Large Creatures Versus Head Shots

[Tywyll]

Does anyone have trouble with large, low DCV creatures constantly sucking up head shots from archers and spell casters until the stun overwhelms them?

I had a dragon attack my party last night. At first it was truely terrifying and they ran around screaming mostly. Then, an arrow sticks into its head (pumped with some MA and CLs) and while it only did 3 Body, it did a rediculous amount of stun. After defenses and reduction, down it went. Then they were coup de graceing it and pulling teeth before you can say WTF?

Seemed mighty anticlimactic.

I've been thinking of giving large creatures extra armor for the head area, and possibly larger PDs then the Beastiary's suggest.

any other thoughts?

[AmadanNaBriona]

Does anyone have trouble with large, low DCV creatures constantly sucking up head shots from archers and spell casters until the stun overwhelms them?

I had a dragon attack my party last night. At first it was truely terrifying and they ran around screaming mostly. Then, an arrow sticks into its head (pumped with some MA and CLs) and while it only did 3 Body, it did a rediculous amount of stun. After defenses and reduction, down it went. Then they were coup de graceing it and pulling teeth before you can say WTF?

Seemed mighty anticlimactic.

I've been thinking of giving large creatures extra armor for the head area, and possibly larger PDs then the Beastiary's suggest.

any other thoughts?

Yep.
All the time. My main solution has been, as you suggested, to upgrade the defences. I toughen up my big critters by quite a bit, and have a couple of things I consistently do to that end.
Right off the bat... Big things are frankly harder to hurt, realistically. Heavy, possibly aremored skin, backed with a dermal muscle layer, underlying fat layer & connective tissue before you even get seriuusly into functional muscles, serious vessels and vital organs. The minimal natural armor just doesn't do it for me most of the time. My solution has been to almost universally apply Damage Reduction. In my mind, DamRed is a common option with the Size templates. Its not hard to come up with a tier system if you want to codify base levels, but I've found it's not needed. The only thing I do 90% of the time is slap on a variation of the -1/4 "Real Armor" limit ("Real Natural Armor", the main limit being that the DamRed scales to the attacks at GM's discretion. A 3d6 RKA (Achieved through CSL's & martial arts) arrow, for instance, probably gets the DR... the basic scale of the arrow is for approximately human sized up to game animal sized targets. A 3d6 RKA Balista, however, might not take the full reduction. Thered probably be a way of creating some mechanics by comparing Mass multiples versus base DC's, but thus far I haven't bothered.

Another idea I've considered in some campaign settings to build in some "everyman" armor using both the sectional DEF and Activation rolls to represent locations that are defended by bone mass. Say 2 PD armor on a 14- for the head locations, 1 PD on an 11- for the shoulders, chest, and vitals for a human scale target, and add +1 Def per doubling of mass. This allows for the "I shot it in the head, but the bullet deflected off the skull" effect.

Grrr... there was a good thread discussing this back a year and a half ago, IIRC. It was before Fox1 left, IIRC, and discussed among other things making Dinosaurs a credible threat.

[ghost-angel]

Damage Reduction perhaps? 75% usually takes the sting out of just about any attack.

[Sir Ofeelya]

About ten years ago I was hunting and shot a deer with my trusty .303. Head shot and dropped the deer where it stood. Clambered down the ridge to get it and when we got to it the deer got up, shook it's head and ran away. One of the other guys took it down. First shot had glanced off it's head (in game terms perhaps 3 BOD, but stacks of stun). Now I know a deer isn't as tough as a dragon but I guess it happens sometimes.

[Curufea]

I'm thinking that getting rid of the hit location multiples for large creatures versus small weapons may be a good idea.
You could just use the table for large creatures versus large weapons only (ie a Dragon versus a Giant)

[Killer Shrike]

You can either control the STUN multiple, or give your serious threat monsters Damage Reduction, extra defense, high CON, extra STUN, or whatever combination will work best for your campaign.

[Edsel]

The simplest solution might be to rule that certain large creatures, such as dragons, are physiologically different and suffer less of a stun multiple to areas such as the head. For instance the dragon might only take a x4 or x3 Stun Multiple from head hits.

[Lord Liaden]

The Stun Lottery at work again. ;) This is one of the features of how Stun Multipliers and Hit Locations can interact, which can be a benefit or a drawback depending on whether or not you want your PCs to be able to occasionally make incredibly good (or incredibly bad) shots as a matter of luck.

Controlling Stun damage as Killer Shrike suggests is one alternative. I should also point out that arrows in HERO are built with the Real Weapon Limitation, and part of that Lim is that the weapon may not damage objects that it could not reasonably affect in the real world, regardless of what the dice roll says. So as GM you're well within your rights to say that for head shots to a dragon, past a certain point the dragon simply won't take more Stun from a measly arrow.

[Hugh Neilson]

From a balance perspective, if the creature gets freebies for being large, it should have reduced or eliminated Disadvantages related to its size. The biggest in combat drawback to size is the lack of DCV, and the ease of such called shots. I'd rather buy the creature an ability that covers this enhanced defense. Plus, I'd rather know the real cost of the creature in case someone wants a spell to summon one, transform into one, etc.

What about buying the beast extra defenses that are limited to only reduce STUN to, say, double or triple the base BOD damage, essentially "buying off" the higher stun multiples.

Of course, your PC's may then also want to buy some "harder to stun" abilities, but if it's fair for NPC's, it should also be fair for PC's.

