2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

[Just Joe]

I've always been a fan of the hit location chart, especially for killing attacks in heroic level games. But recently, I've started to have my doubts. My main doubts come through most clearly when considering hits on an unarmored target (which is not rare, IME). Consider the ratio of STUN to BOD (counting BOD X) for KA's on various locations:

 

Hand, vitals, thigh, or foot: 2

Head: 2.5

Shoulder or chest: 3

Arm, stomach, or leg: 4

 

Note: attacks on 1/2 BOD X locations may have higher ratios, due to rounding. In an extreme case, for example, if 3 BOD is rolled (before BOD X) to the arm, 6 STUN is done, but only 1 BOD, so the ratio is 6.

 

Now I am not claiming that a higher number makes for a more effective attack. Clearly, a head hit is more effective than an arm hit. But still, the STUN to BOD ratio should represent how painful (or how likely to cause unconsciousness) it is to be be shot or stabbed in a location relative to the lasting damage done. And from that perspective, the numbers strike me as rather odd.

 

What do you think?

[Sociotard]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

STUN doesn't just represent pain. It also represents blood loss and shock to the nervous system.

[austenandrews]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

I'm not sure I see the relevance of the STUN/BODY ratio.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

I get the point but it is probably more useful to look at absolute figures rather than stun ratios when working out how much it hurts getting a smack in any particular body part. OK a arm hit hurts more proportional to Body damage, but a lot less in absolute terms than a punch (or bullet) to the stomach.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

STUN doesn't just represent pain. It also represents blood loss and shock to the nervous system.

 

Huh?

 

blood loss = body loss

example:

Superman getting stunned by the powerfull punch from Bizzaro but not even getting a bruise much less a nosebleed.

 

Now, I know that some GM's resort to describing bruises, cuts and scrapes in such situations without defining any actual Body loss but that is more for dramatic effect and acknowledgement to the limits of the system with regard to body damage from normal attacks during HTH combat.

 

Stun IS related to Body but the relationship is NOT defined by any set ratio. If it were you might as well just call it Hit Points.

[Just Joe]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

STUN doesn't just represent pain. It also represents blood loss and shock to the nervous system.

Huh?

 

blood loss = body loss

example:

Superman getting stunned by the powerfull punch from Bizzaro but not even getting a bruise much less a nosebleed.

 

Now, I know that some GM's resort to describing bruises, cuts and scrapes in such situations without defining any actual Body loss but that is more for dramatic effect and acknowledgement to the limits of the system with regard to body damage from normal attacks during HTH combat.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not particularly interested in precisely defining STUN. The point is that we probably all have a roughly similar idea of what it represents; and I doubt the STUN/BOD ratios for the given locations make a lot of sense for any of those ideas.

 

Stun IS related to Body but the relationship is NOT defined by any set ratio. If it were you might as well just call it Hit Points.

I'm not clear on who this comment is directed toward. If to me, I think you've misunderstood me; please let me know and I'll explain.

 

I'm not sure I see the relevance of the STUN/BODY ratio.

The higher the value, the less net BOD needs to be done to KO the target. So KA hits to the arm, stomach, or leg, can stun or KO a target with the least permanent (i.e., BOD) damage; hits to the hand, vitals, thigh, or foot have to do the twice as much net BOD to do the same amount of STUN.

 

I get the point but it is probably more useful to look at absolute figures rather than stun ratios when working out how much it hurts getting a smack in any particular body part. OK a arm hit hurts more proportional to Body damage' date=' but a lot less in absolute terms than a punch (or bullet) to the stomach.[/quote']I mean to be suggesting that both values should make sense. But the absolute values are fairly obvious and well-understood. The STUN/BOD ratios represent a more subtle issue, but one that I think should make sense nonetheless.

[Fitz]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

I don't really have anything useful to contribute to this discussion, but I'll just note that while I really like using the HitLoc Chart, my players universally hate and fear it and all voted to not use it in our current campaign. Especially the guy who always gets hit in location 13. Every time. It's amazing.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

I don't really have anything useful to contribute to this discussion' date=' but I'll just note that while I really like using the HitLoc Chart, my players universally hate and fear it and all voted to not use it in our current campaign. Especially the guy who [i']always[/i] gets hit in location 13. Every time. It's amazing.

 

Huh ... I had one of those once, too, but it only happened when he was attacked by someone wielding a hammer.

