stacking damage

[hypnotica]

i have a question on taking damage or even stacking it. Does damage stack when you take damage in an area like your arm or shoulder? For example getting hit by an arrow? if you take body do you get negative modifiers stacked on? Is there a table in the fantasy hero book? i didnt see one but curious?

[Outsider]

By "stacking" do you mean :

 

"If the the disablement damage to a location is 10 Body, will five 2 body hits disable it?"

 

Or

 

"If the disablement damage to a location is 10 Body, and one has taken that much damage to the location, will another hit there do more body?"

 

Or something else entirely?

 

 

If it is either of the above, my interpretation has always been that only blows sufficient to meet the Impairment or Disabling value in a single blow result in impairment or disabling, and one can continue to take body (and stun) damage to a location after it has been disabled. Exception being if the GM rules that the Disablement is of the "that part (and parts connected to it farther down the line) are now detatched" sort. If your disabling wound to the upper arm is ruled to have lopped off your arm entirely, hits to the lower arm and hand (on that side) will obviously do no more body to you. The upper arm may be immune to further damage as well, depending on how much arm the GM rules was lost. (just above the elbow down, upper arm can still be hit, just below the shoulder down, maybe it cant be)

 

"

[Outsider]

I just looked again at the rules (4th Ed) and it isnt actually clear if the damage for an impairment/disablement has to come from all one blow or not.

 

The way I would play it in a fantasy setting would be that only single blows can cause impairments/disablings, and two impairments to the same location causes a temporary disablement (whereas a single large blow that disables the location tends to cause a permanent disablement)

[badger3k]

Here's one - in 5th, the only tables are those in Fred (p278-9). Fantasy hero just refers to them. They show the effects of impaired/disabled areas. They aren't specific as to when they take effect - either all in one blow or when all damage added together.

 

I'd look at the play/characters and see which you want - if the characters and opponents hit often but do low damage, you can use the add option if you want impairments, or use the one-blow option if you want impairments to be possible but few and far between.

 

Reverse it for the opposite scenario, where the rolls commonly result in 1/2 body damage to a target (ie - 50% of the targets body in one blow).

[Markdoc]

IIRC, the rules on disabling or impairment say "if an attack" does the requiite damage, which suggests one hit, no stacking.

 

This makes good sense to me: otherwise you have to track body location by location, which while realistic is a pain in the location 5.

 

cheers, Mark

[Outsider]

A pain in the cranium?

 

I usually read location 5 as the cranium, location 4 as neck, and location 3 as the face.

[Guest taxboy4]

Originally posted by Markdoc

IIRC, the rules on disabling or impairment say "if an attack" does the requiite damage, which suggests one hit, no stacking.

 

This makes good sense to me: otherwise you have to track body location by location, which while realistic is a pain in the location 5.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I do keep track of damage by location and I do it for all the characters for the players. They do not know exactly how wounded they are - I give them descriptions.

 

e.g. a 1 Body wound on the forearm and 3 bod to the chest - "After a flurry of arrows you have a gash on your left forarm and an arrow in your chest"

 

It also allows me to then sort first aid to different wounds or heal different wounds. Esp in FH it can take a month to heal up.

 

I get confused with disablement tho, is it effective when 50% of Body is taken after modifying for armour and location mod or before? And if so whats the point of armour then?

[Outsider]

After defences and before OR after the hit location Body multiple, if either results in a disablement.

 

 

So a person with a 12 Body stat and 5 resistant Def would get a disablement from the following blows :

 

11 Body to the Head of Vitals (6 gets past armor, then double body for location = 12 Body = Disablement) (Character takes 12 body)

17 Body to the Legs, Feet, Hands, or Arms (12 gets past armor = Disablement, then Body damage is halved for location) (Character takes 6 Body)

17 Body to Shoulder, Chest, Stomach, or Thigh (12 Gets past armor = Disablement) (Character takes 12 Body)

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Markdoc

IIRC, the rules on disabling or impairment say "if an attack" does the requiite damage, which suggests one hit, no stacking.

 

This makes good sense to me: otherwise you have to track body location by location, which while realistic is a pain in the location 5.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Just to be precise, the rules state "Whenever the BODY damage done to an area (before or after the BODYx) is more than half the character's total BODY, that area is impaired." (278 if I didn't post it in this one). The same for disabling (although its over characters total BODY. I don't know if its any harder than keeping track of different wounds (for healing purposes).