[Lord Liaden]

Well, if we're talking about buying extra Powers to compensate, how about allowing your dragons the Automaton Power, "No Hit Locations" (10 Character Points)? The dragon's armor is just too thick and tough overall for any particular area of its body to be more vulnerable.

If you do want the dragon to have a weak spot - perhaps much harder to attack, such as the traditional underbelly - you could give the dragon a Vulnerability Disadvantage from attacks to that area.

[CrosshairCollie]

I generally agree with the 'boost defenses' concept. It's not really a 'Stun Lottery' thing, since it's not like your PCs are randomly throwing killing attacks in hopes of a high StunX ... they know they can get the StunX due to hit locations. Since you can be reasonably assured your PCs can get 5s on their StunXs, account for that when designing the opposition. :)

[Eosin]

I guess the best answer depends on your conception of dragons.

Middle-Earth Dragons, for instance, might have 15 rPD with 75% Damage Reduction (not versus weapons forged to kill dragons, not versus giant sized weapons like a ballista, and not in area 3 (in this case area 3 being the one weak point of its armor)).

Big fire-breathing lizards might just have 18 rPD with no DR.

Forgotten Realms Dragons might have Dragonmagic armor, rings of defense, and an ugly high DCV with no hit locations (or takes no STUN). Each depending on its age.

[Lord Liaden]

I can suggest one other tack. I devised a House Rule to encourage players to vary their attack choices in combat, so that they didn't always rely on the same tactic. It's essentially a reverse of the rule for Surprise Moves, which I call "Predictable Move." If a character uses the same mode of attack repeatedly, the target gets the benefit of being able to anticipate that attack and prepare for it, translating to a DCV bonus of +1 to +3 or even higher versus that attack. The bonus remains in effect until the attacker chooses a different type of attack, or comes up with a creative variant on his usual one. This bonus can also apply to OCV against an opponent who repeatedly chooses the same defensive Maneuver or Power, e.g. Dodge, Block, Missile Deflection etc.

So, if the PCs are always attempting head shots against your giant monster, and the monster is intelligent like most dragons are depicted, that monster will pick up on their tactic and make himself harder to hit that way.

[Bismark]

At times like this I have fond memories of the Rolemaster Large Creatures Critical and Super-Large Creatures Critical tables :D

I think the way to go with large beasties is Damage Reduction and/or a honking large amount of PD (plus, justify a way for the beastie's skin to be at least 1 pt of resistant defence - which should not be hard, to be honest). For a really tough cookie you could combine them - I did that with a lamia once and the party had to 'nickle and dime' it to death as they could not Stun it no matter what they tried (and these were 225pt epic Greek heroes - i.e., "combat monsters").

One of these days I will codify some rules I have been trying to work on regarding low-momentum weapons without massive kinetic energy (i.e. arrows, light slingshot, light javelins etc.) against people in armour (especially padded types, rigid types or both) - it is way too easy to Stun someone with arrows in HERO, even when they are wearing a plate helmet and it is not point-blank range. I was considering using a Reduced STUN multiplier mod or maybe a negative Piercing effect to simulate this.

A human-sized sword against a massive dragon would be like trying to stab a human with a hat pin - can be dangerous or even fatal, but STUN? Forget it!

[Lord Liaden]

One of the things I've done with weapons built with the Real Weapon Limitation, especially in supers campaigns, is to set a limit on what Stun damage can be done with them based on the weapon's Body damage potential vs. the target's Defense. Using this scenario as an example, I might rule that if the weapon with Real Weapon is not capable of doing Body damage to a target past its Defense using Standard Effect to calculate Body damage, then the Stun that it does is reduced however the GM thinks is appropriate, e.g. as if the weapon had Reduced Penetration, or minimum or even no Stun damage.

That should keep arrows and the like from being overly effective.

[Tywyll]

Its too bad that Hit Locations are Optional Rules and there are not powers that are specifically designed to work with them (there are some kluge powers in Valdorian age, but nothing where you can flat out buy reduced stun in a specific location, or something like that).

[Frenchman]

Its too bad that Hit Locations are Optional Rules and there are not powers that are specifically designed to work with them (there are some kluge powers in Valdorian age, but nothing where you can flat out buy reduced stun in a specific location, or something like that).
Sure you can. Buy a 1/1 Force Wall with Zero End and Trigger (+1). This knocks off not just a point of body, but also that points stun multiple. Give the dragon 10 points of FW instead of Armor, and it becomes nigh-impossible to deal stun to it.

[Vanguard]

Does anyone have trouble with large, low DCV creatures constantly sucking up head shots from archers and spell casters until the stun overwhelms them?

I had a dragon attack my party last night. At first it was truely terrifying and they ran around screaming mostly. Then, an arrow sticks into its head (pumped with some MA and CLs) and while it only did 3 Body, it did a rediculous amount of stun. After defenses and reduction, down it went. Then they were coup de graceing it and pulling teeth before you can say WTF?

Seemed mighty anticlimactic.

I've been thinking of giving large creatures extra armor for the head area, and possibly larger PDs then the Beastiary's suggest.

any other thoughts?

Probably too late to answer but here goes anyway . .

We had this come up in our Gatecrasher game with the sniper not only wanting to go for a head shot, but wanting to hit it in the eye as well. Wildcat sat there and thought about it for a moment and then said, "Hey guys, if you shoot my dragon in the head, the session is not only going to be over but it's going to be a very anti-climatic ending as well".

What we decided is that the Large Creatures don't get the minus to their DCV for called shots like that because it's just makes it ridiculously easy to hit them in vital locations.

