Inspired by fairly recent posts on this topic by my friend Carl and by Al at Beyond the Black Gate, I am really seriously pondering the use of an "exploding" damage system for my current Arandish Labyrinth Lord campaign.
Carl's version of the house rule -- which he calls "Let it Ride" or "Double or Nothing" and which differs from the usual "exploding" damage procedure as I've seen it iterated elsewhere -- goes like this:
Whenever a successful melee or ranged attack is made, the attacker can choose to let it ride - this involves throwing a second attack roll. If this is also successful, the attack does double normal damage, but if it fails, the attack does no damage at all. This can be attempted a third time if the second roll is successful, for quadruple damage with a success but again, no damage at all with a failure.
I like the vibe of this but am not inclined to require additional attack rolls; rather, I would like to hinge the mechanic upon the damage dice rolled. Al proposes using such a mechanic in place of "natural 20 critical hits" and describes the procedure thus:
When a damage result of "6" is rolled, the player gets to roll another d6 and add the result to the previous 6 points of damage. So a "critical hit" essentially means 1d6+6 points of damage, or 9.5 points of damage on average. And 1 in 6 hits is "critical" on average, a grisly figure that lines up better with my gritty pulp sensibilities than 1 in 20.
Like Al, I have been feeling a bit bored with "roll a natural 20 = double damage" critical hit system that I have been using -- well, forever. I feel that the exploding damage system could indeed serve as a reasonable replacement for standard critical hits and, as Al points out, actually allows many more chances for higher damage infliction, a 1 in 6 chance vs. a 1 in 20 chance. But this raises two corollary concerns:
(1) What to do with natural 20 "to hit" rolls?
and:
(2) Since I use variable weapon damage (unlike Al, who uses d6's for everything), would this make "exploding" damage die rolls too potent? In other words, by increasing the occurrence of increased damage, will this make things too bloody and/or deadly in my "variable weapon damage" based campaign? And if so, is that necessarily a bad thing?
As I commented on Al's blog, my initial response to concern #1 is that if I go with "exploding" damage then the natural 20 "to hit" roll should automatically grant "exploded" damage, i.e., d6+6, d8+8, d10+10, etc.
My response to issue #2 is more complicated, and remains undecided. Interestingly, Crimson Blades of Ara, the homebrewed RPG that spawned the Lands of Ara campaign setting in the first place, featured a more deadly combat system than most variants of D&D: on average, two solid hits with a long sword would kill virtually any PC, regardless of that PC's experience level (CBoA did not technically use "levels," but you get my point). So I am certainly open in principle to a more deadly and bloody world of combat for my current campaign. But would that be too drastic a move to make at this juncture of the game? I recently posted about how wonderful it is to have a party of characters of experience levels 3 and up -- so would it be fun or fair to suddenly raise the stakes and increase the danger of combat damage in the campaign now that we've just reached the "sweet spot"? Perhaps especially since two of my players are neophyte RPG'ers playing in their first-ever campaign?
[New Spell] Fruit of a Summer that Never Was
2 hours ago












