Hit Locations or Not?

[Blackout]

I'm pulling the pieces together to run a Fantasy Hero campaign (thus the posting in this particular forum - pretty swift of me, eh?)...

One of the things I'm mulling over is whether or not to use hit locations. Or, perhaps, a modified version...using the to-hit roll to determine what location is hit (though I can see that causing a problem in increasing the chances of a successful hit smacking someone in the "vitals").

I'd appreciate hearing from the resident experts on the impact of using hit locations (length of combats, lethality, etc.), or doing away with them.

Thanks.

[Keneton]

Sectional armor and encumberance almost certainly necessitate hit locations. I have run Fantasy Hero games for years. I have a modified hit location rules set available under the house rules thread. Please read these for ideas on Fantasy Hero hit locations and combat application.

For power levels in FH please examine the Effectiveness Rating in DH#3. Do not rate the equipment used by the characters unless independent.

FH combat is very lethal. In a good fight the heroes are rarely hit. If they are hit more than twice its very bad. The new realxed encumberance rules allow for a broader use of armor, but the games is still quite lethal.

[Vondy]

I think that once your comfortable with the system (know the chart by rote) it doesn't slow play to use hit locations.

If you want a simplified version why not use an activation roll?

[nblade]

In the current FH game I'm playing in, the Hit Locations really don't hender it too much. Since all the character sheets have the location table on it, its fairly painless.

[Old Man]

Hit location is a must. With it you have sectional armor, and the enhanced roleplaying of having an impairing leg wound rather than X body of damage. Without it what you have is hit points, which I for one have had my fill of.

The table will slow combat a bit at first but it'll quickly become second nature, especially when people learn the 2x BODY locations. It does make combat more lethal--if you have new players you might want to encourage them to play conservatively for a little while. But the way I see it, if there's no danger involved then the game is fucking boring. The adventures you remember most are the ones where somebody got killed.

I'd dump the 5th ed armor and encumbrance rules and go with the sectional armor chart and encumbrance from 4th, if you can find it. It's a lot better balanced. 5th ed encumbrance is broken in that fighters with high strength suffer no penalty for walking around in impregnable suits of plate.

[GradonSilverton]

Hit location is an absolute must....kind of...

My 1d6-6 Arrow has very little chance of getting pased your pd 4 armor (studded leather if i remember right).... so my ability to aim at areas your armor isn't is a must....

Now, as for Hand-to-Hand... leave it up to the player....

When they attack, they can go with no Hit roll and loose stun mods, etc....or they can go for the stun mods, body mods, etc...and hope to god they didn't hit an arm and 1/2 everything....another option on this is limiting H-T-H to 2 hit loacation rolls...either Upper body or Lower Body depending on the attack....

The only down side I see is that it does require one to track armor very well...have to know what is covering where and with what level of PD....

I dont see it as a combat slower at all...in fact, I generally see it as a speeding up mechanism..... those vital area hits tend to make people just stop everything they had ever planned on doing..

[keithcurtis]

Going against the flow, here. I don't think it is in any way essential. We use hit loc.s for color only, ala Champions. We use armor on an activation. It all depends on the style you want to play. If you are playing high fantasy, you might not want your characters walking around with lopped off arms and facial wounds every third combat.
Ignoring hit locations makes combat faster and decreases the bloodlust of the characters. After all, if they can o for those x2 body locations, so can their enemies. Hot locations make combat more deadly and that may not be your goal.

Keith "you hit me in the where?" Curtis

[nblade]

If I ever run a FH game (not play in), I'm likely only going to use Hit locations, if the players try to "call a shot". This is not to say the Hit locations are bad to use, just not something I want to when I run.

[Talon]

I think Hit Locations are necessary if you want a gritty, low-fantasy feel. If you're running a high fantasy game, they're definitely optional.

I don't find they slow things down much; if you're worried, use dice of multiple colors and roll to-hit, damage, and hit location all at once.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare
I think Hit Locations are necessary if you want a gritty, low-fantasy feel. If you're running a high fantasy game, they're definitely optional.

I don't find they slow things down much; if you're worried, use dice of multiple colors and roll to-hit, damage, and hit location all at once.