[hypnotica]

clairification on damage

 

I have a need for some serious input. I am running a game where my players want realism. I do too but id like to stick to the rules as closely as i can without altering them too much. Last sun we played (3 pc's) against 3 ogres and 15 orcs ( the orcs they faced 5 at a time not all 15 at once) the ogres they faced one at a time and easily defeated them (with the help of the cleric and his (1d6) entangle spell ) and orcs were attacking the town my pc's were in. the pc's handily destroyed the villains ( btw im having each pc be a starting character with no more than 150 points and no more than 1d6 rka/hka or 1d6 normal attacks no autofire or nnd or special attacks either to start)

we were playing (from what i can determine) wrong with adding modifiers to the villains. one of the pc's deteremined (from the attack table ) that when the villains took body they would get modifiers that would stack ( remember they are only getting hit with mostly arrows and when their almost dead swords) it wasnt until the 2nd turn that i realized what was going on and that it should be me not the pc's who determine any modifiers.

Now I am trying to determine the right way or (the best way for me as a gm) to determine damage or any negative modifiers if any. The pc's dont like the rule that if you take half your body in a single area in a SINGLE HIT that you are impaired or full body in a single area in a SINGLE HIT that your disabled in that area. They think for realism's sake that there should be modifiers that you put on the ogre for instance if he has 3 arrows in his arm he shouldnt be able to use that arm or he should have negative modifiers to slow him down ( one player thinks if we continue with the way i want to go that im just going to kill everyone and they ll have an awful game) HEEELLLPPP :-) how can i rectify this ?

I'm personally happy with the way the rules state it with a SINGLE HIT if you take half your body your impaired or all your body your disabled. yet this player thinks for realisms sake thats bull**** that you shouldnt be able to use your full strength with your hit shoulder for instance or arm etc . Any help would be appreciated to clarify why its ok to stick to what the rules state etc

[badger3k]

I hate to keep bringing it up - the rules never state a single hit. Its implied depending on how you read it (the key phrase in my judgment is the "before or after the BODYx" phrase, implying one hit - since you wouldn't track pre-multiplication damage per area). Checked the faq, can't find anything. In the UMA, I've found a reference to hitting already injured parts (p164-5) - "The second hit to an existing injury has the same effect as the first hit, plus it Impairs the area" - that suggests that you can add damage to get impairment.

 

However, that can also just be the special effect of targetting an already wounded area specifically (ie - you aim to the wound to do more damage, rather than just hit the same body part).

 

On p 156 UMA (Disabling Attacks)- "This form of Disabling usually results from an attack which, though not specifically intended to disable, does enough damage to Impair/Disable the area anyway." That suggests that it is only one attack. That's about all I can see, short of posting a question to Steve.

 

The general consensus seems to be all damage in one attack. I think that's a litle too comic book for a fantasy campaign that should be grittier (if that's what you want) - it's the difference of, say, Boromir struggling to fight after getting hit by the arrows and a martial arts master kicking butt while pierced with 600 arrows. He won't go down until that one hit in the right spot. How gritty do you want your combat to be? And how much of a headache do you want?

 

I plan on keeping track of areas (and add damage for impairment) and will see how that goes - if you do use it, remember to let the players know that you are the one keeping track of the damage, so if the creature isn't impaired when they think, they're wrong (since they don't know everything you do), and that the rule works both ways. Don't let your players tell you when a creature is impaired (they can ask, or suggest, but not tell). Keeping track of area damage is a little more work, but I think will be a bit rougher and more "real" (as far as the system can reflect such) then the standard rules.

[M-3]

Re: clairification on damage

 

Originally posted by hypnotica

( btw im having each pc be a starting character with no more than 150 points and no more than 1d6 rka/hka or 1d6 normal attacks no autofire or nnd or special attacks either to start)

 

Maximum 1D6 RKA/HKA?!? Those are some pathetically puny characters. A guy with STR 11 wielding a small knife does 1D6+1 HKA.

 

we were playing (from what i can determine) wrong with adding modifiers to the villains. one of the pc's deteremined (from the attack table ) that when the villains took body they would get modifiers that would stack ( remember they are only getting hit with mostly arrows and when their almost dead swords) it wasnt until the 2nd turn that i realized what was going on and that it should be me not the pc's who determine any modifiers.

 

There aren't any penalties for taking BODY if you don't get impaired or disabled. Sounds like the penalties the players were reading to you were the OCV penalties for targeting the locations in question.

 

Now I am trying to determine the right way or (the best way for me as a gm) to determine damage or any negative modifiers if any.