 

Eventually, he quested for an adamantine codpiece (+12PD/ED Armor, location 13 only (-2)), and I felt sorry enough for him that I let that slightly silly occurance happen.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

The higher the value' date=' the less net BOD needs to be done to KO the target. So KA hits to the arm, stomach, or leg, can stun or KO a target with the least permanent (i.e., BOD) damage; hits to the hand, vitals, thigh, or foot have to do the twice as much net BOD to do the same amount of STUN.[/quote']

 

But the way you have defined your ratios probably gives you a false impression.

 

By halving the BODY for a hit to the arm while doubling the same number for STUN gives you a 6:1 STUN:BODY ratio for a hit to the arm and a 5:2 ratio for a hit to the head. The fact you chose 3 BODY as the damage also increases the ratio for the arm as you got the benefit of rounding down.

 

Now. From that it would appear as if you had to do less damage to the arm to KO someone than you had to do to the head.

 

taking your average Joe (STUN 20, BODY 10) then hitting him in the arm by your ratios you could do 6 BODY (and therefore 24 STUN) and have him laid out cold (-4 STUN). You would have to do 9 BODY to the head to get a similar result (-5 STUN).

 

However, if you look at BODY done by the attacker, then the attacker would have to dish out 12 BODY damage to get the KO by hitting the arm while the same attacker would only have to dish out 5 BODY to get the KO by hitting the head.

 

That makes more sense.

 

I think that your STUN:BODY ratios tend to indicate how much likelier you are to get a KO rather than a kill by hitting a particular location than anything else.

 

 

Doc

[Markdoc]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

I think that your STUN:BODY ratios tend to indicate how much likelier you are to get a KO rather than a kill by hitting a particular location than anything else.

 

Which means of course you are more likely to take someone out of the fight - without killing them - by shooting them in the arm or leg rather than the head.

 

Which makes pretty good sense.

 

cheers, Mark

[Just Joe]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

But the way you have defined your ratios probably gives you a false impression.

I don't think I'm under a false impression, but it is certainly possible that I'm inadvertantly giving one.

 

By halving the BODY for a hit to the arm while doubling the same number for STUN gives you a 6:1 STUN:BODY ratio for a hit to the arm and a 5:2 ratio for a hit to the head. The fact you chose 3 BODY as the damage also increases the ratio for the arm as you got the benefit of rounding down.

 

Now. From that it would appear as if you had to do less damage to the arm to KO someone than you had to do to the head..

And, if by "do less damage" you mean "cause the target to lose less BOD", then this is an implication of the HL chart.

 

taking your average Joe (STUN 20' date=' BODY 10) then hitting him in the arm by your ratios you could do 6 BODY (and therefore 24 STUN) and have him laid out cold (-4 STUN). You would have to do 9 BODY to the head to get a similar result (-5 STUN).[/quote']Yep.

 

However, if you look at BODY done by the attacker, then the attacker would have to dish out 12 BODY damage to get the KO by hitting the arm while the same attacker would only have to dish out 5 BODY to get the KO by hitting the head.

 

That makes more sense.

That does make sense. I don't deny that there's plenty that makes sense about the chart. I'm focusing on one particular issue that does not seem to make sense to me.

 

I think that your STUN:BODY ratios tend to indicate how much likelier you are to get a KO rather than a kill by hitting a particular location than anything else.

Agreed.

 

Which means of course you are more likely to take someone out of the fight - without killing them - by shooting them in the arm or leg rather than the head.

 

Which makes pretty good sense.

Maybe. It depends in part on what a Hero System knockout represents. (It's certainly true that there is less risk of killing them, but whether you are more likely to KO without killing them is less obvious.) But lets assume you're right. Would you be equally willing to say, "Which means of course you are more likely to take someone out of the fight - without killing them - by shooting them in the stomach rather than the thigh" or " . . . by shooting them in the chest rather than the foot"? Because those are implications of the chart as well.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

taking your average Joe (STUN 20, BODY 10) then hitting him in the arm by your ratios you could do 6 BODY (and therefore 24 STUN) and have him laid out cold (-4 STUN). You would have to do 9 BODY to the head to get a similar result (-5 STUN).

 

Yep.

 

No. But the ratios you quote are wrong. Those things don't happen in play and thus the ratios are flawed...

 

Maybe. It depends in part on what a Hero System knockout represents. (It's certainly true that there is less risk of killing them' date=' but whether you are more likely to KO without killing them is less obvious.) But lets assume you're right. Would you be equally willing to say, "Which means of course you are more likely to take someone out of the fight - without killing them - by shooting them in the [i']stomach[/i] rather than the thigh" or " . . . by shooting them in the chest rather than the foot"? Because those are implications of the chart as well.

