Fantasy Hero lethality

[slikmar]

Hey all,
This is for all of you who have played Fantasy Hero for a while and/or run the game.
I have a couple of players wondering about lethality (or lack thereof) in Fantasy Hero. Looking at numbers alone, the average weapon damage would seem to be between 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 d6 killing averaging from 5 to 9 body done. If you take a normal fighter in plate mail - rDef 8(please no "plate mail should be rare" arguments, its not in most games or books, especially where dwarves are an inclusive race) or even chain - Rdef 6, it would appear that a very little if any body gets through. Stun doesnt appear to be a problem, but it does appear as if there is a real lack of lethality in the game. How do you deal with this, do you use a, if knocked unconscious and your side loses you are dead or do you find the lethality is ok.
I ask this question because I am planning on trying to run a Fantasy Hero campaign just as soon as my book comes and would like to answer peoples questions.
Thanks in advance.

[Yamo]

Enemies are smart. They will use placed shots. That 2d6 crossbow bolt is a little scarier to mister knight when it's aimed right between his eyes or at a completely unarmored point.

Another solution is to set strict DEF limits. Five or six, say.

[TechnoViking]

There was a web page the had expanded hit location and armor rules for Fantasy Hero 4th. The hit location rules were interesting since I took in account for joint hits.

Mike

[Herolover]

Well first, I think you are considering the worse situation and not looking at all the facts. Second, BODY damage isn’t really where combat is at. The STUN damage is far more important in combat than the BODY. You have a far better chance of being knocked unconscious than you do have having your BODY reduced to 0 or below. Of course, in most combats going unconscious is the same as death.

1) Let us look at the damage first.
Average person with average sword is going to be doing 1d6+1K or about 4 BODY. The problem with this should be obvious. Your players shouldn’t be fighting the average person
A routinely trained warrior (say a city watchmen) will have some extra STR and some combat skill levels with the sword. That means they will be doing an extra +1-2 DC or about 1 1/2d6K or about 5-6 BODY.
A well trained warrior will be adding extra damage from STR and extra damage from skill levels. This means he will be doing anywhere from 1 1/2d6K to 2d6K. That should put him in the 6-7 BODY range.
Realize also, that I haven’t even mentioned the warrior that is very well trained and has some martial maneuvers with the sword.

2) Now let us look at the armor.
You say Plate mail. Remember the Knight in Plate mail in his time was equivalent to the M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank of our time. It should be difficult to damage a Knight in Plate. In, reality, leather armors should be the common armor with scale and chain being only a little more common. This means most people will have DEF’s of around 3-6. When people are dealing out 4-7 BODY in a shot DEF 3-6 seems about right.

A lot of what you want to do depends upon what kind of Fantasy campaign you are running. In low Fantasy heavy metal armors should be rare with leather and scale far more prevalent. Yes, wearing armor will prevent you from getting hurt, but when you do get hurt you will be hurt for long periods and the wounds can have debilitating effects on combat. (More on that in a moment.)

In a high Fantasy campaign, such as your average D&D campaign, yes metal armors are far more prevalent, but then you have Magic, stronger and more skilled characters, and more “heroic” things to even the score.

I am going to assume for a moment that you want some serious lethality in your campaign.

1) Hero System is designed for the movie types of heroes. It isn’t really designed for reality. I can handle that, but if you want the reality of how lethal weapons really are double the damage on all weapons. This sounds like a lot, but when you consider how lethal weapons are it really isn’t. This makes the average sword do something like 2d6K. Deadly…which is what a sword is.

2) Use all of the “Optional” Combat Rules. Even without doubling weapon damage this can be deadly.
First Hit Locations. These are awesome, because now when you hit you can really cut someone down to size.
Impairment and Disabling rules. These are also really good because sure you might not be near dying, but you can’t use your sword arm.
Bleeding. This adds a lot to the paperwork, but man does it make things deadly. All of a sudden when you get wounded you keep loosing Body. Opps.
Lastly when a person takes BODY use the optional rule that they have to make an EGO roll to do something.

I am currently running a Fantasy campaign that has some magic, but it is what I would consider low level heroic. The characters are 75+75 and here is what I have done.

First, as in RL, metal armors are rare. The average armor is leather types or armor with some chain and scale being rare and the Kngiht in Plate being even rarer. This means the average DEF is around 3-6. See my discussion on weapon damage above. I am using the Hit Location rules, Impairment and Bleeding.

Also, consider how quickly people hill. In my world there are alchemical potions of healing, but the average person with bed rest might regain 4-5 BODY in a MONTH! So if they take 6 BODY they will have it for a long time.

Hope any of this helped.

[slikmar]

Hey again,
Herolover, good suggestions.
To clarify, my game will be high fantasy - dwarves in plate/heavy chain not unusual, and i think the argument from my players is there is something unheroic about the concept of knocking opponents unconscious and slitting throats afterward. I think maybe, the mindset in this is to just go with the assumption of -10 stun or lower = death if your side loses, or increase damage of weapons (my initial thought was to increase by 3 DCs all weapons, but doubling may work).
Thanks again for your help everyone.

[Herolover]

No problem.

See my statements on High Fantasy.

One way to get around the "slitting throats problem" is how you run your NPC's. When they go down, just call them dead.
Also, realize that when the NPC goes down due to being "stunned," maybe they bleed to death before the PC's get to him.

[MarkusDark]

The trouble is not that the game is 'less lethal', but that damage is calculated differently than what most people are used to. In D&D, the game is set that it is an all or nothing attack. If your swing is low, you do no damage. If you hit, you do the same amount of damage whether it is against someone with plate or someone without armor. In Hero, if you hit, your potential of doing damage is based upon the type of armor they are wearing. I actually find this much more realistic than the typical hit point based system.

In the times of plate, people would carry daggers to force the surrender or kill those wearing full plate. The reason being that you could bludgeon them onto the ground but you would still have to get on top of him, take a dagger and find a place to slip it past the armor in order to kill them.

