered target 
  • may attempt a Killing Blow against a Maimed target 


Vs. Equal HD (foe +/-1 HD): 

  • may attempt a Maiming Strike 
  • may attempt a Killing Blow if the target is already Staggered/Maimed


Vs. Lower HD (foe 2 or more HD under own level):

  • may attempt any Lethal Maneuver





THE ROLL PROCEDURE 


Roll 2d6 and check each die for Success (result will = 0, 1, or 2 Successes). 

Nat 6 = always succeeds; Nat 1 = always fails.


+1 to roll vs Staggered/Maimed foe;

+1 to roll vs poorly armored foe [AC 12-] (or otherwise highly vulnerable, in GM’s judgment); 

-1 to roll vs heavily armored foe [AC 18+] (or otherwise highly resistant, in GM’s judgment)


Target Number (d6) vs.:

+ Much higher HD foe … 6 

+ Higher HD foe … 5+

+ Equal HD foe … 4+ 

+ Lesser HD foe … 3+

+ 1/2 HD foe … 2+ 



OUTCOME: 


0 Successes: on a Maiming Strike, reduce your own HP to next lower threshold (Full, 1/2, 1/4, 0 hp). On a Killing Blow, reduce by two thresholds. 

1 Success: reduce your HP as above, but accomplish your maneuver and inflict your normal combat damage. 

2 Successes: accomplish your maneuver and inflict your normal combat damage.


Once per day, the Fighter may declare their shield destroyed/sundered, negating one hp-threshold consequence (wholly absorbing a Maiming Strike consequence, and limiting a failed/complicated Killing Blow consequence to a single HP threshold lost).





EXAMPLES



Jeff Easley (from 1e's Monster Manual II)



Let's say this is a lvl 4 Fighter going up against a Hill Giant (8 HD). Hopefully he's got the rest of an adventuring party just out-of-frame, to help whittle down the beast's HP halfway. Until then, he can't even try any Lethal Maneuvers at all, unless he comes up with some really creative non-damaging combat stunt to put himself in a better position (slip between the legs and climb up the back of the loincloth!??!). 


Let's say he does have some buddies out-of-frame, who pepper the giant with arrows well enough to drop it to half-HP. Now (if he's still alive), our Fighter gains the option to try to Maim the Staggered Giant. So, he proposes to hamstring the thing, hindering its movement and giving it the Maimed tag. He needs to roll 4s, because the Higher-HD foe (5+) is Staggered, so he gets a +1. He rolls twice, getting a 5 and a 1 (1 success). Our Fighter successfully hamstrings the Giant, but with only 1 success, he also drops down to his next HP threshold. He was at 11 out of max 16 hp, so he drops down to 8 hp - half his hp - the next threshold. Now that the Giant is maimed, though, he can try again next turn to launch a Killing Blow. However, it may be prudent not to do so - if he fails that roll, or even only gets 1 success, he'll drop himself down to 0 hp. 



+++



Frank Frazetta


Who needs an armored torso when you've got a shield and a dope winged helmet? Frazetta's unfrazzled hero is (let us say) a mighty lvl 7 Fighter (I mean, look at those poised reflexes). He's been jumped by ... let's call it a Yeti, mechanically (5 HD). Silly Yeti. Our armor-eschewing S&S swordsman has two levels on his ambusher's HD, so he can attempt any Lethal Maneuver he wants, and he's got places he'd rather be. More importantly, he knows well the lore about these Yeti pass-guardians - knows, in particular, how they can grab a man in a terrible bear-hug, their wretched breath paralyzing even hardened warriors with fear while they rend a man to ribbons. Rather than risk suffering the beast's horrid attack, he's just launching a Killing Blow right at the start of combat. He'll roll 2d6, needing 3s to succeed. He rolls a 3 and a 4, impaling the thing's heart even as it charges him. The beast is dead. Had the Fighter rolled a 2 and a 4, he still would have killed the "not-Yeti," BUT he also would have suffered nasty consequences in the process - dropping two HP thresholds (those are nasty claws!). That might be worth sundering his shield to reduce, if need be. 



3 comments:

  1. Your original post inspired me to go away and develop my own version, and funnily enough also I end up settling on a d6-based procedure. Great minds, I suppose?

    This looks cleaner to me than your original. Lightning fast to resolve is quite a plus.

    Having a look at some numbers in B/X makes me think that killing blows are a borderline proposition unless you spend the character's free 'save' resources. If I replace your Yeti (I haven't the stats) with an Owl Bear (HD 5 AC 5 D 1d8/1d8/1d8 hp 23) and assume the Fighter's stats are (F7 AC -1 D1d8+5 hp 42; based on Plate +2 Shield +1 Sword +3 STR 17) and run a one-on-one combat, I expect the Fighter to kill the Owl Bear in 2-3 rounds on average, and to suffer around 7-10 hp damage in the process. That last figure is around 20% of the Fighter's HP.

    Using the Kill attack, the Fighter is expected to take 2 thresholds' damage in 5/9 of cases, i.e. expected loss equal to 10/9 thresholds. Assuming a typical threshold is 25% of total HP, that makes the expected loss ~28% of the Fighter's HP.

    So the player's trade-off is saving 1-2 rounds of time vs saving an expected 8% of the character's hp total.

    That seems near enough to the default combat outcome to be an interesting choice, which is a great result. Obviously the quick kill option becomes much more attractive if the monster has a horrible save-or-die (or level drain) attack on top of owl-bear level damage output.

    But this is the 'fewer HD' case. I suspect the numbers won't be so close for 'higher HD' monsters, in most cases. It's not easy to generalise, however: have you analysed any of these?

    One residual niggle for me is that because the fighter's HP loss depends on its own HP (max and current), the decision about when to spend the character's 'free save' has nothing to do with the monster or the fight: it is only about the fighter's current HP. This feels a bit 'gamey' to me, and the decision would be more interesting if it interacted with features of the monster or external situation more strongly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey, that's awesome that this inspired you to create something too!
    Once again, thanks for feedback. My thought on the 'residual niggle' is that a Fighter's decision process would involve not just their current HP status, but also the overall pace of the adventure. Do you risk "blowing" that 'free save' for a substantial fight early in the dungeon (etc.)? Or do you save it up for likelier heavier opposition later? That, perhaps, is still a bit metagamey, but it does refer to factors beyond the character's own status.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's a good point. Thank you.

      Delete

Unfortunately, recent spamming attacks necessitate comment moderation prior to posting. Thanks for leaving a comment - I'll get to it shortly!