Critical hits, misses and additional effects

[TrashMan]

One D&D rules variant had called shots.

 

Now normally, any swordsman would tell you that you go for the torso/head and NOT arms or legs. They are too hard to hit.

 

So by default your attacks would be directed at the torso and head.

Now there is a VERY SMALL chance you might get in a hit on the hands or legs during the enemies attempt to block or shuffle.

So something like:

70% chance to hit the torso

10% chacne to hit head

5% chance to for each arm or leg

 

 

Called shot gives a 50% (100% for torso) chance that once a to-hit roll is made, the area you targeted will be hit, but it decreases your overall to-hit and defense (since you are focusing on hitting something specific)

 

 

Then depending on what was crited, a different penaly can be allplied.

 

 

 

Or it can all be randomized.

[D___]

I think it would be good to make sure, that critical miss never happens(or at very list to be VERY special occasion) just by having sufficient training. Also, having something like weapon(especially with specific defensive enchantment) dropping in the middle of combat, in my experience in many cases leads to immediate party crumbling -> reload (which is really annoying, can ruin one-save mode game if you missed the moment by not being able to see lost small weapon on colorful background).

[SirMonkeyMonk]

I want casters to have critical misses, at least wizards. Some specific spells, like magic missle could have ciritical hits.

 

BANG! wizard has a fireball explode in his face.

 

Who wouldn't like that?

[Radres]

Wizards could have critical "misscasts" too! But i think unless they make sure that the chance to have critical misses is decreased when your character or the npc is trained / skilled in a certain way. So in lower levels you could have more trouble with controlling your gear but if you train or skill your character to it you'll start to handle your wepons/armor /spells safely without exposing yourself or blowing your party with a fireball

 

This would also add a sense of accomplishment and progress to the game. Also it rewards gearing your characters approprietly

[Rostere]

I'd love to see critical misses in the game!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'd love to see critical misses in the game!

 

This.

 

I would also like to see critical failures of pretty much anything that requires a check. It would be awesome to fail spectacularly at sneaking and end up fleeing on a wounded leg.

[Serenegoose]

I'm not fond of critical hits or misses, personally. This is more because I prefer my tactics to be more chesslike than realistic, and prefer unexpected surprises to come from being outwitted rather than unlucky. I understand why many prefer a more chaotic element to their fights, but it's simply not for me.

[trulez]

Critical hits/misses are relics of the past, remnants of pen & paper gaming, that should be forgotten. They bring totally unnecessary random element in to the game which is only detrimental to strategic combat. I want to win, or lose, because I made meaningful tactical choices, not because of a roll of dice.

[Hypevosa]

Critical hits/misses are relics of the past, remnants of pen & paper gaming, that should be forgotten. They bring totally unnecessary random element in to the game which is only detrimental to strategic combat. I want to win, or lose, because I made meaningful tactical choices, not because of a roll of dice.

 

Lawfully aligned?

 

I find the bit of chaos to be more fun when even the most awesome of characters can really muck things up now and again. 5% I've felt to perhaps be too often for any character beyond level 5 or 10 (I'd have you roll another d5 to make it a 1% chance instead) but it still is far more interesting than assuming characters are absolutely perfect.

[Radres]

A good strategy game would force you to adapt in unforseen situations. In that regard criticals are reasonable options. They are, what makes good strategies standing above others.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Radres

[TrashMan]

The most severe critical misses should be removed (you trip and fall on your sword, severing you head).

But critical misses and hits - definately.

[trulez]

A good strategy game would force you to adapt in unforseen situations.

Ah, I remember now, my knight critically misses your bishop....oh wait, that never happens.

[Hypevosa]

A good strategy game would force you to adapt in unforseen situations.

Ah, I remember now, my knight critically misses your bishop....oh wait, that never happens.

 

Luck and misfortune happen. Ultimately, your strategy is either good enough to compensate even for that, or your strategy crumbles at the slightest change in the winds of fortune.