How many movies have you seen someone take a full on chest hit, only to be 'nursed' back to health later? You don't get that in the hit point system. If you have one hit point left, you are just as functional as if you were at full. In Hero, you get the stun/unconcious/bleeding out and all the other combinations to have a good, dramatic flair.

There are so many modifiers in Hero (2x damage when stunned, etc) that fantasy combat can be a little more dramatic than "I have one hit point left, I'll still attack." Remember, it takes all of one phase after someone is unconcious to slit their throat.

[AnotherSkip]

Herolover pretty much hit the nail on the head.

The real big differences are how much Body healing you have and round by round Stun.

Look at body healing: for ten points you get 1-3 points of body healed per day. that is it, not much else you can do.

I have a character who was wearing leathor plus a 10 point armor spell got shot by six arrows simultaneously early in his career (multible attackers). Though he took no Body, he took enough stun to put him in the "recovers at Gm's option" slot. Three days later (all while being pursued by our enemy) a friendly NPC Shaman heals me to the point where i can recover on my own. I was and still am the only party healer. I can keep the party going _outside_ of combat, but inside of combat it really really sucks.

Locations are also important. There are four spots that are doubled body(3-5, 14), suddenly the normal damage for an average person with 1d6+1 goes from 4 to 8 body on the average, sure plate will still stop that but the stronger and better armed people still will get above that.

in Hero there is _nothing_ that guarantees success.

[Vondy]

Eh?

An opponent who is stunned and knocked to the ground is dead in a remotely realistic setting. He's down for the count and a called shot to a weak point in the armor is easy.

Futher, plate armor should make it hard to be killed outright from a single blow. That's what it was designed to do. People wore it for a reason. If you take a sword and beat on a guy wearing a full suit of maxamillian plate you are far more likely to bludgeon and knock him around until he goes down than to kill him outright. That or you train for techniques that go for weak points and jam your weapon in their.

The evolution of several specialized weapons occured because of plate armor. Military hammers and picks, which were designed to penetrate and the like. Crossbows, picks, and their ilk should probably be given an AP bonus, but beyond that I think plate is fine where its at.

It doesn't take much to kill a downed foe. I know that's not "heroic", but it is realistic

[sbarron]

Critical hits. I read somewhere Steve saying Hero didn't have critical hits. I don't know if that is technichally true or not anymore. But when we play Fantasy Hero, whenever less than half of what is needed to hit an opponent is rolled, it is a critical hit. Example: 15- needed to hit, 7- needed for crit. This is why being having a stunned opponent is a big deal. It makes the crit much more likely. We always played that crits were max damage.

So in the example you gave of a character with a 2 1/2 d6 KA, a crit to the chest would result in 15 Bod and 45 Stun. After defenses (in plate) that would be 7 Body and about 29 Stun. This would be an impairing hit on most characters. It would stun almost anyone, and most likely put the victim into negative stun. That would (should) end the fight for most NPCs. I would let a PC heroically struggle on, and maybe a big villian, but no one else.

It can be very lethal to play in the Hero system. You just need to be sure to use the rules that reflect this style of play.

As a final note, Fred also states that for some fantasy genres, the STUN stat should be done away with entirely. Maybe you should consider that for you game. It would remove your players concerns about having to kill unconscious opponents. With no STUN, bad guys would stand up right up till they were dead, thus releaving your PCs of any guilt.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by sbarron
Critical hits. I read somewhere Steve saying Hero didn't have critical hits. I don't know if that is technichally true or not anymore. But when we play Fantasy Hero, whenever less than half of what is needed to hit an opponent is rolled, it is a critical hit. Example: 15- needed to hit, 7- needed for crit. This is why being having a stunned opponent is a big deal. It makes the crit much more likely. We always played that crits were max damage.

So in the example you gave of a character with a 2 1/2 d6 KA, a crit to the chest would result in 15 Bod and 45 Stun. After defenses (in plate) that would be 7 Body and about 29 Stun. This would be an impairing hit on most characters. It would stun almost anyone, and most likely put the victim into negative stun. That would (should) end the fight for most NPCs. I would let a PC heroically struggle on, and maybe a big villian, but no one else.

It can be very lethal to play in the Hero system. You just need to be sure to use the rules that reflect this style of play.

As a final note, Fred also states that for some fantasy genres, the STUN stat should be done away with entirely. Maybe you should consider that for you game. It would remove your players concerns about having to kill unconscious opponents. With no STUN, bad guys would stand up right up till they were dead, thus releaving your PCs of any guilt.

There is a critical hit option in UMA

If you make your roll by half of what you needed or more you do maximum body and stun (I think).

[Dauntless]

In settings that include plate mail the greatest danger wasn't getting stabbed or hacked to death, but running out of endurance or getting knocked unconscious. Either way, once that happens, you're as good as dead anyway.

In a battle between the French and English during Joan of Arc's time, some of the French knights had armor so heavy that they had to be hoisted onto their horses by a crane. It had rained the day before, and the field was extremely soggy and muddy. When the French Knights charged, the English Longbowmen had a field day, either mowing down the knights, or killing the horses and making the knights have to trudge through a muddy field in heavy armor to meet the English line. By that time, if they survived the arrow onslaught, they were so tired they got hacked to piecves by the English footline.

Platemail can be effective in one on one combat depending on what kind of weapon your adversary uses (imagine if he had a pick axe) but in mass combat, it's actually far less useful than you think.

As for damage ratings, remember to add in DC's from STR or from martial maneuvers...so that 1 1/2d6 sword could potentially turn into a 3d6 attack, doing on average 11pts of Body damage. That means one or two hacks and the average person will be dead even in plate mail. For realistic settings, I also always enforce the Wounding optional rule even for players. This also makes EGO a more valuable trait even if there are no psionics in the game.

[KnightWeaver]

One of the things that I love the most about the Hero system IS the lack of lethality. As a GM I know the PC's are supposed to win the combats. Not easily but they should win. I like the fact that in Heroe's I don't have to worry about killing off a PC from a stray sword or arrow hit.