If you beef up the defenses, then the only time you are doing damage is when you hit them in those vital locations . . so we thought it would be better for cinematic sense, to just do away with Size mods for Location hits.

It's worked rather well so far.

[Lord Liaden]

:think:

Some things seem so obvious after someone points them out. :)

[PhilFleischmann]

I can suggest one other tack. I devised a House Rule to encourage players to vary their attack choices in combat, so that they didn't always rely on the same tactic. It's essentially a reverse of the rule for Surprise Moves, which I call "Predictable Move." If a character uses the same mode of attack repeatedly, the target gets the benefit of being able to anticipate that attack and prepare for it, translating to a DCV bonus of +1 to +3 or even higher versus that attack. The bonus remains in effect until the attacker chooses a different type of attack, or comes up with a creative variant on his usual one. This bonus can also apply to OCV against an opponent who repeatedly chooses the same defensive Maneuver or Power, e.g. Dodge, Block, Missile Deflection etc.

So, if the PCs are always attempting head shots against your giant monster, and the monster is intelligent like most dragons are depicted, that monster will pick up on their tactic and make himself harder to hit that way.
That's a very interesting idea! It inspired in me the following thought: How 'bout a specific defensive maneuver (maybe not the best term) to reflect protecting certain hit locations? You modify your stance being aware of your attacker(s) and the location(s) they're likely to attack. Something like this:

Location Dodge 1/2 phase (no OCV) +1 DCV | +5 DCV only vs one hit location, abort
Location Block 1/2 phase -1 OCV -1 DCV | +2 OCV, +2 DCV to Block attacks vs. one hit location (you can block attacks against other locations at the -1 given), Abort
Location Defensive Stance 1/2 Phase +0 OCV -1 DCV | Attack, +2 DCV vs one hit location

But as a general solution to the problem, I'd suggest Damage Reduction - STUN Only. That way they still take the normal amount of BODY. Have you ever met anyone whom, on meeting a dragon, didn't kill it? Have you ever met anyone who knocked it unconscious or stunned it before delivering the killing blow?

[Hugh Neilson]

Have you ever met anyone whom, on meeting a dragon, didn't kill it? Have you ever met anyone who knocked it unconscious or stunned it before delivering the killing blow?

I've never met anyone who has met a dragon, actually. I guess I live a very sheltered life.

[PhilFleischmann]

I've never met anyone who has met a dragon, actually. I guess I live a very sheltered life.
And therefore your answer to both of the questions I posed is "no." Q.E.D.

[SCUBA Hero]

Its too bad that Hit Locations are Optional Rules and there are not powers that are specifically designed to work with them (there are some kluge powers in Valdorian age, but nothing where you can flat out buy reduced stun in a specific location, or something like that).How about buying Stun Only Damage Reduction with a Limitation based on the Activation Roll that the body part(s) cover?

[Thia Halmades]

Does anyone have trouble with large, low DCV creatures constantly sucking up head shots from archers and spell casters until the stun overwhelms them?

I had a dragon attack my party last night. At first it was truely terrifying and they ran around screaming mostly. Then, an arrow sticks into its head (pumped with some MA and CLs) and while it only did 3 Body, it did a rediculous amount of stun. After defenses and reduction, down it went. Then they were coup de graceing it and pulling teeth before you can say WTF?

Seemed mighty anticlimactic.

I've been thinking of giving large creatures extra armor for the head area, and possibly larger PDs then the Beastiary's suggest.

any other thoughts?

I apologize to my fellow board lords, I haven't read many of the responses, but here's a few basics:

- Don't disclose the amount of STUN he takes, including handwaving some basic Damage Resistance vs. STUN if you need too

- Employ a STUN cap; for example, our group uses x3 as the MAX prior to modifications and/or hit locations

- As you say, armor the head; a big ass dragon with a scaled head may require +AP on the weapon (or +PEN) before STUN becomes a factor - there's no rule for it, but you could also have him resist STUN Multipliers on Killing Attacks; for example, I deal 8 BODY and x5 (or 40) STUN; your MOD resists 2 STUN multipliers, so I only deal 24 STUN, and his PD takes over at that point.

- This would be very helpful if you want him to resist being STUNNED in a Rules Legal sense (which many around here seem to want to do - justify everything) but still want some BODY to get through.

Some thoughts.

[Hugh Neilson]

Damage Reduction, Stun only.

25%, only when struck in a location with 3x or more stun multiple

50%, only when struck in a location with 4x or more stun multiple

75%, only when struck in a location with 5x stun multiple

That should solve the problem.

[Aside to Phil - I guess I can't argue with that logic!]

[Pattern Ghost]

Sounds like a weak dragon to me.

I don't have the new FH, but I have the old one sitting here. It seems that this is a problem of balancing the damage output vs. the monsters. In the old fantasy hero, a Very Heavy Longbow is 2d6+1K. The old FH dragon short writeup has 14 PD/9 PD armor (so 23/9r PD), 30 Body and 80 STUN.

Before adding any damage through skill levels or martial arts , the bow's max damage would be 13 BODY/65 STUN. The dragon would take 4 BODY and 42 STUN if everything came up 6's. You'd normally not get more than one roll like that in a combat, if at all, so while it's a boatload of STUN, it's still sort of OK.

Now, when 4th Edition FH was written, the author probably had in mind that you could add a bit of damage from combat skill levels, though the average character wouldn't have too many to throw to damage anyway, and ranged Martial Arts were probably considered out of genre.