 

The "right" way (and the easiest) to determine the negative modifiers you get for taking damage is this: You get no negative modifiers for taking damage! Simple, yeah? There is no death spiral built into HERO (fortunately). However, disablements and impairments can, of course, make certain actions more difficult or impossible. Fx: Biff the Barbarian is wielding a greatsword and is fighting the terrible Dreadful Gazer (gasp!) and the horrid beastie manages to disable Biff's left arm (oh no!). Since the greatsword requires two hands to be employed properly, Biff's in a bit of a tight spot. If Biff should decide to attempt to swing his greatsword at the Dreadful Gazer with just one hand, he's going to do so at a substantial penalty if the GM allows it at all (I would but with a penalty).

 

 

The pc's dont like the rule that if you take half your body in a single area in a SINGLE HIT that you are impaired or full body in a single area in a SINGLE HIT that your disabled in that area. They think for realism's sake that there should be modifiers that you put on the ogre for instance if he has 3 arrows in his arm he shouldnt be able to use that arm or he should have negative modifiers to slow him down ( one player thinks if we continue with the way i want to go that im just going to kill everyone and they ll have an awful game) HEEELLLPPP :-) how can i rectify this ?

 

What would you like rectified? The rules or the players? (I'd rectify the players...)

 

Tell them to think of it this way: If the arrow didn't inflict damage at least equal to half the ogre's BODY score, it's not actually lodged in the ogre's arm. It's just nicked it and caused superficial damage. After all, if it had penetrated into the actual muscle or bone... well, it would have disabled the arm, wouldn't it?

(Of course, if all they've got are 1D6 HKAs they're going to have a tough time causing serious damage to a mean-spirited chicken - let alone an ogre...)

 

I'm personally happy with the way the rules state it with a SINGLE HIT if you take half your body your impaired or all your body your disabled. yet this player thinks for realisms sake thats bull**** that you shouldnt be able to use your full strength with your hit shoulder for instance or arm etc . Any help would be appreciated to clarify why its ok to stick to what the rules state etc

 

Because keeping track of exactly how much damage goes where would be a bloody great pain in the posterior? Alternatively, give the players precisely what they're asking for, then have the attacked by a bunch of angry housecats (maybe the kitties are posessed by spirits or something) and slap penalties on them for every last 1 BODY hit inflicted on them by the pussycats. See how realistic they think it is now.

[hypnotica]

clarification on damage

 

ok first i want to thank everyone for your tremendous input into my post/delima I went over last night with some of my players and i got some clarification it all boils down to two things. does damage you take stack before you get an impairment or disablement or doesnt it. I see it as you cant get an impairment/disablement until you take half to the full body in one hit. Everyone else see's that the damage you take every phase from every player/villain will add together ( if your going with the optional to hit table which we are ) I really can see where they're coming from that it would stack. I'm just feeling theres a reason why its not clearly stated in the rules. I would like to get everyones input please (especially if you've played realistic fantasy hero) about this issue. If you think it should stack til you get to half/full the body in one area ie the arm , shoulder etc etc then your impaired/disabled there, or would you recommed with not getting the impairment/disablement until you get that one big hit that makes you "impaired/disabled" I think they are willing to go with one hit then your "impaired/disabled" but only if there's a good enough reason, other than because the rules say so, or because the GM doesn't want to make it too hard/easy on the characters. Otherwise they reallllly are leaning to damage stacks in that area til you get to half/full your body. Please any input is appreciated . :confused:

[Outsider]

If I weren't lazy on doing the bookkeeping, I'd make a ruling that imparment/disabling is done when either :

 

1) Half/full Body damage in a single blow,

OR

2) Full/double Body damage is done cumulatively.

 

In both cases before or after location multiplier, whichever results in more body being done.

[Guest Spotkeel]

(Big Sigh)

 

This is a sad day for the sane.

[Captain Obvious]

The sane have no business here. We're roleplayers.

[hypnotica]

NOOOO dont let this thread die !!!!! NOOOOOO..... must ... keep... thread .. alive..... at least til i get ... some ... answers to my last reply

[Markdoc]

Well, to be fair, cumulative body leading to impairment IS more realistic. But in that case, you should also use cumulative damage for disabling. After a few stiff fights, your players will have to retire, limping and incontinent from all the injuries they have suffered.

 

In real life , you very rarely get an arrow (or other pointy object) through a part of your body and then a) continue to use the body part and regain full function after a week or two. Otherwise we wouldn't have physio departments in all our hospitals.

 

Frankly, I yet to regain full function in my right hand, where I took 2 or 3 BOD 34 years ago...

 

So... the rules as written, are not totally realistic, but they are designed to let characters pursue a danger-filled existence week after week.

 

As for tracking body totals location by location, we still play Runequest, where this is required and it is really a pain. Far more book-keeping than I care for.

 

So it's up to you. It will make combat far nastier, but if you (and your players) want that, then go for it.

 

cheers, Mark