As many have said an unconcious person in battle is a dead person when there side looses. You also don't die from most woulds initially it's usually infection or bleeding that causes you to die.

Knight Weaver

[Chris Goodwin]

In real life, "plate mail" was rare. It was expensive as hell, which is why the only guys who owned it were nobles.

In most fantasy fiction, it is rare as well.

As I mentioned to Yamo in another thread, if you want it to be more lethal, restrict armor DEF. Plain and simple. If you're the GM, you can do that. I don't buy complaints that combat isn't lethal enough when you're letting characters have 8 DEF armor.

[Blue]

I was never a big fan of the D&D "wearing tougher armor makes you harder to hit" setup. I realize their argument was that this "to hit" deals with the weapons ability to penetrate too, but to me that was always a little silly.

Then you get into the WotC/TSR contention that your attack round is not just one attack but actually a series of attacks that add up to the damage you did. Every single person who makes an attack and rolled well considered it to be a "great hit" not a great "series of hits".

Just makes more sense to have one swing = one roll, defenses seperate from your ability to avoid being hit.

But then I'm off on a rant, aren't I? What were we talking about again?

[CrosshairCollie]

Personally speaking, I don't want combat to be too lethal. In my experience, games where PC lethality is commonplace means that people don't put a lot of effort into making their characters special or memorable, or just don't put a lot of effort into it at all. If the character's going to die 20 minutes into the game, why go through the trouble?

[Old Man]

Conversely, if there is practically no risk to characters in a given fight, then combat becomes a boring exercise in dice rolling.

Game lethality is one of those fuzzy things where everyone has their own comfort level. I'm of the school where combat ought to be dangerous, otherwise there's nothing heroic about it.

[Gary]

Don't forget the haymaker! Against stunned or unaware opponents or if fighting with a spd advantage, you add +4 DC's! Those plate armors are going to be penetrated pretty quickly once those 1 1/2D6 attacks become 3D6. Or attacks such as passing strike while mounted.

[Blue Angel]

Haymakers are a great move for weaker NPC's to use. I had a bandit start using haymakers. He connected on the second attack and took a PC right out of the fight.:D

I find with hit location body multipliers there is plenty of room for lethality without making things Cthulhu deadly.

[Toadmaster]

There have already been a number of good suggestions so I won't repeat them.

I played in several FH campaigns over the years and one of the GM's I played with a lot twice converted the campaign back to D&D because he felt HERO was to lethal.

As far as heavy armor, it does tend to make one immune to damage, but using all the optional rules it becomes less so, multiple attackers bonus, hit locations, etc. I had one character with a set of DEF 8 plate, at first I could just wade into battle but after a few battles the GM got smart, many of the bad guys would gang up to get the multiple attackers bonus, then somebody with a pick or maul would take a head shot, as I recall the chracter died in the first battle the GM tried out his new tactics.

Another thing to limit heavy armor is make sure to include all the down sides, use long term endurance, game out putting on or taking off the armor (it takes quite some time), nothing like getting attacked while sleeping and having to fight in long johns while the leather wearing rogue becomes the tank for the day. Metal armor is hot and noisy, and it sinks, put the characters on a boat now and then. In general if the game includes much travelling as opposed to just dungeon crawls most players will probably willingly opt for scale or chain at the heaviest.

[Blue Angel]

Ouch Toadmaster.

Nothing like being the victim of an experiment gone right.

When considering lethality I usually consider the likely extreme rather than the average. The average damage assumes the low roles count. In general they don't mean anything (or at most very little).

With a single dice the likely extreme is a 6. With any larger number of dice I consider the likely extreme to be an average of 5 on each dice. With two dice this comes out to a role of 10. This is significant damage fo DEF 6 armor, especially if there is a body multiplier involved. A vitals or head hit would cause (10-6)*2=8 body. A pretty nasty hit.

The first day of my campaign the party faught a single Ogre for several turns. They just couldn't get a solid hit. Eventually (after suffering some serious injuries and a near decapitation) the Ogre just dropped dead from blood loss. One player was seriously amazed that the system could represent something being able to fight while bleeding to death. Hit point systems can't do that. Hero's way is much more heroic.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Gary
Don't forget the haymaker! Against stunned or unaware opponents or if fighting with a spd advantage, you add +4 DC's! Those plate armors are going to be penetrated pretty quickly once those 1 1/2D6 attacks become 3D6. Or attacks such as passing strike while mounted.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the DC's are halved with Killing Attacks, like all maneuvers. Still, it boosts the 1 1/2d6 Attack to 2d6+1, and some STR and a few levels can boost it still higher.

HERO can be extremely lethal with the right assumptions. Allow Haymakers left and right. Use Called Shots. Use levels to add to damage (the standard for Heroic Level games). And so on.

Take the Heavy Longbow: 2d6 Killing. Assuming I've been doing this right, Haymaker makes it 2 1/2d6 Killing. Every 2 levels (3 point levels or above) can give it another DC, so with 8 levels you are firing a 4d6 RKA's at people with around an 8 Resistant Defense.

That's a really good archer, you say? This is true, but that boy that was pulled into the military, fed meat regularly to increase his arm strength, trained heavily, and so on, doesn't need to be more than a 50 point character (25+25 Disads) to pull this off. Adventurers would do well not to mess with a town with even a small contingent of such troops unless they are really tough.

And the leader and trainer of these guys? 50+50, he actually has some life experiences outside of archery (Skills, some Characteristics perhaps, and some more Disads). And a few Penalty Levels for placing his 4d6 Killing arrows through the selected eye.

If lethality is what you want, it's there. This is why I don't bother increasing the damage of weapons.

[Alibear]

Originally posted by Dauntless


As for damage ratings, remember to add in DC's from STR or from martial maneuvers...so that 1 1/2d6 sword could potentially turn into a 3d6 attack,

Erm no. 3d6+1 actually.


And someone else said location 14 doubles damage, that should be location 13.