However, push that bow to max DCs with levels and MAs maneuvers, and you're cranking out 4.5d6K. That's a max 27 BDY/135 STUN if everything comes up roses, and there are no added stun multiples involved. Same 4th Edition dragon would be hurting plenty in that case. That's 18 BODY/112 STUN, for essentially a one-shotted dragon.

If the new edition of FH has similar DCs for the weapons and similar defenses for the dragons, then something is unbalanced.

I'd say just give big critters a bit of DR versus Stun only. Stuff that's very big and noted for having a slow to respond nervous system such as grizzly bears, rhinos, elephants, cape buffalo, give 25% vs Stun. For stuff that's larger, such as monsters on the order of medium dragons, medium giants, giant bugs, whatever, go for 50%. For the really scary beasties, sitting at the top of the food chain, give 75%. If it's big, it shouldn't be stunned down easily. An arrow only makes so much of a hole (unless you're the Dukes of Hazzard and you have dynamite arrows... yeee haw!), so it's not likely to stun something the size of a dragon. Most large game animals don't just fold up and die when fatally wounded, they bleed out. Same thing here. Make the body count for taking down big beasties and not the stun.

Also, look at the max your characters can dish out when figuring out how tough to make your monsters, as well as the average damage, so you won't be surprised if a serious threat is one shotted. Make your beasties one-shot proof.

[Pattern Ghost]

Of course, you could go with my first thought: Why does a dragon take extra damage from a head shot?

Make it a called shot to the eyes, nostrils, ear openings if present, or the open mouth. Then apply a ton of penalties for the small target.

Dragons aren't supposed to have vulnerable spots. When your head is the size of a largish normal critter, and probably very heavily armored as well, do you take extra damage from being hit there? I think not. A lot of real world critters have heavily armored heads to the point of shooting them with high powered rifles in the head is generally considered a very bad idea. Same could go for dragons.

[SCUBA Hero]

Does anyone have trouble with large, low DCV creatures constantly sucking up head shots from archers and spell casters until the stun overwhelms them?

I had a dragon attack my party last night. At first it was truely terrifying and they ran around screaming mostly. Then, an arrow sticks into its head (pumped with some MA and CLs) and while it only did 3 Body, it did a rediculous amount of stun. After defenses and reduction, down it went. Then they were coup de graceing it and pulling teeth before you can say WTF?

Seemed mighty anticlimactic.

I've been thinking of giving large creatures extra armor for the head area, and possibly larger PDs then the Beastiary's suggest.

any other thoughts?(Note: I'm using the Greater Dragon from the Bestiary.)

First, the DCV is 8 (base) - 8 (Gigantic) + 8 (Head shot) = 8. Not the hardest shot, but not a gimme, either. Add in any Range Modifier.

Okay, so the arrow does 24 Body rolled on the dice with a Called Shot to the Head. Subtract 20 (rPD) and 4 Body is left, halved for Damage Reduction and 2 Body is left, doubled for a Head hit and 4 Body is done to the dragon. (Note: With the last Body damage step being x2 for the Head location, I can't get an odd number of Body damage.)

Stun damage: 24 (Body rolled) * 5 (Head hit) = 120. 120 - 28 (pd) = 92. 92 * 0.5 (Damage Reduction) = 46 Stun taken. A Greater Dragon would be Stunned.

(Note that the minimum Body rolled on a Head shot to Stun the Greater Dragon is 20.)

Heck, maybe the archer did get lucky and hit the thing in the eye... how often can the archer roll 24 Body?

[Pattern Ghost]

Looks like that dragon's a heck of a lot tougher than the old generic one.

[Lord Liaden]

The thing is that the HERO System Bestiary has optional Hit Location charts for various animals, includng a "Draconic" chart which has the usual x5 Stun Multiplier for a successful head shot. While it's not required that that be used, in a campaign with Hit Locations it's understandable for a GM to want to use that chart or to assume that he should.

[Pattern Ghost]

Fair enough, but the problem with the charts, the critter write ups and the weapons write ups, along with all the combat rules options is that it can all add up to a very short fight if the GM isn't concious of the max potential for damage he's handing his players. Some tweaking is bound to be needed somewhere.

If you take too many tools out of the Hero toolkit, you run the risk of dropping one on your foot. =D

[Tywyll]

(Note: I'm using the Greater Dragon from the Bestiary.)



ACtually it was the Acid Dragon from the MMM, only 12 PD defenses and I think 25% Dam Reduction.

[Tywyll]

Sounds like a weak dragon to me.

The attack did 3 Body. The max stun mulitplier roll on an attack
without the increased stun multiple advantage is 5. A head shot does x5 Stun
for Killing Attacks according to the hit location table. That's *15
STUN* either way.

Except that the Stun multiplier comes off of Damage rolled, rather than DAmage taken, so the 3 Body actually came from an attack that did 15 total, x5 for Head Shot, for 75 stun. After its (poorly built) PD of 12 (because the dragons are built with Damage Resistance rather than Armor for some bizarro reason), and then 25% Damage Red (if I remember correctly), leaves him sucking 47 Stun.

Not much can take that. *shrug*

I do agree that book dragons are weak though.

[Hugh Neilson]

The thing is that the HERO System Bestiary has optional Hit Location charts for various animals, includng a "Draconic" chart which has the usual x5 Stun Multiplier for a successful head shot. While it's not required that that be used, in a campaign with Hit Locations it's understandable for a GM to want to use that chart or to assume that he should.

