Wel its not that advanced.

Iv'e just bought 4th edition after having loved 1st edition for many years but haven't played for ages.

Just remembered a house rule we used to use to make combat a little more risky for "super characters", and to give even the lowliest of toads a (very small) chance for victory in combat.

By implementing this rule there is always a chance (however slim) of ANYONE winning or losing.

put simply a battle or psychic combat is the same as usual until a 1 or 6 is thrown by the player (not enemies etc)

when a players combat result is 1 or 6 throw 2 more dice.

This initial dice roll is also your combat roll.

If either of these dice result in the same as the first roll, (ie 1 or 6) use the other dice to determine result on table below.

first roll of 1 first roll of 6

1 instant loss no modifier

2 -2 strengh/craft +1 strength/craft

3 -2 strengh/craft +1 strength/craft

4 -1 strength/craft +2 strength/craft

5 -1 strength/craft +2 strength/craft

6 no modifier instant victory

so if you roll a 1, followed by double 1 you instantly lose the battle.(Nothing can prevent this)

if you roll a 6, followed by double 6 you win the battle outright.

if you roll a 1, followed by a 1 and a 5 you are at -1 strength or craft for that combat.

their were a few special rules to cover special circumstances, the only 1 that springs to mind is the warrior (same as usual but warrior needs to roll double on his first roll).

Hope others get some use out of it, ive got a book full of this stuff somewhere found my original game but not my house rule book.

You're talking about an "incremental" dice approach. There are much simpler systems already discussed that also have better verisimilitude in their probabilities. See THIS topic.

Remeber that making it possible for a powerful character to loose a fight makes it harder to win (and end) the game. I am not usually in favor of modifications that negate the successes of a player.

JCHendee said:

Oi Hendee! What do you think you are doing? Get back to work! I bought some of your books which means I now OWN YOU (the paperwork is in the post...).

Er...j/k

Interesting.

We have always played a houserule that if during ANY combat with another player if someone rolls a "1" on the combat roll and another player rolls a "6" the player rolling the "6" automatically wins the combat ... regardless of what the actual combat score is.

It always gives the player who is trailing far behind at least a "chance" to get lucky.

JCHendee said:

its not actually that complex just another die roll if a 1or 6 comes up and it also contains the result.

we have tried the 3d6 version and d10 but in the end we found leaving the single initial roll good enough for our purposes, as most of the time even after the second roll combat goes as normal using the initial result.

Feldrik said:

it doesnt really lengthen the game that much as it is not that often that any result other than triple 1 or triple 6 makes any massive difference, it simply removes those cant lose/cant win situations, which are just frustrating.

Malthule said:

I really like that take on it, i may have to use it.

in fact i think i like it more than mine.

I like it for PvP situations, going up against a player should always contain some risk. I would not use it against enemys however, let the super characters sweep them aside as they deserve.

dth said:

Hey, guy, I gotta take a break once in a while... and I just have to stop by and see what's up. Nice to see you're resurfacing a bit too.

Back to topic... any system chosen for alternative combat / psychic combat should be used at all times. It should not be conditional, even to distinquishing between conflict with other adventurers vs enemies. That's just asking for unseen glitches down the road, and since when should the game itself be hobbled as compared to what adventures (not players) can do to each other? Risk should be a level playing field not only between adventurers but between them and the environment itself. Whatever alternative system you choose, make it the actually system of combat and not just something additional in special cases.

Malthule said:

What a gem of an idea! I'm going to try and sneak this into a future session =)