[Markdoc]

My advice would be: DON'T increase the damage of weapons - and I have been GMing Fantasy Hero games for nearly 20 years.... I've played in an FH game where the GM did this (remember, adding +1 DC to the weapon allows the player to add in another DC for STR/martial arts/levels...)

After a few adventures we quietly shifted weapon DC back (it was like "My, where did all these dead characters come from?")

I'd suggest you enjoy the fact that heavy armour characters are largely immune to small attacks - they can munch through low point opponents armed with small weapons, but they are still vulnerable to good hits or heavier weapons.

Doing your calculations off average damage gives an inaccurate impression. Sure many attacks will do little or no harm - but it only takes one or two good hits to kill or maim, and you can easily rack that up in an evening's play. Players don't remember the 15 hits that did no damage - they remember the arrow in the face that did 8 BOD. Remember, too, the difference in BOD between the mighty barbarian and the wimpy mage is often only 5-7 BOD - in other words one or two good hits. If you are coming from DnD, it's easy to overlook that.

If Trom Kothron wades into bunch of goblins in his heavy dwarven DEF8 armour then yes, the attacks that do 4 BOD are not going to inconvenience him much. But it only takes a few rolls of 9, before he is leaking blood - especially if they hit him somewhere sensitive.

In my no-magic game, I had 150 point PCs capable of cranking out 3d6 damage with high STR, levels and halberds or two handed swords (the sort of weapons favoured by heavily armoured knights, funnily enough...)

At that point, you are putting 3 BOD through on an AVERAGE hit, and a good roll (13, or 14 points of damage, not maximum, so we are talking about one hit in 6, or so) is going to put anyone into a world of hurt, even if you miss the soft squishy bits.

It was not normal by any means, but for the "mighty fighter" types in the party, one-shot kills on heavily armoured foes were not unknown. The rest of the party could crank out max damage between 2d6 and 2 1/2: still enough to put down a heavily armoured foe in one or two good shots.

And if you go to lightly armoured characters - ugh! You can trust me on this: you do not want players running around with 3d6 killing attacks.

That's the in-game rationale. But it meshes pretty well with real life - most people have a grossly exaggerated idea (from movies and TV, I guess) about how easy it is to kill someone with a blade (the same is true of guns for that matter). However in reality, in the west where the victim can get treatment, only about 3% of stabbings are fatal (that's inclusive of multiple stabbings, which account for about 20-30% of cases, but the vast majority of fatalities). Most victims are not wearing any kind of rDEF
:) but of course their attackers are usually only using 1/2 d6 to 1 d6 HKAs - say 1 to 1 1/2 d6 damage. Remember, most deaths are due to bleeding in the 300 to 400 TURNS after the stabbing :) so this damage level seems reasonable.

Looked at in that light, adding +3 DC to weapons is not only bad from a game balance point of view, but unrealistic as well.

Cheers (Dr.) Mark

[AnotherSkip]

heh Could You imagine the D&D players screams for the Party Medic/Cleric if they continued to lose HP's from blood loss say one per round/every shot that did 5+ points of damage......

[Dauntless]

A part of the lethality problem with melee combat is that once an attacker hits, it's an all or nothing thing. The Attacker makes his roll, and if he hits he rolls for damage.

In the real world, when someone attempts a block or dodge, sometimes they are not 100% successful, but it wasn't a 100% failure either. Either they partially deflected the blow, or changed the hit location (the swing aimed at the head hits the defneding arm instead...or for a dodge, it grazes his ribs, etc). There's really no "rolling with the punch" or "grazing hits" effect in the Hero System. In real martial arts, if someone blocks and "misses" it's not like he totally missed the attacking limb or weapon...he just didn't deflect it enough.

I've tinkered with the idea of having contested combat rolls. Each person in combat rolls the dice adding their OCV and DCV respectively and adding any modifiers. Whoever rolls higher wins, but if the attacker wins, the greater his margin of success the more damage he does up to the maximum amount he's allowed. In rule terms it could be if they rolled evenly, the defender takes 1/4th the damage, if the roll succeeds by 1, the defender takes 1/2 the damage, if the roll succeeds by 2, the defender takes 3/4 the damage, and if the roll is 3 or more, the defender takes full damage. This makes combat drag out much more, but it also means that Endurance is the deciding factor....a very realistic effect.

I've never liked the fact that you can roll a 4 in the Hero system, and then roll the worst possible effect for damage. How well you hit, and how much damage you do are intimately related.

-Edit-
BTW, this is why 2-handed weapons were more powerful since they are harder to block or parry. On the other hand, 2 handed weapons are slower, and in a realistic campaign should take some kind of SPD modifier to account for trying to recover the weapon between blows.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Dauntless
I've never liked the fact that you can roll a 4 in the Hero system, and then roll the worst possible effect for damage. How well you hit, and how much damage you do are intimately related.

*cough*criticalhits*cough*

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Old Man
*cough*criticalhits*cough*

Hey Old Man, you might want to get that cough checked out ;)

[Nuke]

One thing I always liked to do in Fantasy Hero is ignore the "lifting" amount numbers provided in the main rulebook for how much a character can lift, and use an alternate system? We have begun to find in general that the exponential raise of things in Hero works nightmares in Fantasy (but wonderfully in Champions). So, we are trying out a "linear" replacement.

Currently, a 15 STR is twice as strong as a 10, 20 STR is 4 times as strong as a 10, a 25 is 8 times as strong, etc... Replace this with 2, 3, 4, 5, ... Now, suddenly a 20 STR person is 3 times as strong, a 25 STR person is 4 times as strong, etc... Keep the damage rules in place, but suddenly you don't have 20 STR character's able to lift a half a ton. Granted, they can skill lift 660lbs, and that ain't shabby, but you'll find that the weight lifting charts quickly become bounded. You also don't have troubles with giants being able to lift hundreds of tons, which just doesn't make sense.