I think it's also understandable for players to expect similar rules to apply to their opponents as apply to them. If you don't want your Dragon taken out by a single shot to the head, perhaps the best solution is to remove hit locations from your game entirely and apply a standard Stun multiple of 3 to all hits - whether against dragons or knights!

[Vanguard]

I think it's also understandable for players to expect similar rules to apply to their opponents as apply to them. If you don't want your Dragon taken out by a single shot to the head, perhaps the best solution is to remove hit locations from your game entirely and apply a standard Stun multiple of 3 to all hits - whether against dragons or knights!

Only problem I can see with this is that Hit Locations seem to be very useful in Heroic level games. It's kinda what sets them apart from Superheroic.

The thing is stricking a balance between CV's, damage delt and defenses. Which seems to be what Tywyll is running up against. It took us awhile in Gatecrashers to come to a balance between the three.

[Thia Halmades]

Except that the Stun multiplier comes off of Damage rolled, rather than DAmage taken, so the 3 Body actually came from an attack that did 15 total, x5 for Head Shot, for 75 stun. After its (poorly built) PD of 12 (because the dragons are built with Damage Resistance rather than Armor for some bizarro reason), and then 25% Damage Red (if I remember correctly), leaves him sucking 47 Stun.

Not much can take that. *shrug*

I do agree that book dragons are weak though.

*sucks down another Fresca*

Oh. The reason that bigger badder creatures are built with Damage Reduction (or DR as I refer to it) instead of Armor is pretty straight forward. Enough rPD and you take no BODY. Period, you just take no BODY, you're good to go. You're a tank in a world without LAW rockets. Damage Reduction is horrible, it's brutal, but it's also necessary, unless your party has +PEN weaponry, or +AP rounds. Even then, there's no guarantee.

I mean, seriously, I watched a Krav Maga specialist roll 4 1s in damage in my last game (1, 1, 1, 1, I kid you not). It defined embarrassing. However, if Armor were added commesurate with how we imagine dragons to be, you would pretty much need anti tank weaponry to deal damage to it. This is the one Advantage of a hit point system; you're almost always doing SOMETHING, but then, as I say, that's what STUN is for.

If your heavy fighter is wielding a Great Sword for 2d6, and he comes up on a Dragon, there are a few things to keep in mind. First, unless he's purchased Dragon Slayer, +2d6 Killing v. Dragons as a special ability (from FH), he maxes out at 4d6, or an average of 14 BODY. A 9 rPD Dragon is going to ignore most of his 2d6 swings and only be taking STUN damage. The best chance the party has is to either STUN the SOB or CON STUN him to give themselves a chance.

Or start casting Major Transforms at it. :D

But in the case of your Dragon, the easiest way to look at it might be like this. First, determine how tough the dragon would be at normal people size - we'll say it's got a scaly hide that's pretty well reinforced - 5 DEF. Now for every size category past Large, we add 1 DEF. By the time you get to Dragon size you're in the 8-9 range (Plate Mail). This is commesurate with the d20 system as well, but in HERO it might not be the best solution. Hence, Damage Reduction. Still take STUN, still take BODY without going nuts on the armor.

[SCUBA Hero]

ACtually it was the Acid Dragon from the MMM, only 12 PD defenses and I think 25% Dam Reduction.Got it.


Except that the Stun multiplier comes off of Damage rolled, rather than DAmage taken, so the 3 Body actually came from an attack that did 15 total, x5 for Head Shot, for 75 stun. After its (poorly built) PD of 12 (because the dragons are built with Damage Resistance rather than Armor for some bizarro reason), and then 25% Damage Red (if I remember correctly), leaves him sucking 47 Stun.

Not much can take that. *shrug*

I do agree that book dragons are weak though.Okay, DCV is 7 (base) - 6 (Huge) + 8 (Head shot) = 9. Add in any Range Modifier.

The arrow does 15 Body rolled on the dice with a Called Shot to the Head. Subtract 12 (rPD) and 3 Body is left, minus one for Damage Reduction and 2 Body is left, doubled for a Head hit and 4 Body is done to the dragon.

Stun damage: 15 (Body rolled) * 5 (Head hit) = 75. 75 - 16 (pd) = 59. 59 * 0.75 (Damage Reduction) = 44 Stun taken, Stunning the Acid-Spitting Dragon.

15 Body on 3d6 is not unreasonable; I agree, the Acid-Spitting Dragon from MMM is much weaker than the Greater Dragon in the HSB.

[Pattern Ghost]

Except that the Stun multiplier comes off of Damage rolled, rather than DAmage taken, so the 3 Body actually came from an attack that did 15 total, x5 for Head Shot, for 75 stun. After its (poorly built) PD of 12 (because the dragons are built with Damage Resistance rather than Armor for some bizarro reason), and then 25% Damage Red (if I remember correctly), leaves him sucking 47 Stun.

Not much can take that. *shrug*

I do agree that book dragons are weak though.

You managed to quote a math error after I deleted it. Anyway, weak dragon, yeah.

[PhilFleischmann]

Another possibility (in house rule territory):

Reduce the STUN multiple by 1 for each size category larger than the size the attacker's weapon is for, e.g. bows and arrows sized to be used by a human are "human sized" and each size category larger the target is gets -1 STUNx.

Actually that seems a little too drastic. Instead, make it -1 STUNx for each 2 size categories larger. This way a horse-sized critter take the normal amount. But an elephant-sized dragon would only take x4 STUN from a head shot.

Keep the normal minimum STUNx. Or maybe simply reduce the maximum only, so that the Head is x4, but normal x4 areas are still x4.