Exactly. I run a FH campaign set in Lankhmar, where armor is highly restricted, so characters might have at most a medium leather cuirass, boots, gloves, and if knowing they are going into combat, slip on some head protection, so there are a number of unprotected locations. Hit locations are cool, make for fun gaming because the weapon threat level is high, so you have to make "realistic" decisions (not like DnD, charging in and battling dozens of goons).

[JohnTaber]

Personally I think they are necessary for FH.

The others have thrown out the details...

[Old Man]

Originally posted by keithcurtis
Going against the flow, here. I don't think it is in any way essential. We use hit loc.s for color only, ala Champions. We use armor on an activation. It all depends on the style you want to play. If you are playing high fantasy, you might not want your characters walking around with lopped off arms and facial wounds every third combat.
Ignoring hit locations makes combat faster and decreases the bloodlust of the characters. After all, if they can o for those x2 body locations, so can their enemies. Hot locations make combat more deadly and that may not be your goal.

How can you say that you use armor on an activation and then turn around and say that hit locations would slow down combat?

And, yes, hit locations do make combat more deadly, but probably not as much as you make out. "Lopped off limbs" and "facial wounds" are extraordinarily rare unless the player plays like an idiot. Conversely, there does exist the remote possibility that my character will be felled in one lucky hit, which goes a long way toward preventing boredom and complacency. I've had it happen, I think, four times in five years of playing.

[keithcurtis]

Originally posted by Old Man
How can you say that you use armor on an activation and then turn around and say that hit locations would slow down combat?

The activation roll just lets me choose between two sets of defenses, armored and unarmored. Hit loctions require that roll to be indexed to a list and add in the possibility of called shots. More work, not a lot, I grant, but it's work we don't want to do. I have a database that handles all combat and can optionally do all that in one step, but it ultimately comes down to what my players feel comfortable with.
Also, the genre I am running can loosely be described as Post-Apoc sword and sworcery. In order to retain the look and feel of the genre (half naked barbarians swinging big swords who somehow manage to survive from adventure to adventure without disability), armor is scarce. If I were to enforce hit locations, that would make the illogicality of the genre stand out like a severed thumb.
Not realistic certainly, but neither is the genre.

And, yes, hit locations do make combat more deadly, but probably not as much as you make out. "Lopped off limbs" and "facial wounds" are extraordinarily rare unless the player plays like an idiot.

How can good playing reduce the chance of a facial wound? I assume you mean by wearing a helmet. It sounds to me like you like modelling real-life medieval combat and that's cool. But no one in the Fellowship of the Ring for instance wears a helmet except Gimli. Not one has a missing eye or a long facial scar.
It all comes down to what you are trying to simulate.

Conversely, there does exist the remote possibility that my character will be felled in one lucky hit, which goes a long way toward preventing boredom and complacency. I've had it happen, I think, four times in five years of playing.

How does this differ from using armor on an activation? Players can still go down with a lucky hit. The rules are't that different.


Keith "Genre fiend" Curtis

[Old Man]

Originally posted by keithcurtis

How can good playing reduce the chance of a facial wound? I assume you mean by wearing a helmet. It sounds to me like you like modelling real-life medieval combat and that's cool. But no one in the Fellowship of the Ring for instance wears a helmet except Gimli. Not one has a missing eye or a long facial scar.
It all comes down to what you are trying to simulate.

Only a few of the fellowship wore armor at all, but that's a movie thing. I would put that sort of thing down to Combat Luck.

[mudpyr8]

I only use Hit Loc on key villains and characters. Mooks/Thugs/Grunts all shots are to the chest unless the character does a called shot.

This speeds play, keeps the focus on the key characters, and still requires hit loc to play into the game.

Kind of a comprimise. If you wanted to extend this to all characters, that works well too. That's essentially what GURPS does and that works very well. All shots are to the chest unless specified otherwise.

I know people can make arguments about the chaos of combat, blah, blah, blah, but it comes down to the feel of the game. No hit loc unless called shots leads to a more "controlled" game. Players will never be taken out by a random shot (if you apply the system to PCs).

Food for thought.