Likewise, it helps with avoiding overpowered "army buster" fireball spells by slapping on the "1/4 doubles the area effect" four times to get 16 times the area. By using the above linear rule, the fireball with four "increased area effect" advantages would be x5 area, something far more bounded.

Just a suggestion, each GM should handle this in their own way. As for being DnD like, equipment costs should always be adjusted to the gold system in your campaign. Don't just say, "We use DnD equipment costs", be balanced on them. Make your full plate cost 2000gp and watch it become more rare.

Nuke

[5 Sided D6]

I never thought of Fantasy hero as being non-lethal(or not so lethal). Between getting to add DC's once over the weapons Str min, Combat Manuevers and Combat skill levels being able to add to damage(even with the rule of a max of 2x DC) you can easily get to 3d6 - 4d6 KA.

A plate mail wearing person with that Rdef of 8 is still going to take Body alot of times(3d6=3-18 Body, Avg of 10.5) and thats not including if you use the hit location rules where some do 1 1/2 to 2x damage.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by Nuke
One thing I always liked to do in Fantasy Hero is ignore the "lifting" amount numbers provided in the main rulebook for how much a character can lift, and use an alternate system? We have begun to find in general that the exponential raise of things in Hero works nightmares in Fantasy (but wonderfully in Champions). So, we are trying out a "linear" replacement.

Currently, a 15 STR is twice as strong as a 10, 20 STR is 4 times as strong as a 10, a 25 is 8 times as strong, etc... Replace this with 2, 3, 4, 5, ... Now, suddenly a 20 STR person is 3 times as strong, a 25 STR person is 4 times as strong, etc... Keep the damage rules in place, but suddenly you don't have 20 STR character's able to lift a half a ton. Granted, they can skill lift 660lbs, and that ain't shabby, but you'll find that the weight lifting charts quickly become bounded. You also don't have troubles with giants being able to lift hundreds of tons, which just doesn't make sense.
Nuke

I agree the STR table is not so great for Heroic games, I find even with Champions that the 2x every 5pts is high. I was looking into a doubling at every 10 pts, but I like your idea too. That is one thing I wish had been addressed in 5th ed, what works in Champions may not work so well for less spandex clad action.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by slaughterj
Hey Old Man, you might want to get that cough checked out ;)

Yeah, it's probably SARS. Or dengue fever, or west nile virus, or anthrax. Maybe all four. Good thing I spent 4 points on extra life...

I have to say that 3d6-4d6 HKA is much higher, in my experience, than I am used to seeing. But we did always play under some fairly arbitrary limits for STR and levels. Increasing the cost of STR would help with that, but then that's a whole other thread.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Old Man
I have to say that 3d6-4d6 HKA is much higher, in my experience, than I am used to seeing. But we did always play under some fairly arbitrary limits for STR and levels.

Hey, it's much higher than I'm used to seeing, and I'm one of the ones that suggested the possibility. Just pointing out how deadly the system can be if you use all the rules: I personally don't like my players having to re-write characters each month. But, such is the price of realism, and enough people actually enjoy building new characters with new stories and tragic ends and such that I wouldn't stand in the way.

[Talon]

There are plenty of ways in the new Fantasy Hero to increase damage levels if you want high lethality and high DEF.

There are a few feat--er, Talents which raise a character's damage (basically, HKA bought as "weapon of opportunity). These raise /base/ damage...so add in CSLs and Martial Maneuvers and you can get way up there very quickly.

Somebody with Deadly Attack (I think that's the name), a moderate STR and a few levels could easily be doing 3d6 without trying hard.

In any FH game, the GM has to consider the average armor values vs. the damage-causing elements he's willing to allow. I tend to run games where heavy armor is rare at best, and so I don't allow most things that increase damage.

[Nightshade]

Use a military pick, bec de corbin, or similar armor piercing attack. In large scale battles with heavily armored opponents, the strategy would be to knock the guy down, then get the big AP attack out (there is a scene of this happening in the movie Excalibur).

This is also why the Bec de Corbin was created. It was literally the first "can opener." Pull out a 1 1/2 d6 AP HKA and watch the knights blanch...

I have found that my combats tend to be too bloody. Almost every combat ends with seriously wounded characters. That has been my experience.

Nightshade

[tesuji]

In the three different Fh games i ran using FH 4th rules, 90% of the fatalities came after the target was knocked out due to loss of stun and was CDGed while laying unconscious.

IIRC, there is a mention in the HERO5 core rules about possibly dropping stun in fantasy to avoid the super-hero-esque knockouts.

[Nightshade]

I don't think that I have had that same experience. As I stated before, my combats usually end up with many very wounded PC's and dead NPC's.

I would also disagree with the "superhero" nature of being knocked unconscience. That is a fact of reality that people get knocked out, stunned, and generally battered around well before they are killed. Again, if someone was in heavy armor, they frequently were knocked out before they near death. Not in a game, in real life.

If you were in a major fight, if someone fell down and wasn't moving, you moved on. You rarely had time to worry about whether they were really dead or not.

If this is a frequent occurance, perhaps it has more to do with the stun lotto for killing attacks. I would suggest using the hit location chart for this instead. My experience is that that cuts down on the extremes for stun damage.

Nightshade

[slaughterj]

Lethality (at least among NPCs/mooks) has been high in the FH games I've run/played in, esp. since they usually are light armor situations. Sure, many situations might be where someone hits a mook in the unprotected head with a 2D6K attack, rolling average, and thus doing 7 BODY before x2 multiplier, final result of 14 BODY and 35 STUN, and consequently they are technically k.o.'d before actually dead, but for my games, the above result is plenty dead for mooks, without worrying about using impairing/disabling rules, etc.

[Alibear]

I totally agree. The goon might not be flatlined yet, but nobody is going to worry about himcoming back either.

[Talon]

FH also has the critical hits rule (same as UMA, if I recall it correctly) as an optional rule.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Nightshade

I don't think that I have had that same experience. As I stated before, my combats usually end up with many very wounded PC's and dead NPC's.