And using this rule would mean that a giant (using giant-sized weapons) vs a dragon of roughly the same size would do the normal amount of STUN. And I guess humans using seige weapons vs a dragon would likewise have this penalty reduced as appropriate.

[Old Man]

I read this thread and am totally confused, since I'm still stuck in prehistoric versions of Hero where size had nothing to do with DCV. I can't ever remember fighting a dragon that was less than DCV 7. Size used to decrease penalties for range but that's it. Size absolutely does not equal slowness and it really absolutely shouldn't reduce DCV in melee. If that's the case now then it's a serious mistake in the current iteration of the rules.

[CUnknown]

DCV can only ever be halved, regardless of penalties, right? So, it seems that the Dragon's DCV on a head shot should be: 7 - 6 = 4 (half) + 8 = 12.

[SCUBA Hero]

I read this thread and am totally confused, since I'm still stuck in prehistoric versions of Hero where size had nothing to do with DCV. I can't ever remember fighting a dragon that was less than DCV 7. Size used to decrease penalties for range but that's it. Size absolutely does not equal slowness and it really absolutely shouldn't reduce DCV in melee. If that's the case now then it's a serious mistake in the current iteration of the rules.The size templates in 5er and the Bestiary have minus DCV penalties for size as Physical Limitations. That's where it comes from.

[SCUBA Hero]

DCV can only ever be halved, regardless of penalties, right?No; halving DCV is the last step, after all other +/- modifiers have been taken. IIRC, DCV can never be lower than zero.

IDHMBIFOM, though.

[Hugh Neilson]

I read this thread and am totally confused, since I'm still stuck in prehistoric versions of Hero where size had nothing to do with DCV. I can't ever remember fighting a dragon that was less than DCV 7. Size used to decrease penalties for range but that's it. Size absolutely does not equal slowness and it really absolutely shouldn't reduce DCV in melee. If that's the case now then it's a serious mistake in the current iteration of the rules.

I believe it was only in 3e that size (growth or shrinking) affected range penalties rather than DCV.

[Captain Obvious]

I've never met anyone who has met a dragon, actually. I guess I live a very sheltered life.

Most of them don't live to tell about it, I imagine.

[Old Man]

The size templates in 5er and the Bestiary have minus DCV penalties for size as Physical Limitations. That's where it comes from.

There's a lot of changes in 5th that I didn't like, but that one is retarded on several levels. What are DCV penalties doing in the disadvantages box? DCV penalties for levels of Growth aren't good enough? Why does being big make you slower? Didn't anyone think through the game balance implications that we now have to discuss in this thread?

[LoresLost]

There's a lot of changes in 5th that I didn't like, but that one is retarded on several levels. What are DCV penalties doing in the disadvantages box? DCV penalties for levels of Growth aren't good enough? Why does being big make you slower? Didn't anyone think through the game balance implications that we now have to discuss in this thread?

Not meaning to butt in, but the 5ER says not to use the Power: Growth (or Shrinking) (0 END always on) for Larger(/Smaller) then normal creatures but to use a bunch of Disads, other powers and Skills to build them.

I was building a character both ways, a 'fay' (6 inch humanoid), to see which way was more cost effective and found that it costs breaks for a only slightly for the Always on Shrinking (approx 60 pts for 4 lvls w always on vs the disadds +8 DCV bonus + (Stealth 21-) + (Conselment 20- self only)) I seen this argument earlier this year in the rules forum and personally chalk it up to the same purpose as regeration being folded into healing, Instant Change folded into Transform, etc.
I can post my characters if you want to see it.

That is how the present official rules present Larger and Smaller then normal creatures(but then this is only a game and I would house much of it differently myself (If I where in game presently)):o

[Old Man]

the 5ER says not to use the Power: Growth (or Shrinking) (0 END always on) for Larger(/Smaller) then normal creatures but to use a bunch of Disads, other powers and Skills to build them.

Laaaame.

[mayapuppies]

Personally I just use the Growth/Shrinking stuff. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy that way.

[Hugh Neilson]

Personally, if a player brought me a character with Growth/Shrinking, Always On, Inherent rather than one that bought all the results of that Growth/Shrinking and called it "bigger/smaller", I'd be OK with that approach too. However, as I read 5e, the intent is to rule that Growth and Shrinking allow a character to change his size, not be permanently of a different size, which is no big deal.

But I'm also OK with the player bringing me a character who simply purchased all the attributes which would have come with that level of Growth/Shrinking, and with one who leaves off some of those attributes on the basis that this specific character doesn't gain those benefits and/or suffer those drawbacks.

[PhilFleischmann]

We've changed the subject a bit, but that's OK. I have no comment re: the Always On Size Power vs. Buy Abilities and Take Disads debate, but I do want to share my house rule for CV adjustments due to size.

The current rules in 5th say that each doubling of size decreases DCV by 2, and each halving of size increases DCV by 2. This is a problem, IMO, because it means that two pixies fighting can never hit each other except on a 3. And two giants (of sufficient size) fighting can never miss each other except on an 18. This makes no sense.

Therefore, I change the adjustment so that each doubling of size decreases DCV and OCV by 1, and each halving of size increases DCV and OCV by 1. This way, a giant's chance to hit another giant is the same as a pixie's chance to hit another pixie, and the same as a human's chance to hit another human.

And I also have the OCV adjustments only apply to HTH.

This might seem like really big creatures can never hit you (a normal human), but remember that at big enough sizes (relative to the target), regular HtH strikes can become Area Effect attacks.

