Reasoning behind quirky critical hit tables?

For DCC RPG rules discussion. Includes rules questions and ideas, new rules suggestions, homebrews and hacks, conversions to other systems, and everything else rules-related.

Moderators: DJ LaBoss, finarvyn, michaelcurtis, Harley Stroh

Post Reply
Johann
Far-Sighted Wanderer
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:01 am

Reasoning behind quirky critical hit tables?

Post by Johann »

Hi there!

I positively adore DCC's critical hit tables, but I don't quite understand their various quirks. :oops:

1) Why do some results on Table V have an expanded range (8-12 and 13-14)?

2) Why are the tables not sorted by increasing lethality (cf. Table V's result for a 17 - instant death - which is far deadlier than much of what follows, e.g. a severed arm at 20 and 24)?

3) Why do Tables I and III provide results far outside the range of what characters (and monsters using the tables) can roll? The most competent wizard can roll a d14 (plus modifiers) but Table I goes from 0-20. Likewise, a cleric/halfling/monster can roll a d16/d10 but Table III extends all the way to 28.

(Could these high results be achieved via Luck? If so, why do the other tables not extend farther?)

4) What's with rolling 2d20 rather than 1d30? Are the effects (results clustering around 21 in the first case etc.) intended?

I'm not criticising any of the above phenomena, by the way. I'm just curious! DCC's quirks are part of its flavor! I would just like to know if there is a deeper reason for these things. :shock:

Best wishes :mrgreen:

Johann
Johann
Far-Sighted Wanderer
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:01 am

Re: Reasoning behind quirky critical hit tables?

Post by Johann »

The reason I'm asking is - apart from curiosity - that I'd like every class to have its very own table (just like thieves and elves who get the 'sneaky' Critical Hit Table II -- I really like this concept!). This reduces page flipping (or the number of handouts) and gives every class something special.

So Dwarves would roll on Table IV from 1st level onward, and warriors on Table V.

I'm also abolishing threat range (i.e. crit on 19-20 etc.) because some of my players (one in her forties, one a kid) always forget about such things. I hope this balances out - at least at low levels - as the warrior loses the expanded threat range, but can roll on Table V from the start.

Do you think this screws over any of the classes? Is access to Table V too deadly at low levels?

(Hence the questions in my initial post... I'm trying to get an analytical grip on these tables.)

Best wishes

Johann
Post Reply

Return to “Rules discussion”