 

Your knight in his foolhardy confidence swung at the bishop without taking care to mind his footing, causing him to trip over the bishop's staff, prone, and miss his attack.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Hypevosa

[trulez]

Luck and misfortune happen. Ultimately, your strategy is either good enough to compensate even for that, or your strategy crumbles at the slightest change in the winds of fortune.

 

Your knight in his foolhardy confidence swung at the bishop without taking care to mind his footing, causing him to trip over the bishop's staff, prone, and miss his attack.

Eh, knight and bishop, get it ? It's a CHESS reference for gods sake.

[Hypevosa]

Luck and misfortune happen. Ultimately, your strategy is either good enough to compensate even for that, or your strategy crumbles at the slightest change in the winds of fortune.

 

Your knight in his foolhardy confidence swung at the bishop without taking care to mind his footing, causing him to trip over the bishop's staff, prone, and miss his attack.

Eh, knight and bishop, get it ? It's a CHESS reference for gods sake.

 

I got it, but this isn't chess You apply your game's rules to this one and I'll apply my game's rules to yours.

 

More to the conversation, I always assumed that the pieces in chess were supposed to be entire squads or some other large group of soldiers... you know, it's hard for everyone in a group to critically fail and/or everyone in the other to critically fail. When your battles involve so many people, the strokes of fortune and misfortune are negligible.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Hypevosa

[trulez]

Yeah, I don't think you got it.

 

Chess is de facto strategy game, and the person replying to my post was trying to imply that a good strategy game should have critical hit/miss incorporated while that is blatantly just not true.

 

Critical hit/miss isn't improving any aspect of strategic gameplay, it's a cop out for poor players who need to get lucky once in a while (either by rolling critical hit, or their enemy rolling critical miss) to level out the playing field. A good strategy game is such where the superior player wins 10/10 times if all other conditions are constant.

[TrashMan]

CRPGs are as much about tactics as they are aboutstrategy.

 

Also, luck IS a real factor in real battles.

Luck and the human element have changed the tides of many a battle trought the whole history.

[Hypevosa]

Yeah, I don't think you got it.

 

Chess is de facto strategy game, and the person replying to my post was trying to imply that a good strategy game should have critical hit/miss incorporated while that is blatantly just not true.

 

Critical hit/miss isn't improving any aspect of strategic gameplay, it's a cop out for poor players who need to get lucky once in a while (either by rolling critical hit, or their enemy rolling critical miss) to level out the playing field. A good strategy game is such where the superior player wins 10/10 times if all other conditions are constant.

 

I understand how chess works, have since I was 5. What you don't seem to understand is that, so long as strategies are sound, criticals and critical failures won't make a difference. If one enemy criting your warrior makes your entire strategy for the fight fail, your strategy needs more work until it's solid enough to withstand the whims of fortune. If you can't adapt quickly enough to save your butt when things go wrong, you need to learn to think on your feet.

 

You keep focusing on where criticals just speed up the inevitable - if your strategy was already sound, you'd have won anyways, would you not? A critical hit just saves you a few seconds. If you have a losing strategy you'll lose the vast majority of the time anyways and the game will crawl for you if that doesn't change. I'm focusing on where criticals or critical failures are the fires by which your strategies are tested instead.

 

As long as you can critically fail and your enemy can critically succeed, your strategies risk being broken. Can you survive without your spell caster? Can you survive without your warrior? Are you vigilant enough to see where a weapon has flown and go pick it up?

 

To go back to chess, could you still win if you start out missing one of your pieces?

Edited October 6, 2012 by Hypevosa

[Radres]

Chess-Battles are radically different then RPG-Battles. Chess is more about how you start your move, what you can sacrifice and how far you can predict your enemies moves. In fact the most important thing in chess is to be able to predict the enemies next move. That's why chess , while incredibly deep, has a very simple ruleset.

 

cRPG's are based on Pen& Paper games. Where the most memorable sequences are those of fortune or misfortune. Any one with a favorite Pen &Paper moment will probably tell you something going incredibly wrong or good.