I ended up with a good number of wounds but rarely anyone dead or dying on their own.

Originally posted by Nightshade

I would also disagree with the "superhero" nature of being knocked unconscience. That is a fact of reality that people get knocked out, stunned, and generally battered around well before they are killed. Again, if someone was in heavy armor, they frequently were knocked out before they near death. Not in a game, in real life.

I do not run reailty games. I tend to run fantasy games, superhero games, scifi games and even some spy games, tho often they are merged in with one of the above.

In the books, comics and novels of those four genres... superheroes is the only one where it is COMMON for the enemy to be KOed (exception, the infrequent minion to be interrogated).

In fantasy, spy and scifi books, novels, and movies i am aware of the typical effect (by a large preponderance) is once the enemy goes down, he is "dead" or at least dying. At that point no further care needs to be taken.

The "walk around the eneies CDGing the enemies quickly so they do not get bacl up within a few minutes or maybe even seconds" was all too common in my FH games. (In supers it was tie them up.) I have so rarely seen time spent on such acyivites in the books, movies and novels of these genres.

However, if i ever do get round to running a game which tries to represent reality to that degree and which does not try to emulate the genres of fantasy, scifi, supers, or such, its good to know HERO system covers that.

Originally posted by Nightshade

If you were in a major fight, if someone fell down and wasn't moving, you moved on. You rarely had time to worry about whether they were really dead or not.

Ok, yet in HERO instead the "best course" typically is to hit them one more time, or else there is a good likelihood they will just get back up in a few seconds, so maybe the reality side isn't covered that well after all.

Originally posted by Nightshade

If this is a frequent occurance, perhaps it has more to do with the stun lotto for killing attacks. I would suggest using the hit location chart for this instead.

I alwats used hit locations for my fantasy games. i think it may have even exacerbated the issue.

Originally posted by Nightshade

My experience is that that cuts down on the extremes for stun damage.


in my experience it tends to stack the heros attacks into the chest or mid-range targets producing most typically a 3-1 ratio between stun and body damage done. After you apply a limited amount of armor, that ratio quickly dropped to around 4-1. (Remember that armor comes off KA body but the stunx is figured based on full body before defense. So a 7 body attack against 3 DEF with 3 PD results in a chest wound causing 4 body and 15 stun.)

Extremely few of my NPCs, and iirc few of the FH sample characters at 150 pts, had that ration of stun vs body, and so they typically ran out of stun before running out of body.

Interestingly enough, the issue of too frequent KO follow by CDG was significant enough or notable enough that Long even made mention of it in HERO5 BBB, citing it as an example of a benefit of ingoring stun entirely for a campaign in HERO5 254 sidebar item 7.

"Doe some genres, such as fantasy, you can ignore stun damage altogether without negatively affecting the game. this also saves the characters from having to engage in the highly unheroic act of administering CDG to every unconscious opponent when the fight ends."

I would hope that, since your game does not turn out that way, that you passed on your experience and how to's to Steve so he could revise this for fantasy hero.

[JMHammer]

Interestingly, most people who are bludgeoned into unconsciousness do not simply wake up a few seconds or a few minutes later, shake it off, and go back to running a marathon. Most things that cause involuntary unconsciousness, such as anesthesia or head trauma, take a person to just a whisker away from death, permanent coma, or serious brain damage. And sometimes not even a whisker.

When someone is "knocked out" in the Hero System, unless they're in one of the "deep sleep" levels of knockout, they're probably not completely out. It would depend on the special effect of the attack, I suppose... Even FREd says something to the effect that someone in the lowest-level of knockout can perceive what's going on but can't effectively act in any way. So I don't necessarily see a second shot to an enemy who's knocked out at one of the first two levels to be necessarily unheroic, any more than hitting an enemy who's stunned. The visual effect is that the enemy is reeling from the last blow, or you can see he's shaking off whatever effect had been done to him, and you're giving him a final, finishing blow to put him out.

It can be quite uncool to have your heroes in a fantasy milieu walking about the aftermath of a battle administering final strokes. However, in historical period battles, that's pretty much what happened. And if your heroes are fighting "inhuman" enemies like goblins, demons, created or summoned critters, etc. it's probably not out of context or character for them to do so. Other humans or some other ensouled, sentient beings might give them a bit of pause, but that's part of the roleplaying: Are they cold-blooded killers or will they allow those who have fought against them and failed some chance at life?

John H

[AnotherSkip]

Tesuji, thise seems to be one of those cases wherein the Gm (our favorite person to point to ) just needs to let the recoveries slide for the mooks.

of the last twelve battles I was in 11 of those were against Zombi/Skeletons (no stun there!!!!!!) and they kinda sucked. Most of the time the NPC's were kicking the arse of the badguys (40 out of a 46 man unit were NPC'S) while we were barely denting them. If it had been humans we were goingin up against the battles would have been about the same but we would have been actually hurting them.

The only exception to the Zombi Munching battles was a pack of archers who would run (ride actually ) away at top speed (including an aid plus using their riding skills to urge their mounts on to greater speeds)anytime we got within 12". they had PSL's to get their no penalty range up to 32". They were a pain in the arse untill we snuck up on them in the dark and shot them/slit their throats in bed.


does after the combat CDG occur in fantasy books?

Yes,

see the Mallorean by david eddings the Seeress of Kell has a really good description.

and Daviod eddings actually thinks about it. I could also see Silk doing a bit of Skullduggery behind everyone elses back while no one was looking............

[Old Man]

Originally posted by JMHammer
Most things that cause involuntary unconsciousness, such as anesthesia or head trauma, take a person to just a whisker away from death, permanent coma, or serious brain damage. And sometimes not even a whisker.

Indeed. By definition a concussion is brain damage--even a light concussion results in imbalance, blurry vision, and headaches for at least a day; I've seen people who had severe concussions who didn't recover for months, and arguably were permanently altered.

