Goodman Games

I haven't played it yet, so I'll let my final thoughts be after a few rounds of combat.

But these are my initial thoughts:

Likes: I like that they're "typed". Table I, Table II, etc. So when it comes to homebrew, we can say they're Crit Table III, or whatever. I'm wondering if the wording should be changed to Crit Type instead of Table.

Dislikes: The charts in general. I think they're too long, specific and restrictive. I like it better when the GM (or even the players) can take liberties with the gory details, but the mechanical effects are standardized. For example Crit Table III, roll 9, should just read: +2d6 damage, target loses 10' movement. With maybe an example in parenthesis (damage to legs). I think the chart should be short enough to fit on the character sheet, maybe 12 (0 or less to 10+) possibilities per table.

reverenddak wrote:For example Crit Table III, roll 9, should just read: +2d6 damage, target loses 10' movement. With maybe an example in parenthesis (damage to legs). I think the chart should be short enough to fit on the character sheet, maybe 12 (0 or less to 10+) possibilities per table.

But then GG can't sell you an eight page GM Screen full of fun charts!!

jmucchiello wrote:But then GG can't sell you an eight page GM Screen full of fun charts!!

But I don't use a GM screen!!!

Yet

What critical hit charts do monsters use? And what do they crit on? 20's only?

It should probably be in the damage line of the monster:

Orc: Init +1; Atk claw +1 melee (dmg 1d4 crit d16/III) or as weapon +1 (crit d14/II); AC 11 + armor; HD 1d8+1; MV 30’; Act 1d20; SV Fort +2, Ref +0, Will -1; AL CE; XP XXX.

Ogre: Init +2; Atk slam +5 melee (dmg 1d6+6 crit d24/IV) or great mace +5 melee (dmg 1d8+6 crit 19-20/d24/V); AC 16; HD 4d8+4; MV 20’; Act 1d20; SP bear hug; SV Fort +4, Ref +2, Will +1; AL CN; XP XXX.

Although, based on reports of the already high lethality of the system, this might be overkill.

There needs to be an invisible turtle in here somewhere.

jmucchiello wrote:But then GG can't sell you an eight page GM Screen full of fun charts!!

So long as it's in landscape format, I'm happy.

mshensley wrote:There needs to be an invisible turtle in here somewhere.

We intentionally left out the invisible turtles. Too easy to trip over.

//H

further thoughts...

We need Monster Crit Charts! At-least Crit tables for these generic monsters.

Any suggestions for which tables I should use for now? My first instinct is Table III, IV, and V depending on HD. And what die? Probably copy the Warrior again?

They exist! (But weren't included in the Beta. I need to check w/ Joseph as to why.)

I think your instincts are on track. A decent workaround until the monster crits are out.

//H

reverenddak wrote:
Dislikes: The charts in general. I think they're too long, specific and restrictive. I like it better when the GM (or even the players) can take liberties with the gory details, but the mechanical effects are standardized. For example Crit Table III, roll 9, should just read: +2d6 damage, target loses 10' movement. With maybe an example in parenthesis (damage to legs). I think the chart should be short enough to fit on the character sheet, maybe 12 (0 or less to 10+) possibilities per table.

Looking at the charts it looks like there is going to need to be a bit of player/GM poetic license with the results.


I'm not sure how a Thief's blow with a club would "Strike through the ear canal enters the brain" or how Warrior's "Hammering strike to torso crushes lesser organs to paste." would happen with a dagger. I

That said, I think the charts are a great aid for more descriptive combats. They're a good start from players and GMs that have grown accustomed to hour long combats that aren't much more than "I use power X for Y damage and mechanical effect Z" and "I shift 1 square to get a flanking bonus".

It's a pretty easy to ad-lib a more appropriate description or reproduce the charts with nothing but crunchy bits. I think the descriptions of the crit results do a lot to set the tone of the game and help get gamers who grew up with 3.5 and 4e into the spirit of things.

Dreamslinger wrote:I'm not sure how a Thief's blow with a club would "Strike through the ear canal enters the brain" or how Warrior's "Hammering strike to torso crushes lesser organs to paste." would happen with a dagger.

Well, a club that enters the brain via the ear probably rips the face clean off as well. And a organ crush dagger probably went in sideways and out the back.

Someone previously stated that the crit charts should be move mechanical and put the descriptions in parentheses as examples.

Dreamslinger wrote:That said, I think the charts are a great aid for more descriptive combats. They're a good start from players and GMs that have grown accustomed to hour long combats that aren't much more than "I use power X for Y damage and mechanical effect Z" and "I shift 1 square to get a flanking bonus".

It's a pretty easy to ad-lib a more appropriate description or reproduce the charts with nothing but crunchy bits. I think the descriptions of the crit results do a lot to set the tone of the game and help get gamers who grew up with 3.5 and 4e into the spirit of things.

That's the idea. I routinely "fudge" the descriptive part of the results. After a while it becomes easy and fun...it just flows from the circumstances of the combat.

As for monsters, the final rules include specific crit tables for un-dead, demons, giants, dragons, and a couple other iconic monster types that I'm forgetting. Dragon crits are awesome. There's also a generic monster crit table, and the various humanoid types use the warrior crit tables.

Super secret monster crits can be found here:

http://www.goodman-games.com/downloads/ ... 032011.doc


//H

mshensley wrote:There needs to be an invisible turtle in here somewhere.

Harley Stroh wrote:They exist! (But weren't included in the Beta. I need to check w/ Joseph as to why.)

Really neat what you can do with copy-paste.

----------------------

As to crit tables, it is strange that this didn't make it into the Beta rules. I'd guess it's an oversight and not a conspiracy.

Or is it? Hmmm.

finarvyn wrote:As to crit tables, it is strange that this didn't make it into the Beta rules. I'd guess it's an oversight and not a conspiracy.

Or is it? Hmmm.

We were afraid to overload you with awesomeness.

//H

Harley Stroh wrote:We were afraid to overload you with awesomeness.

Look, let me go back in there and face the peril.

jmucchiello wrote:

Harley Stroh wrote:We were afraid to overload you with awesomeness.

Look, let me go back in there and face the peril.

Nope. It's too perilous!

Nice to find a fellow "Monty Python" fan!

finarvyn wrote:

jmucchiello wrote:

Harley Stroh wrote:We were afraid to overload you with awesomeness.

Look, let me go back in there and face the peril.

Nope. It's too perilous!

Nice to find a fellow "Monty Python" fan!

I don't think you could swing a dead bishop around here and not hit one

It's the Bishop!!

Having seen the imfamous 8-panel DMing screen in picture recently (that's 8-panels, 16 sides, mostly charts and some artwork, apparently), I am again feeling trepidation about the ammount of charts in this game.

Having looked over the critical hit charts, there seems to be a lot of redundancy. Is there any reason some of them couldn't be combined, and simply have greater dice with the potential to roll higher numbers be what differentiates one class from another?

nanstreet wrote:Having looked over the critical hit charts, there seems to be a lot of redundancy. Is there any reason some of them couldn't be combined, and simply have greater dice with the potential to roll higher numbers be what differentiates one class from another?

I would prefer this as well. If there were to be multiple different charts they should be by attack type (piercing vs slashing vs bashing vs bite vs energy (fire, electricity, etc) ).