[C&C] System Shock: Untested New Rule

[serleran]

Deleted due to being unnecessary.

[yodelero]

Uh... you know, I think I'll just stick with a SIEGE roll, thanks.

[serleran]

Sure, that's possible, but, what is the difficulty for a 100 foot drop? 0, 10, 15? Whatever you want it to be? What about, if you decide to do it, when someone takes 50 damage in one hit, and does not die outright? You just use the Base to Hit of the attacker, or something else? This just makes those guesses more standard.

Besides, this is more about replicating a certain feel than modifying the rules, hence the very clear caveat stated in the write-up.

Thanks for looking, anyway.

[imneuromancer]

Instead of going outside of the current SIEGE engine, I would just make "negative CL" checks for system shock. For example, a 10 foot fall may be a -5 CL (i.e. difficulty 13/7). A polymorph/body transform may be a -2, etc. This keeps within the basic system without any other calculations.

Occam's razor, etc.

[serleran]

Yes, that can work too, but I personally despise the concept of a "negative difficulty." It also does not emulate a particular flavor, like, say AD&D.

[imneuromancer]

Simplicity is genius.

[serleran]

Not necessarily -- some people find simplicity, or what may be construed as such to an individual, lacking the details desired to accomplish something else. The SIEGE Engine does not handle every situation equally, nor should it be applied in every situation. Obviously, if you feel it does and should, this system would be useless to you...

So, thanks, but I think you're missing the point.

[imneuromancer]

Not necessarily -- some people find simplicity, or what may be construed as such to an individual, lacking the details desired to accomplish something else. The SIEGE Engine does not handle every situation equally, nor should it be applied in every situation. Obviously, if you feel it does and should, this system would be useless to you...

So, thanks, but I think you're missing the point.

True, SIEGE (or any other unified system) does not handle every situation equally. However, layering multiple systems on top of each other is, IMHO, counter-productive. If you want a system that has lots of little subsystems to handle each situation in a fine-grain manner then why use C&C and SIEGE at all? Why not just stick with AD&D 1st edition?

It seems to me that C&C uses a simple (genius?) central system for adjudicating almost everything in the game. Where it breaks the central system it does so for one sole reason: to be compatible with various versions of D&D (mostly 1st edition).

For example, it would be trivially easy to use SIEGE to have an integrated "to hit" and "damage" system, but we use BtH and Hit Points instead because (let's face it) it means being compatible with a bunch of other games and stat blocks.

The ONLY other reason to break from SIEGE is to make the game more fun. This is only the case when a rule absolutely can't be fit into SIEGE and there isn't an AD&D equivalent rule. If something doesn't fit in SIEGE, isn't compatible with AD&D, and doesn't add *significantly* to the fun of the game, then I would say it is barren rule.

Now, here's where personal preferences may significantly differ: I don't see system shock rolls as a significantly added value to the game to a) take it out of the SIEGE mechanic or b) make it incompatible with AD&D.

Either using SIEGE or just taking the 1st ed. System Shock chart in total makes more sense.

YMMV.

[serleran]

If you want a system that has lots of little subsystems to handle each situation in a fine-grain manner then why use C&C and SIEGE at all? Why not just stick with AD&D 1st edition?

First, I never said I wanted a lot of subsystems -- this is one, derived from the way C&C handles Spell Resistance, and not the SIEGE Engine; in fact, C&C already has several subsystems -- it has the Spell Resistance mechanic, it has attack and damage rolls, and every "combat option" works differently, not to mention that the SIEGE Engine itself varies depending on whether you're adding level or not, and we've not even mentioned the distinctions regarding class vs. racial abilities and even class abilities alone (that is, how some require checks and others do not, all which can considered separate "rule systems.")

And, why bother? Because I like to see what something would look like, and how it might function, outside of its original design -- AD&D does not cover the potential for system shock for monsters, so that became a
necessity if it were to be used for C&C, even if discouraged in that design. I waned to see if it could be done -- maybe that failed, maybe it did not. No one has commented on that, saying "why use the rule at all?" instead.

But, you're right, someone could take the AD&D system shock subset wholly and use that -- if they have it, and want to use it. I, personally, don't like percentile rules (that is, I don't care for the minutia of something like "you have a 42% chance of success") so I avoid them whenever I can, but try to keep the general "feel" by sticking to factors of five.

Whether this proposed idea is beneficial depends a great deal on the people at the table -- I would not use it myself, but I don't see that as a reason to not even consider it, or try to see if it might be something I would use (probably after modifying it further.) After all, for me, half the fun in gaming is playing with the game...

So, thanks for the comments. Maybe I'll actually get someone to read the way it was intended to work, and criticize that, rather than the arguably lack of need for it.

[imneuromancer]

Fair enough. Your system of System Shock makes characters fail much more likely than characters in 2nd edition (the book I have handy... I think it is pretty similar to 1st edition

Your system would have the following numbers out of a d20 roll:

RND(1/2 CON) + 2*(positive bonus)
3: 2
4: 2
5: 3
6: 3
7: 4
8: 4
9: 5
10: 5
11: 6
12: 6
13: 9
14: 9
15: 10
16: 14
17: 13
18: 15
These scores can obviously be improved by +3 if the stat is prime.

From chart on 2nd ed. PHB, converted % to nearest 5%, divide by 5
3: 7 (35%)
4: 8 (40%)
5: 9 (45%)
6: 10 (50%)
7: 11 (55%)
8: 12 (60%)
9: 13 (65%)
10: 14 (70%)
11: 15 (75%)
12: 16 (80%)
13: 17 (85%)
14: 18 (88%)
15: 18 (90%)
16: 19 (95%)
17: 20 (97%) (note: this may be a case for rounding down)
18: 20 (99%) (ditto)

OK, so if you use systems shocks with any kind of regularity, then then average character is going to fail hard and often. There is definitely a bias toward the higher end of the CON scale, which has the two deleterious effects of:

1) punishing "average" scores and promoting stat inflation, which is against the spirit of C&C (from my humble understanding of it), and
2) making the roll very easy for high CON characters while very difficult for average and below characters, so a great deal of disparity will exist within a party. This means that some characters will be greatly hurt by this rule while others will shrug it off.

As far as the formula, I would say either stick with the 2nd edition chart or simply do 10+1/2 CON, +2 for prime. Or something along those lines.

[serleran]

Yeah, I agree. The average character is doomed to death in situations where a system shock would be called for, if it was used. I did not actually check the SS values from either 1st or 2nd edition for direct comparison, but I recall the average PC having a roughly 45-60% chance of survival which is much higher than this method. I do not necessarily agree that is a bad thing.

[serleran]

After trying this in some mock simulations, I have decided it is needless.

Thank you to those who read and contributed.

The standard SIEGE Engine handles this in the way I would like, with just a very slight modification -- basically in the interpretation of results. No added mechanic required.

[outkastland]

What I enjoy most about some of the rules people make for the system is that some of them really contradict why the system was made in the first place. That's for simplicity of combat and planning. It was designed for rules light.

To be honest if one wanted to have system show added to the flavor then I would to it in s simple style. That is the following:

When anyone has over 50% of their total hit points in one hit then they have a chance chance of going into shock.

Roll percentile dice.

100% or below -1 to attacks
65% or below -1 to attacks -1 to AC
10% or below and be knocked unconcious.
2% or below dies instantly effectively bringing them down to -1

something along those lines perhaps.

[J_Elric_smith]

I just use siege and pick a number as need based up the situation. But then again I am an old school gamer.
ken