I have been choked into unconsciousness before (under controlled circumstances), and even with the total absence of head trauma it was incredibly disorienting. I lost all sense of time--I was out for maybe twenty seconds, but it felt like half an hour; it took about thirty seconds after that for me to figure out where I was and another thirty after that to remember what happened. Most FH combats don't last that long.

In our games it was typical for unnamed enemies to go down if they suffered an impairing wound or go more than negative REC stun. Bosses, however, got all their recoveries and were often motivated enough to keep fighting even with severed limbs.

[AnotherSkip]

Personally I like to think of the penalties for negative stun as akin to the
Knockdown test from Earthdawn. More or less in HERO you get mentally knocked on your rump from getting slapped around.

Essentially there are multible numbers of ways to take minor combat effects.

some of the breakpoints may not be perfectly balanced, and the combat does not allways flow as it should.

Perhaps part of the problems is one of difference between the Hero, and the mook. mooks are not nearly so motivated as a hero, heck a the few times i have gotten whupped there were points it took me a while to get the motivation to come back to the battle.

Perhaps a mook even if he is "unstunned" could be waiting a chance to flee from the battle with his life intact rather than face death. Perhaps a Gm should consider this before the first game so as to remove the temptation of the player to deal with every fallen foe and move on.

[AnotherSkip]

We are Heroes , Do we Truly need to Kill?

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Tesuji, thise seems to be one of those cases wherein the Gm (our favorite person to point to ) just needs to let the recoveries slide for the mooks.

Here we are both in agreement, and there seem to be others who have posted such as well. The answer, it seems, is to not use the rules and system and fiat for better results.

However, sometimes i like to have the system actually work and produce the results i want for the genre , as opposed to just deciding to use the system anyway and then fiat it when it doesn't.

So i did some work a ways back. i did not like the suggested remove stun idea since it courses thru so much of the system underpinnings.

As an alternative, when i was working on stats for my fourth FH game, i decided to adjust the character stun-body rations, to try and make "out of body" be reached about the same time as "out of stun" in order to make the ratio of KO vs dying to be about 50%.

The rule i have figured was to have base stun = .5str+.5con+2xbody as the starting fig. i was also going to make stun bought individually cost on 1/2 pt per. This would make a character with say 15's in body, con and syt start the game with 45 stun (3xhis body) and be able to buy more stun cheaply, so the 4x level would be easily attainable. Naturally, tough fighter types would likely want to go even higher. (it was my hope that the increased stun would also help reing in the fantasy EB Ko as well and make alternative attacks more attractive.)

In theory and some small experimentation this seemed to address some of the hero fantasy translation issues. unfortunately the game never materialized so i did not get a chance to test it fully.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip



does after the combat CDG occur in fantasy books?

Yes,


Obviously they do. However, in my experience and my reading, they are very rare. Only a couple fantasy novels i have read have bothered with the subject. The vast majority do not. Even Steve long noted that for fantasy genre this might not be apropos in HERO5.

Certainly, if the game you are running is intended to represent this, then the current system rule of KO most enemies then slit their unconscious throats is fine and should work well for you. I just find there to be more games than that one type that i wish to run... matter of fact, i dont find that type particularly beneficial to the game as, to my eyes at least, it limits some of the more "traditional" character types.

YMMV

[Hierax]

tesuji wrote:
The rule i have figured was to have base stun = .5str+.5con+2xbody as the starting fig. i was also going to make stun bought individually cost on 1/2 pt per. This would make a character with say 15's in body, con and syt start the game with 45 stun (3xhis body)I like the idea of changing things to maintain the 3:1 Ratio of STUN to BODY.

Makes sense since attacks typically do 3x the STUN that they do BODY. And the system by giving only ~2x STUN is effectively favouring K/O over kill (maybe yet another lingering Champions bias)

If you are going to change it, then why not get rid of those annoying fractions in figuring instead of just increasing the BODY factor of STUN?

e.g., STUN = STR + CON + BODY

Or how about STUN = CON + EGO + BODY? CON is how tough you are so it makes sense to resist damage more than STR does (IMO, STR inflicts damage and CON resists it), and replace the STR factor with EGO as Willpower could be argued to make more sense to resist damage. Besides, reducing the influence of STR on figured characteristics fixes some of the reasons to make STR cost 2 points.

Just presenting some slight variations that came to mind while reading this.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by tesuji
Here we are both in agreement, and there seem to be others who have posted such as well. The answer, it seems, is to not use the rules and system and fiat for better results.
[/B]

There's no need to ignore or even change the rules to get this. Just add to the Thug Package Deal the following Disadvantage:

Physical Limitation: GM's Option At 0 Stun, Frequent, Greatly Impairing, 15 points

Make this part of any Package Deal (Commoner, Minor Monster) where it is appropriate.

Of course, just because there's no "need" doesn't mean there's not a "desire".

[tesuji]

writing out the "dont use the rules" part doesn't make it any less not using the rules. :-)

For instance, if i decided i wanted negative 5 body to be dead, i could either not use the book rule and do my own or i could try to pretend i am using the book rules and then claim i have an area triggered worldwide area transform of 100d6 that kicks in whenever someone reachs -5 body to turn dieing to dead (or maybe that could be an invisible rka NND does body) and then claim that BY THE RULES -5 body is dead... i reckon.

it seems simpler to just admit... i did not like the way the rules worker so i changed it.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by tesuji
writing out the "dont use the rules" part doesn't make it any less not using the rules. :-)


So, using the rules to create the effects you want in the game world is somehow "not using the rules"?

News to me, but as you prefer.

[Blue]

Originally posted by AnotherSkip
We are Heroes , Do we Truly need to Kill?

If we were talkin' champions I'd agree. But if there was no killing in a fantasy game my players would be outraged! I must sacrifice a few imaginary orcs in order to keep from being sacrificed.

[AnotherSkip]

Yes but then they are not really Heroic if they are gonna lynch you over not allowing them to kill your imaginary friends.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by GamePhil
So, using the rules to create the effects you want in the game world is somehow "not using the rules"?

News to me, but as you prefer.