 

Those events will make their moment more exciting. When a sudden mishap will fire up your brain cells to control the damage or a sudden luck will ignite hope against dire odds. In the end people will probably be thankful for that. Because it breaks the routine.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Radres

[Starwars]

I like the idea of having different effects for critical hits and I would welcome critical misses with bad effects as well.

 

Like it's been said above, I think it's just a nice way to spice up the combat and bring some element of randomness to it. I like the unpredictability of it and I'll gladly sacrifice some of the "ultimate tactical control" for those "oh hell YES" or "oh god nooo!" moments you can get at times.

 

That said, it would seem that critical misses could be a feature possibly tucked into the options menu if players want them toggled on or not.

[Foefaller]

I vote yes. I'm always a fan of a little randomness, even in RTSs (I've put in about 50-100 times more hours in DoW2 multi than I have in SC2 multiplayer, though that might be for other reasons...) I've always felt half the fun is adapting to the bad rolls and doing everything you can maximize the good ones.

 

Not 100% that it should get as far as Arcanum though, with several possible effects on a critical hit or miss beyond damage or lack thereof.

[Sensuki]

At least the same amount of status effects as Baldur's Gate 2 please.

 

Stun

Immobilized

Ability Drain

Poison

Acid

Burning

Sleep

Prone

Unconscious

Dazed/similar

Blind

Deaf

... the list goes on

Edited October 7, 2012 by Sensuki

[trulez]

Chess-Battles are radically different then RPG-Battles. Chess is more about how you start your move, what you can sacrifice and how far you can predict your enemies moves. In fact the most important thing in chess is to be able to predict the enemies next move. That's why chess , while incredibly deep, has a very simple ruleset.

Replace the word "chess" in the bolded part with a game of your choice and you'll notice it holds true to every cRPG ever made. You just described what strategy is, and it's not unique to chess.

 

cRPG's are based on Pen& Paper games. Where the most memorable sequences are those of fortune or misfortune. Any one with a favorite Pen &Paper moment will probably tell you something going incredibly wrong or good.

Thank you for making my original point, critical hit/miss is a remnant from PnP and should be forgotten in modern cRPGs. Those memorable moments when you slip and break your neck, or slay that ogre with a sling shot to the eye, they are only memorable because you were in the company of your friends who were enjoying the moment with you. That simply does not translate to single player cRPG where you sit in front of the PC alone, no one is going to enjoy the critical hit/miss with you, which makes it feel very empty and hollow, more of a nuisance really ("I failed AGAIN, how the fu....oh I guess I should reload").

 

Those events will make their moment more exciting. When a sudden mishap will fire up your brain cells to control the damage or a sudden luck will ignite hope against dire odds. In the end people will probably be thankful for that. Because it breaks the routine.

No, it wont. There's nothing heart warming about failing critically when you are playing the game alone, it's just an annoyance.

 

What you don't seem to understand is that, so long as strategies are sound, criticals and critical failures won't make a difference. If one enemy criting your warrior makes your entire strategy for the fight fail, your strategy needs more work until it's solid enough to withstand the whims of fortune. If you can't adapt quickly enough to save your butt when things go wrong, you need to learn to think on your feet.

 

You keep focusing on where criticals just speed up the inevitable - if your strategy was already sound, you'd have won anyways, would you not? A critical hit just saves you a few seconds. If you have a losing strategy you'll lose the vast majority of the time anyways and the game will crawl for you if that doesn't change. I'm focusing on where criticals or critical failures are the fires by which your strategies are tested instead.

 

As long as you can critically fail and your enemy can critically succeed, your strategies risk being broken. Can you survive without your spell caster? Can you survive without your warrior? Are you vigilant enough to see where a weapon has flown and go pick it up?

 

To go back to chess, could you still win if you start out missing one of your pieces?

So what you want is a strategy game based on tip toeing around a critical mechanic, which means LESS options (you can't make bold moves if they have chance to fail) and ultimately less strategic gameplay in general. I agree with you that there is still strategy involved in solving the puzzles with critical hit/miss included, it's just not as deep as it could be because you are being forced in to more defensive approach in order to avoid those mishaps which happen not due to your skill, but sheer luck.

