Donjon Ability question

[Wulf]

While working on my bestiary, I hit a snag. When you hit a Barguest, as well as dealing damage to IT, it shocks you through your weapon and damages YOU...

How would I deal with that in Donjon? I know how to deal with the situation where the attacker TAKES damage if he fails to DO it - use the Parry rules. But what about this, where you want to do a damage check on BOTH attacker and Defender (using different damage dice, of course)? Would it be terminally unfair just to mark it as an Ability - "Damages he who damages it 4"?

Wulf

[catenwolde]

Wulf,

Disclaimer: I'm still gearing up to play my first game of Donjon over Thanksgiving, while also stuffing my head with Paladin and Sorceror...

How about if you give the Bargest a Supporting Ability called "Reflexive Melee Damage" or "Shocking Rejoinder" or some such.  This is essentially a melee attack that has a limitation of "only usable after being hit by conductive weapons" instead of only *using* a particular weapon (I've been thinking of treating the triggering of "Berserk Strength" in a similar manner).  You could then have it deal damage dice resisted by Wherewithal and maybe Save versus PPT, etc.  This way the "hit" is automatic given the right circumstances, but the damage would be variable - actually more forgiving than the original!  Good old spells like "Fire Shield" could work this way too.

Would this work or have I missed the point?  I could see where crawling through the old 1st and 2nd edition beastiaries this way could be fun.

Christopher

[Wulf]

How about if you give the Bargest a Supporting Ability called "Reflexive Melee Damage" or "Shocking Rejoinder" or some such.  This is essentially a melee attack that has a limitation of "only usable after being hit by conductive weapons" instead of only *using* a particular weapon (I've been thinking of treating the triggering of "Berserk Strength" in a similar manner).  You could then have it deal damage dice resisted by Wherewithal and maybe Save versus PPT, etc.  This way the "hit" is automatic given the right circumstances, but the damage would be variable - actually more forgiving than the original!  Good old spells like "Fire Shield" could work this way too.

Fire Shield, eh? You read my mind - or at least, my RuneQuest character's sheet :-)

I agree with everything you say, BUT I'm worried about 2 things.

1) Hits automatically, go straight to Damage Check. OK, it's actually the OPPONENT who hits you, and it ONLY works when he does. And it doesn't protect the Barguest/RQ character. Is that adequate?

2) Should it take an action, the way Parry does?

Wulf

[Valamir]

The way I would do it is this:

Take the number of actual damage points inflicted (or total hits if mere contact is enough).  Roll those as damage back to the attacker UP TO a number of dice equal to the Barguests "skill" in that ability.

Whether it should be a main or a secondary skill slot depends on the usual limiting test.  If any contact with the barquest at all results in getting zapped that would be main.  If only contact with weapons that are mostly metal trigger it, that would be secondary.  IMO.

I'd include in the description of the beast, a note to the DM to permit/encourage players to creatively use Facts as a way of avoiding the effects.  "I make sure to jump in the air and have both feet off of the ground when I hit, since I'm not grounded, I don't get shocked" that sort of thing.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I have a creature much like this in the Donjon adventure that comes with the game, actually - the Sporecap. In its case, I have an Ability called Retailatory Damage. When someone damages the Sporecap through a melee attack, the GM rolls Retailatory Damage plus the damage actually done to the Sporecap in a Damage Test versus the attacker. I do not have it take an action, although that would balance it a bit more. (I balanced it by making the Spraycap immobile and easy to hit, both with melee and missile attacks.)

In the Barghest's case, I would:
 - Definitely call it "Shocking Rejoinder," 'cause that's cool.
 - Not have it take an action.
 - Roll Shocking Rejoinder only in a Damage Test against the attacker whenever the Barghest is successfully hit with a melee attack. I say roll SR only in order to balance it a bit. In addition, I might - to be fun - have armor's Damage Rating only count if it's non-metallic. If it's metallic, actually add the DR to the Barghest's Shocking Rejoinder. (As a corollary, Shocking Rejoinder might not work if you hit it with a non-conductive weapon, like a quarterstaff.)

[catenwolde]

Wulf,

Okay, remembering I may be Pontificating from My Posterior...

Fire Shield, eh? You read my mind - or at least, my RuneQuest character's sheet :-)

Hey, as long as *you* can still tell the difference, it's okay...

1) Hits automatically, go straight to Damage Check. OK, it's actually the OPPONENT who hits you, and it ONLY works when he does. And it doesn't protect the Barguest/RQ character. Is that adequate?

*And* it only works for conductive melee weapons for the Bargest, if true electrical and not "magical" damage.

In fact, that would be the difference netween the Bargest's natural ability and a Fireshield spell: the spell might be resisted by Cer or Disc, and maybe Save vs. IC, depending if you see the magical effect as a real physical attack, an illusion, etc.  In fact, an interesting twist might be a Reflexive Attack that was magical in nature, and so was only triggered by a magical attack!  i.e. it "conducts" magical energy just like a Bargest conducts electricity.  Hit it with a normal weapon, no problem - hit it with an enchanted weapon, it channels the energy and attacks back.

I think that's a pretty good set of limitations, and in spirit with the original concept.  It wouldn't protect the Bargest, as it is an attack, not a defence.  You could probably spend another Ability for "Reflexive Damage Dealt Also Acts as Damage Resistance" - is that getting too far off base?

2) Should it take an action, the way Parry does?

Off the cuff I would say No.  It isn't a deliberate action - in fact the Bargest (or character with a spell on) will probably try *not* to get hit.  For the Bargest, this is just a physical (racial) state of being, and for the character he has already taken the action of casting the spell.  Using up an Ability is already a pretty significant "game" thing.

These kind of things really show how flexible Donjon can be - I'm looking forward to playing!

Christopher

[Mike Holmes]

This is essentially a melee attack that has a limitation of "only usable after being hit by conductive weapons"

Old Champions player, right? I think that a background with the Hero System can do a lot to improve ones Dunjon play.


Hmmm. I'm thinking that this category of ability, those that don't take a character's action to use, are problematic. That is they don't balance in a big way. They essentially allow additional actions. It's important to discuss them, because I can think of about a zillion ways to use this.

One obvious solution would be to allow the ability to be rolled for initiative (perhaps in addition to the other abilities used), and actions generated would be reserved for using the ability if it comes up. Inability to use the power because of lack of actions for powering it could be explained as too many hitting at once, and "shorting it out" temporarily. And would balance out the To Hit roll maybe.

Also, one could balance the mechanics of the ability out by making their response a seperate test. That is, the ability should have to roll against the damage to be effective.

For example, perhaps the Barghests ability is rolled against the damage rating like it was an armor rating. But instead of absorbing damage (that should be purchased separately, per Hero System again), successes represent damage returned to the person striking, limited by the total number of points originally dealt (that is, more damage may not be generated than was delivered origianally to the Barghest). That last part is optional, I suppose.

Essentially, this roll replaces the To Hit roll.

Or something like that. Still needs tweaking, but it's a road one can go down. Can anybody fix that up?

Mike

[Wulf]

I have a creature much like this in the Donjon adventure that comes with the game, actually

Ah... guilty as charged, I didn't actually read all the details of that :-)

OK, then, using the same rules I get exactly what I wanted... Thanks

Wulf