After a brief rules foray: you are absolutely right! What we're referencing here is from Explorer's Edition/Deluxe Edition, which is the "Critical Failures" option in the Settings Rules section. We use a mishmash of rules from the older edition and the newer Adventure Edition, and hadn't noticed that the Critical Failures rule was made standard in Adventure Edition. Thanks for the comment, and good catch!
I think the idea behind the 5 free common skills is that every character should be at least d4 proficient in these (e.g. notice or stealth) and that it wouldn't make sense for a character to not have even limited ability in these skills. There is a setting rule (More Skill Points) that ups starting skill points to 15 instead of 12. If I wanted to give my players more choices, I think I'd be more inclined to do that just to make sure everyone was at least proficient in things like stealth and persuasion. You can use hindrances to make characters bad in certain skills if you think its necessary for character/storytelling purposes. And that way they also get to "buy" more points!
I can definitely understand your preference here. Most of the time in our group the players tend to take most of the default common skills anyway, but we like the additional options that having flexibility here gives. We like having the option of having characters who are very bad at things the average person is at least decent at. We find that it makes for fun interactions and creative problem solving, but I could totally see how a different group would prefer to stick with the default common skills all the time. Our group also almost always takes as many hindrances as they can as well (a play style I am a big advocate for) because it tends to make for more interesting characters and fun rp moments.
My biggest change I make to the rules is with Dramatic Tasks. Basically I don't have the task fail if the Trait Check fails. They just fail to get the success token and the task continues into the next round. Also on Crit Fails in DTs, I will usually remove a success token. I've found that running the task through to completion (success or failure) builds a stronger and more memorable story and encounter.
To be honest I am not super familiar with the dramatic tasks rules, and we don't really use them in our game. They seem to me to be the Savage Worlds system's version of group checks/multi-roll checks. The way you describe running it is the way I would probably want to run it as well. Having the building tension and the back and fourth with accruing successes makes for a more engaging narrative.
@@downtimeactivities945 They really are fun, even RAW, but yeah, they can create some really good and fun encounters when everyone is invested. the key I have found in that is creating a situation where multiple Traits can (and should) be used to solve the problem, rather than just the same one, over and over (which as a rule, I enforce that they cannot do, or if they do, it's at -2 on the second attempt).
I like all of these, except for the multiple d6 for extra raises. When you have a high-powered character they should be weighing the cost of doing a called shot to the head and multiple shots for the extra damage. It allows even the really powerful characters to think tactically because they get to choose to go for an easy low damage hit, or a more difficult high damage hit.
That makes a lot of sense Inshal. We like having the chance for those big explosive turns and our group doesn't use called shots very often, but I can understand a group wanting that risk vs reward decision.
I like your homebrew rules. The extra, non exploding damage dice for all the raises during the attack roll is awesome. But bennies can't be used on "snake eyes" anyways. That rule is NOT optional. Page 88 of the SWADE core book. I like your Common Skills rule. That's a cool idea. Cheers!
I've been running Savage Rifts for a while now and that has the in-built rule that if you hit someone with "Mega Damage" weapon (aka Heavy Weapon damage) and they don't have Mega Damage armour or aren't Mega Damage creature, they take Gritty Damage. And it's pretty cool.... had some NPCs take some serious injuries from these attacks... makes it more interesting :)
I (we) are use the exploding rule as-well (1d6 per raise on the attack), but we don't even allow for any die to explode during damage. I understand that a lot of ppl wont like this but my group does. We don't like the idea that a guy in a mech suit can get one shotted by bum with a knife. This makes rolling insane high damage possible but far less likely. It flattens the extreme curve and also streamlines the combat somewhat. It's also more realistic that the better advantages to hit you have the better damage you can do. High skill = better chance of high damage (Not limited to a +1d6) Called shots to the head gets to reroll the weapons damage dice, and take the higher result. To balance +4 being nearly useless with this rule.
That seems like a good way to run things Johannes. I can totally see the thinking behind it for achieving the kind of feel your group prefers. Thank you for sharing another option for people to try in their games.
Our group has never really played around with Rifts, but I wouldn't rule it out for the future. We do have our Devils of the West Savage Worlds game actively going up on the channel right now If you are interested in some live play. It is my take on a deadlands game, but it does not use the actual deadlands lore. It's more of a homebrew gothic horror western campaign.
I don't think you can reroll snake eyes in the base game of Savage Worlds adventure edition
After a brief rules foray: you are absolutely right! What we're referencing here is from Explorer's Edition/Deluxe Edition, which is the "Critical Failures" option in the Settings Rules section. We use a mishmash of rules from the older edition and the newer Adventure Edition, and hadn't noticed that the Critical Failures rule was made standard in Adventure Edition. Thanks for the comment, and good catch!