 

Again the problem with the ratios is that they ignore the absolutes.

 

In the stomach versus thigh contest the opponent is more likely to KO and kill the character by aiming at the stomach, 5 BODY to the stomach KOs Joe Average and 7 BODY leaves him dying. It needs 10 BODY to kill or KO hitting the thigh.

 

Chest hits need 10 BODY to kill and 7 BODY to KO, foot hits require 20 BODY to kill or to KO.

 

Obviously your ratios don't even do what I thought very well, but they don't. to me, indicatea problem with the chart. The results are very much as I might expect, it takes less damage to the Stomach than to the Chest or thigh, than to the foot to KO or kill an opponent...

 

 

Doc

[Just Joe]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

No. But the ratios you quote are wrong. Those things don't happen in play and thus the ratios are flawed...

I don't understand what you are saying. What things don't happen in play?

 

Again the problem with the ratios is that they ignore the absolutes.

If I were arguing that the ratios were the sole or even primary factor that should be considered in evaluating the chart, then this would be a good point. But that is not what I am arguing. I'm saying that there are no obvious problems with the absolutes, but the ratios implied by the charts ought to make sense too.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

I don't understand what you are saying. What things don't happen in play?

 

I quoted it - "..taking your average Joe (STUN 20, BODY 10) then hitting him in the arm by your ratios you could do 6 BODY (and therefore 24 STUN) and have him laid out cold (-4 STUN). You would have to do 9 BODY to the head to get a similar result (-5 STUN)."

 

The ratios imply that result but they are wrong. In play 6 BODY to the Arm will do 12 STUN and 9 BODY to the head will do 45 STUN.

 

The ratios don't take the absolute figures into consideration.

 

If I were arguing that the ratios were the sole or even primary factor that should be considered in evaluating the chart' date=' then this would be a good point. But that is not what I am arguing. I'm saying that there are no obvious problems with the absolutes, but the ratios implied by the charts ought to make sense too.[/quote']

 

Why?

 

Doc

[Just Joe]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

In the stomach versus thigh contest the opponent is more likely to KO and kill the character by aiming at the stomach, 5 BODY to the stomach KOs Joe Average and 7 BODY leaves him dying. It needs 10 BODY to kill or KO hitting the thigh.

 

Chest hits need 10 BODY to kill and 7 BODY to KO, foot hits require 20 BODY to kill or to KO.

After rereading these examples, I think they support my case. An unarmored 20 STUN, 10 BOD target can't be KO'd by a KA hit to the thigh or foot without being left dying (at or below 0 BOD). Such a target can be KO'd by a hit to the stomach or chest without being left in such a state.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

After rereading these examples' date=' I think they support my case. An unarmored 20 STUN, 10 BOD target can't be KO'd by a KA hit to the thigh or foot without being left dying (at or below 0 BOD). Such a target can be KO'd by a hit to the stomach or chest without being left in such a state.[/quote']

 

Hmm. Now the problem with the chart is that it is inflexible. It assumes hits to vulnerable places (head, stomach, vitals) will cause more STUN than less vital places (thigh, foot, hand).

 

In general terms the chart is correct, these are the general results. Huge damage to an arm can tear it off and leave you conscious - it is rare for the same damage to the chest to similarly leave you conscious.

 

In practical game terms this is one of the things where I think the compromise to the middle result is necessary....

 

 

Doc

[Just Joe]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

I quoted it - "..taking your average Joe (STUN 20' date=' BODY 10) then hitting him in the arm [b']by your ratios [/b]you could do 6 BODY (and therefore 24 STUN) and have him laid out cold (-4 STUN). You would have to do 9 BODY to the head to get a similar result (-5 STUN)."

 

The ratios imply that result but they are wrong. In play 6 BODY to the Arm will do 12 STUN and 9 BODY to the head will do 45 STUN.

Sorry. I guess I'm not making myself clear. I'm talking about the actual BOD lost by the target after hit location modifiers. So the only problem with the example given is that you can't actually do an odd number of body to the head.

 

So, let's try, "taking your slightly below average Joe (STUN 16, BOD 8) then hitting him in the arm, you could roll 10 BODY (and therefore do 5 BODY and 20 STUN) and have him laid out cold (-4 STUN). You would have to roll 4 BODY to the head (and therefore do 8 BODY and 20 STUN) to get the same result."