[Hugh Neilson]

The current rules in 5th say that each doubling of size decreases DCV by 2, and each halving of size increases DCV by 2. This is a problem, IMO, because it means that two pixies fighting can never hit each other except on a 3. And two giants (of sufficient size) fighting can never miss each other except on an 18. This makes no sense.

Therefore, I change the adjustment so that each doubling of size decreases DCV and OCV by 1, and each halving of size increases DCV and OCV by 1. This way, a giant's chance to hit another giant is the same as a pixie's chance to hit another pixie, and the same as a human's chance to hit another human.

[cone of silence]Don't tell anyone, but this is pretty much exactly what D&D 3.0+ does to deal with different sizes. We wouldn't want anyone to know D&D may have goten something right![/cone of silence]

What an innovative solution that I'm sure no game system has EVER considered before, Phil. Sorry I can't REP you at the moment. [that last is serious, unfortunately - one of your other good ideas appears to have been repp'ed to recently.]

[Lezentauw]

I don't use Dragons for my games, if I did it would not be pretty for the players.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the rules concerning size differences. I only applied the rules for the difference between the two opponents. As an example, a giant attacking another giant would follow the same rules as two humans fighting each other. Though, I have yet to through anything at the players that was not of the same size as they were...

I am not sure just hitting the dragon in the head would suffice for me. IMO the head would be the most protected aspect of the dragon, save maybe the inside of the mouth, nostril, ear or an eye. Now when you consider coupling the fact that most dragons that we think of are considered incredibly smart, long lived, and quick with its strike from its head. IMO I would not use the size modification in it entirity due to SFX, nor the hit location table as written.

IMO, the archer is not trying to hit the dragon in the head, that would produce the same result as trying to hit it in the chest. He is instead trying to hit the dragon in the eye. That is no longer the same proportion, and as such I would probably not use any of the size modification to the ocv due to porportion and movement of the serpentine neck. If the archer was trying to hit the dragon in the mouth, I would only use half of the size modification (as I would consider the mouth about half the size of the head), and use the stomach location as the damage result.

If you want the ability to one shot kill a dragon to be a legendary shot, then it still should be. Especially when you consider that in this case the sfx of the dragon defenses should overrule the game mechanic of the hit location table and the size adjustments.

Now if that dragon was to look through a door, with the archer ready with a drawn arrow waiting for the dragon to do something stupid like that, all bets would be off then...

[Frenchman]

I read this thread and am totally confused, since I'm still stuck in prehistoric versions of Hero where size had nothing to do with DCV. I can't ever remember fighting a dragon that was less than DCV 7. Size used to decrease penalties for range but that's it. Size absolutely does not equal slowness and it really absolutely shouldn't reduce DCV in melee. If that's the case now then it's a serious mistake in the current iteration of the rules.
Sorry to derail the thread even further, but this knocked me for a loop, and I'm just curious on why you think that an object's size has nothing to do with how hard it is to hit it, especially in melee. Last time I checked, it's a whole hell of a lot harder to hit a fly with a flyswatter than it is to, say, swat my dog with it. The fly isn't really moving any faster than the dog; at least not absolutely.
So why shouldn't a dragon, or an elephant, or any other big creature be easier to hit? If the relative speed of the dragon was the same as the relative speed of a person, then I could see that, but I'm pretty sure that most Enourmous (16xhuman size) dragons don't have 96" of movement. So since this dragon is the size of a barn, and is moving at a lower relative speed (IOW it can't move its entire body length as quickly as a human can move a human body length), shouldn't it be significantly easier to hit than another human-sized creature?
Anyways, sorry to be so vociferous, I'm just curious as to why size shouldn't relate to DCV. (BTW, I agree with many of your other points)

[Vondy]

I've traditionally given really big or uber tough creatures some level of damage reduction, but using a different StunX chart for them could also work. An oddball solution might be to purchase a naked "advantage" using reduced stun multiplier limitation with the desired FX delineated.

[Hugh Neilson]

I've traditionally given really big or uber tough creatures some level of damage reduction, but using a different StunX chart for them could also work. An oddball solution might be to purchase a naked "advantage" using reduced stun multiplier limitation with the desired FX delineated.

That last approach seems no less complicated than Damage Reduction at varying levels depending on Stun Multiple.

[Vondy]

That last approach seems no less complicated than Damage Reduction at varying levels depending on Stun Multiple.

I don't think its more complicated - its just unusual. Personally, I think it would allow greater granularity since it would have to specify FX and be scaled to a maximum active point level it could effect, but I've never seen it done before. Hence, my comment.

[Old Man]

The fly isn't really moving any faster than the dog; at least not absolutely.

Sure it is, or at least, much more erratically. A fly has a high DCV. A caterpillar is about the same size. Do you have trouble hitting caterpillars with a flyswatter?


So why shouldn't a dragon, or an elephant, or any other big creature be easier to hit? If the relative speed of the dragon was the same as the relative speed of a person, then I could see that, but I'm pretty sure that most Enourmous (16xhuman size) dragons don't have 96" of movement. So since this dragon is the size of a barn, and is moving at a lower relative speed (IOW it can't move its entire body length as quickly as a human can move a human body length), shouldn't it be significantly easier to hit than another human-sized creature?

Because DCV has more to do with agility than with either size or speed.