 

So yes, playing around criticals is strategy, I'm not denying that. But it's just a very boring and defensive one, which only limits strategic options and doesn't add any.

Edited October 7, 2012 by trulez

[Hypevosa]

Chess-Battles are radically different then RPG-Battles. Chess is more about how you start your move, what you can sacrifice and how far you can predict your enemies moves. In fact the most important thing in chess is to be able to predict the enemies next move. That's why chess , while incredibly deep, has a very simple ruleset.

Replace the word "chess" in the bolded part with a game of your choice and you'll notice it holds true to every cRPG ever made. You just described what strategy is, and it's not unique to chess.

 

cRPG's are based on Pen& Paper games. Where the most memorable sequences are those of fortune or misfortune. Any one with a favorite Pen &Paper moment will probably tell you something going incredibly wrong or good.

Thank you for making my original point, critical hit/miss is a remnant from PnP and should be forgotten in modern cRPGs. Those memorable moments when you slip and break your neck, or slay that ogre with a sling shot to the eye, they are only memorable because you were in the company of your friends who were enjoying the moment with you. That simply does not translate to single player cRPG where you sit in front of the PC alone, no one is going to enjoy the critical hit/miss with you, which makes it feel very empty and hollow, more of a nuisance really ("I failed AGAIN, how the fu....oh I guess I should reload").

 

Those events will make their moment more exciting. When a sudden mishap will fire up your brain cells to control the damage or a sudden luck will ignite hope against dire odds. In the end people will probably be thankful for that. Because it breaks the routine.

No, it wont. There's nothing heart warming about failing critically when you are playing the game alone, it's just an annoyance.

 

What you don't seem to understand is that, so long as strategies are sound, criticals and critical failures won't make a difference. If one enemy criting your warrior makes your entire strategy for the fight fail, your strategy needs more work until it's solid enough to withstand the whims of fortune. If you can't adapt quickly enough to save your butt when things go wrong, you need to learn to think on your feet.

 

You keep focusing on where criticals just speed up the inevitable - if your strategy was already sound, you'd have won anyways, would you not? A critical hit just saves you a few seconds. If you have a losing strategy you'll lose the vast majority of the time anyways and the game will crawl for you if that doesn't change. I'm focusing on where criticals or critical failures are the fires by which your strategies are tested instead.

 

As long as you can critically fail and your enemy can critically succeed, your strategies risk being broken. Can you survive without your spell caster? Can you survive without your warrior? Are you vigilant enough to see where a weapon has flown and go pick it up?

 

To go back to chess, could you still win if you start out missing one of your pieces?

So what you want is a strategy game based on tip toeing around a critical mechanic, which means LESS options (you can't make bold moves if they have chance to fail) and ultimately less strategic gameplay in general. I agree with you that there is still strategy involved in solving the puzzles with critical hit/miss included, it's just not as deep as it could be because you are being forced in to more defensive approach in order to avoid those mishaps which happen not due to your skill, but sheer luck.

 

So yes, playing around criticals is strategy, I'm not denying that. But it's just a very boring and defensive one, which only limits strategic options and doesn't add any.

 

If criticals are evenly metered to both sides, it's hardly tiptoeing when criticals are such a rare event. You can make bold moves, you're just upping your risk - it would hardly be a bold move if you knew you'd win every time you did it now would it?

 

I do admit it limits you if you want to ensure victory 100% of the time, but putting yourself in your party's shoes, would you really choose strategies that had a good chance to get you killed with any regularity when you could instead take almost no risk?

[Falkon Swiftblade]

I think there should be an option to add confusion on a critical hit. Especially with bigger weapon types. If I crit with a fireball or some type of large gun the chaos that ensues should have a chance enemy's are not only defeated by loss of moral, but panicked and want to get away from there pronto. It would be interesting if there was an alignment hook, so certain enemy's may switch sides to be on the winning side. That may make sense as well if we get the Cypher class as one of their ability's. I agree with the idea of a critical miss if implemented should leave the person open for a counter attack or vulnerable for extra damage on the next attack.