Its more like moving the notion of "using the rules" into a redefined and meaningless realm.

I can "byb the rule" in most any game system create a trick to disable any rule i want.

In DND if i dont want wizards to have to prepare spells i can jot down that some god cast a super-wish or that some conclave of wizards worked this ritual and thus the change was made.

In hero i can have a world wide transform cause RKas to do normal levels of knockboack, or maybe just a world wide aid.

i prefer to let rules changes be up front and open rules changes and to let things like character disads and such be used for character differentiation, not sidewise backdoor rules changes. If i dont want to use the speed chart i am not going to try and say its not a rules change by requiring the characters to take physical lims "must be speed 4" or some such.



obviously we wont agree on this, but thats cool.

enjoy your games.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by tesuji
Its more like moving the notion of "using the rules" into a redefined and meaningless realm.


Which misses the point, as do your examples. The Disadvantage is presented should it be necessary in a game where it is not the default state. If everyone else uses the Stun chart the normal way, but your character is at GM's option at 0 Stun, that is worth a Disadvantage. If everyone works that way, it is not, and is simply a change in the rules. Even in that case, knowing what the Disadvantage is might be useful if you want to maintain the rule change for your character in another campaign.

Both your examples are sweeping changes to the whole world, and therefore there is little need to do other than change the rules. Further, the HERO one is done in such a way as to lose what little benefit there might be. Building the Killing Attacks in such a way as to allow it (adding an extra die, only to offset the extra die for Knockback) *might* be useful if I expected to play in a game without the house rule, but using a Transform to alter the rules is not.

[tesuji]

i am sorry but unless i misread the post the suggestion was to use the disad and apply it to thugs, commoners and everyone else it applies to... which would seem to be "the vast majority of the world" with the heroes and maybe a fes special villains being the few and far between exceptions.

If so then it seems you are indeed talking about the default condition (the condition by which the vast majority work under) and then the special few are the exceptions, the ones deserving of having that difference noted on their character sheets.

If we look at your position now, it would seem that you now would belief, correct me if i am wrong, that the DEFAULT would be a rules change to have the vast majority (thugs, commoners etc) be Gm discretion at 0 stun and then have an exception, perhaps an advantage?, to the heroes and special characters.

It seemed at first like you wanted the vast majority to be written as the disadvnatged as opposed to considering making all th thugs and commoners and so on behave as a sweeping change to the world.

Thanks for clearing that up.

it seems we are not as far aprt as i suspected.

sweeping changes to the world... a default rules change... special features of a select few... specific (dis)advantage shown by character... i agree

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by tesuji
sweeping changes to the world... a default rules change... special features of a select few... specific (dis)advantage shown by character... i agree

Indeed.

[AnotherSkip]

heh on the other hand just give all the guys a 19- acting roll (or feing death) and tell them they "think" they are dead..
Or no CDG unless they make a Healing roll first.

and usually they should not CDG unless they think they are gonna keep on getting up.
don't have them get up.

[Catseye]

FWIW we generally found that the lack of ressurection balanced for the lower incidence of death.

You don't often die, but when you do, its all over.

[Doc Democracy]

In the Decipher Lord of the Rings game they recommend that you decide whether small scale opponents are one hit opponents or perhaps 2 or 3 hit opponents. This way there is less bookwork and heroes can cut their way through swathes of opponents.

If a three hit mook gets hit by a good hit then the GM can decide that they go down immediately. This is a decent system and avoids considerations of BODY/Armour/Recovery and CDG.

Personally the balance between armour use on non-armour use in Fantasy Hero was one of my major plus points for the system. There was a real choice to be made and while wearing armour made it harder to hurt you it made you less mobile, easier to hit and more likely to get tired.

(Those encumbrance rules HURT!)

[wraith]

With the deadly strike talent you can become quite deadly with your attacks, big equalizer. Crossbowman can open plate

[Michael Hopcroft]

IIRC my hisotry, the reason the English won at Agincourt was because their archery was so deadly. The French came in their heavy armor on their heavily armored horses, got stuck in the mud instead of charging with speed, and were easy pickings form the longbowmen whose arrows were fast and deadly enough to penetrate the plate -- and they were flying at the enemy at the rate of several hundred a minute.

The flower of French chivalry never stood a chance.

How can this be applied to smaller-scale fantasy combat? Remember that the archer can strike first and that arrows, especially from longbows or composit bows, hit hard. There's no way to make arrow-proof armor in the long run. And in the real worl, people never wore plate armor unless they expected to be in a fight right that very moment -- it was too uncomfortable and hard to put on to wear under any other circumstances (although you can put on a suit oif plate by yourself, it's a lot easier to have your squire strap it on for you). For travel, even in wartime, the knight usually wore some sort of lighter -- and more penetrable -- armor.

If you can attack your enemy when he doesn't expect it, you have an enormous advantage. the reserve is also true. And if the enemy knows you have a habit of slitting the throats of unconscious foes, they might just do the same to you. If you're helpless, and someone does something obviously fatal to you, it doesn;'t matter how much STUN or BODY you have left -- you're dead.

[Markdoc]

>>>How can this be applied to smaller-scale fantasy combat? Remember that the archer can strike first and that arrows, especially from longbows or composit bows, hit hard. There's no way to make arrow-proof armor in the long run<<<<

Well, sorta. Remember that the armour worn at Agincourt was transitional plate: a mixture of solid plates and chain mail. The idea that arrows will slice through solid steel comes from watching Legolas in action too many times :-)

When the MHS people tried using a an accurate reconstruction of a longbow (from the Mary Rose) to put holes in an accurate reconstruction of a breastplate and helmet, they found it extremely difficult (damn near impossible, actually) at anything over point blank range. Indeed, while the longbow was deadly to mounted foes, once the emphasis changed to armoured foot (as, for example, in the English Wars of the Roses), archers rapidly found themselves unable to survive without protection. There's a reason the Burgundian handgunners were regarded as battle-winners in the latter stages of those wars....

cheers, Mark