Anyways, sorry to be so vociferous, I'm just curious as to why size shouldn't relate to DCV. (BTW, I agree with many of your other points)

In melee, size has practically nothing to do with DCV. The agility of the defender is all that matters. I wouldn't consider an elephant to be easier to hit in melee than a caterpillar. Size should make it easier to hit a target at range, but older Hero versions accomplished this by having size affect range penalties rather than outright DCV. At any rate, it's pretty clear by the discussion here that the size modifiers are out of proportion to game balance requirements.

[Frenchman]

Sure it is, or at least, much more erratically. A fly has a high DCV. A caterpillar is about the same size. Do you have trouble hitting caterpillars with a flyswatter?

I meant to point out that while the fly is moving at around the same speed at a dog (call it 10 units per second) it has a much greater relative speed because it can move more of its own body lengths per second than the dog can, thus making it much harder to hit. If the dog could move itself around at the same relative speed as the fly...it'd be a good time to bring back the dog-drawn chariot.
The fly is harder to hit because its relative speed is faster than the dogs. If a dragon (to pick a totally random example) can move itself around at the same relative speed as a human (lets pretend this is 1.5 body lengths per second) then it should have a DCV equal to that of a human. If it can move that fast, then a 50' dragon should also have a flight speed of ~70". I just don't see dragons moving that fast - and I certainly don't see other really big things moving that fast either.


In melee, size has practically nothing to do with DCV. The agility of the defender is all that matters. I wouldn't consider an elephant to be easier to hit in melee than a caterpillar. Size should make it easier to hit a target at range, but older Hero versions accomplished this by having size affect range penalties rather than outright DCV. At any rate, it's pretty clear by the discussion here that the size modifiers are out of proportion to game balance requirements.

Saying that agility is the only factor which determines DCV is a pretty narrow view - this is HERO after all. What about deflector shields and being so ugly that your foes can't stand to look at you?
Remembering that we are using generic example creatures here, the second half of this paragraph seems to indicate that hitting an elephant with a stick in melee is of equal difficulty as hitting a caterpillar. While I've never swung a stick at a caterpillar or an elephant, I have swung sticks at small rocks and horses (training crop). While I missed the stationary rocks plenty of times, I never missed the mobile horse.
Not only do you indicate that a large/small thing is no easier/harder to hit due to its size in melee, but that they become so if I were to step back 3 feet and throw the stick instead. I cannot imagine why an elephant could dodge a stick in my hand, but has a much harder time dodging it if I throw the stick at it from a couple feet away.


Because DCV has more to do with agility than with either size or speed.

I happen to think that DCV can be represented by many things in HERO, and I think that size (in addition to agility) are the most important factors in determining it.
Thank you for elucidating your position, but I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

[Vondy]

As I understand it, DCV is merely an abstraction of how hard an object is to hit. As a result, DCV can represent virtually any concrete effect that makes something more or less difficult to hit, though agility and size are the most common effects that impact play.

[Old Man]

Not only do you indicate that a large/small thing is no easier/harder to hit due to its size in melee, but that they become so if I were to step back 3 feet and throw the stick instead. I cannot imagine why an elephant could dodge a stick in my hand, but has a much harder time dodging it if I throw the stick at it from a couple feet away.

You're either misreading my post or being disingenuous. Range mods don't typically apply at ranges of two or three feet, so it wouldn't matter whether you hold on to the stick or not.

A better comparison would be to pick two animals of differing sizes and roughly equivalent agility. Which is easier to hit with a sword, a bull or an elephant? Which is easier to hit with a spear at 50 yards? I suggest that they are roughly equivalent in the former case, while the elephant has a significant disadvantage in the latter.


I happen to think that DCV can be represented by many things in HERO, and I think that size (in addition to agility) are the most important factors in determining it.

Size is important, at range, but it's clear that the kludge adopted in 5th ed. Hero is disproportionate, unrealistic, and unbalanced.

[Lord Liaden]

In fact since Fourth Edition came out, published writeups for creatures that used Growth or Shrinking to be larger or smaller than human have included DCV penalties or bonuses, because those are part of the the benefits/drawbacks of those Powers. So this has long been an official part of the system. And if you compare the descriptions of the actual proportions of creatures using those Powers to the descriptions for the new Fifth Edition size templates, you'll notice that the DCV penalties for both are the same for creatures of the same size. The approach that Steve Long has taken is to break down the benefits and drawbacks of different sizes. What I like about this approach is that it allows you to use only particular elements of the templates for different sizes if you don't want the whole package, whereas with Always On Growth or Shrinking you're forced to take on a whole slew of elements which you may not want.

Regarding creatures of different-from-human sizes duking it out and dealing with their own Size Penalties or Bonuses, I noticed that "human size" is treated as the CV baseline for these writeups. Larger than human is easier to hit, smaller than human is harder. From these examples I extrapolated that giant things are more practiced at attacking targets smaller than themselves, and tiny things at attacking targets that are larger. So, when two creatures who are both larger or both smaller than human fight each other, I find the difference in their DCV penalties or bonuses, and use that as the modifier between them. For example, if a hill giant is rumbling with a dragon who's bigger than him, I find the difference between their DCV penalties, and apply that difference as a reduced penalty to the dragon, the larger of the two. Two dragons of the same size would suffer no DCV penalties - they cancel each other out. Same thing for a halfling and a pixie: the pixie's DCV bonus would be reduced by the amount of bonus that the halfling has. Two pixies dueling would be at net 0 DCV adjustment.

[SCUBA Hero]

Hugh Nielson in another thread noted the use of the 'No Hit Locations' Automaton Power is a good solution here, and I agree.