I think the idea behind the 5 free common skills is that every character should be at least d4 proficient in these (e.g. notice or stealth) and that it wouldn't make sense for a character to not have even limited ability in these skills. There is a setting rule (More Skill Points) that ups starting skill points to 15 instead of 12. If I wanted to give my players more choices, I think I'd be more inclined to do that just to make sure everyone was at least proficient in things like stealth and persuasion. You can use hindrances to make characters bad in certain skills if you think its necessary for character/storytelling purposes. And that way they also get to "buy" more points!
I can definitely understand your preference here. Most of the time in our group the players tend to take most of the default common skills anyway, but we like the additional options that having flexibility here gives. We like having the option of having characters who are very bad at things the average person is at least decent at. We find that it makes for fun interactions and creative problem solving, but I could totally see how a different group would prefer to stick with the default common skills all the time. Our group also almost always takes as many hindrances as they can as well (a play style I am a big advocate for) because it tends to make for more interesting characters and fun rp moments.
My biggest change I make to the rules is with Dramatic Tasks. Basically I don't have the task fail if the Trait Check fails. They just fail to get the success token and the task continues into the next round. Also on Crit Fails in DTs, I will usually remove a success token. I've found that running the task through to completion (success or failure) builds a stronger and more memorable story and encounter.
To be honest I am not super familiar with the dramatic tasks rules, and we don't really use them in our game. They seem to me to be the Savage Worlds system's version of group checks/multi-roll checks. The way you describe running it is the way I would probably want to run it as well. Having the building tension and the back and fourth with accruing successes makes for a more engaging narrative.
@@downtimeactivities945 They really are fun, even RAW, but yeah, they can create some really good and fun encounters when everyone is invested. the key I have found in that is creating a situation where multiple Traits can (and should) be used to solve the problem, rather than just the same one, over and over (which as a rule, I enforce that they cannot do, or if they do, it's at -2 on the second attempt).
Thank you for sharing! I might consider using some of these in my own games.
No problem! I'm glad you liked them. Thanks for the sub!
Loved these ideas, I am just getting into Savage Worlds and love the system. These ideas will help me wld my first campaign. Thanks!
No problem! I am glad you found these useful. Welcome to Savage Worlds and good luck with the first campaign!
Excellent info! I might steal a few of these for my up coming Fantasy setting. Thanks, and subbed!
Glad you found it helpful! Thank you for the sub and good luck with the upcoming campaign!
I like all of these, except for the multiple d6 for extra raises. When you have a high-powered character they should be weighing the cost of doing a called shot to the head and multiple shots for the extra damage. It allows even the really powerful characters to think tactically because they get to choose to go for an easy low damage hit, or a more difficult high damage hit.
That makes a lot of sense Inshal. We like having the chance for those big explosive turns and our group doesn't use called shots very often, but I can understand a group wanting that risk vs reward decision.
I like your homebrew rules. The extra, non exploding damage dice for all the raises during the attack roll is awesome.
But bennies can't be used on "snake eyes" anyways. That rule is NOT optional. Page 88 of the SWADE core book.
I like your Common Skills rule. That's a cool idea. Cheers!
Thanks Matthew! We are glad you liked our rules. Good catch on the "snake eyes" rule. That is something we missed when making this video.
I've been running Savage Rifts for a while now and that has the in-built rule that if you hit someone with "Mega Damage" weapon (aka Heavy Weapon damage) and they don't have Mega Damage armour or aren't Mega Damage creature, they take Gritty Damage. And it's pretty cool.... had some NPCs take some serious injuries from these attacks... makes it more interesting :)
That is a cool rule to make heavy hitting weapons live up to expectation mechanically. We haven't dabbled in Rifts yet, but it seems like a good time.
Thank you for this!
No problem! Glad you enjoyed!
I (we) are use the exploding rule as-well (1d6 per raise on the attack), but we don't even allow for any die to explode during damage. I understand that a lot of ppl wont like this but my group does. We don't like the idea that a guy in a mech suit can get one shotted by bum with a knife. This makes rolling insane high damage possible but far less likely. It flattens the extreme curve and also streamlines the combat somewhat. It's also more realistic that the better advantages to hit you have the better damage you can do. High skill = better chance of high damage (Not limited to a +1d6)
Called shots to the head gets to reroll the weapons damage dice, and take the higher result. To balance +4 being nearly useless with this rule.
That seems like a good way to run things Johannes. I can totally see the thinking behind it for achieving the kind of feel your group prefers. Thank you for sharing another option for people to try in their games.
Could you explain the last line a bit more Johannes?
Abt high skill vs the additional d6
👍
Savage Rifts camping any time soon?
Our group has never really played around with Rifts, but I wouldn't rule it out for the future. We do have our Devils of the West Savage Worlds game actively going up on the channel right now If you are interested in some live play. It is my take on a deadlands game, but it does not use the actual deadlands lore. It's more of a homebrew gothic horror western campaign.