 

I am not claiming that for a given BOD damage roll unmodified by the chart, the arm hit has a higher STUN/BOD ratio. My claim is about the ratio after modification to both characteristics by the chart. Since you seem to have been misunderstanding me, my claim is likely to seem trivial to you (especially by comparison to the radical -- and clearly false -- claim you seem to have thought I was making). But it still seems to me that we ought to want the (modified) STUN/BOD ratios implied by the chart to make sense.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

But it still seems to me that we ought to want the (modified) STUN/BOD ratios implied by the chart to make sense.

 

Then I thnk you need more sophisticated ratios, simple ones don't do the job that you want - they do not indicate the gameplay result of doing BODY damage to various hit locations.

 

If I had a more instinctive grasp of math then I might be able to come up with something - I think I know what you are reaching for but I can't put it within your grasp.

 

Do you know what you want the ratios to indicate? What message you want them to send?

 

 

Doc

[Just Joe]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

Hmm. Now the problem with the chart is that it is inflexible. It assumes hits to vulnerable places (head' date=' stomach, vitals) will cause more STUN than less vital places (thigh, foot, hand).[/quote']It might not make sense to reply to this, since it was posted before my clarification above. But if you go back to the first post of this thread, you'll see that with regard to the STUN/BOD ratio the hand, vitals, thigh, and foot are lumped together at one extreme (with the head being close), while the arm, stomach, and leg are at the other. The problem is that similar body parts don't appear to be treated simarly.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

It might not make sense to reply to this' date=' since it was posted before my clarification above. But if you go back to the first post of this thread, you'll see that with regard to the STUN/BOD ratio the hand, vitals, thigh, and foot are lumped together at one extreme (with the head being close), while the arm, stomach, and leg are at the other. The problem is that similar body parts don't appear to be treated simarly.[/quote']

 

But the chart doesn't deal in ratios, it deals in absolutes. Doing the same damage in an attack to the head will do more BODY and more STUN than in an attack to the legs.

 

The ratio you are looking at has no basis in absolute game effects. There may be some way to use ratios for information but it doesn't indicate the efficacy of attacking a particular hit location.

 

Doc

[Just Joe]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

But the chart doesn't deal in ratios' date=' it deals in absolutes.[/quote']The chart has implications regarding both. We tend to think more in terms of the absolutes, which is probably appropriate. But the ratios are implied by the chart just as much as the absolutes are.

 

Do you know what you want the ratios to indicate? What message you want them to send?

Trying to answer this precisely requires trying to define both STUN and BODY, which is something I don't want to do. I think we all have a rough common understanding of both characteristics, but trying to define them precisely is difficult. But I think the discussion thus far has given a decent approximation of the meaning of the ratio: something like likelihood of causing (or tendency to cause) unconsciousness without killing. (But this is only rough, at least in part because those probabilities depend on the size of the attack. A 1d6 KA hit to the arm has zero chance of killing outright, for example).

 

Frankly, I'm not sure which locations should have the highest S/B ratios. My suspicion is that the head should have a high-ish ratio (hits to head are deadly, yes, but are even more noteworthy for causing unconsciousness) and the stomach a low-ish one (having heard stories of people walking around mortally wounded in this area). But I have no particular expertise on this subject. I just can't believe that, for example, the vitals, thigh, and foot should have the same S/B ratios while the leg has a ratio twice as high.

 

The approach I'm toying with is to start with Utech's stun lotto tamer: STUN X = (3d6-3)/3, rounding off, and then to apply the BOD X modifier to both STUN and BOD (after defenses). I think this makes the average S/B ratios the same for all locations (which, I believe, is an improvement over the current chart, though perhaps further improvements are possible).

[Doc Democracy]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

The chart has implications regarding both. We tend to think more in terms of the absolutes' date=' which is probably appropriate. But the ratios are implied by the chart just as much as the absolutes are.[/quote']

 

I don't think that they are.

 

The way the chart is set up a hit to the head is very likely to knock you out. It is 5x STUN. Hits to the head are 2.5x more likely to result in a KO than a hit to the arm or thigh. Hits to the head are also more likely to result in death.

 

Neither of these results contradict what you want.

 

It would be easy to change the ratio - you could make the BODYx 1 rather than 2 - that would change the ratio from 2.5 to 5 and the highest ratio so far. If you made BODYx 0.5 then the ratio would be 10, by far the highest. Wouldn't make sense in absolute terms though.

 

But I think the discussion thus far has given a decent approximation of the meaning of the ratio: something like likelihood of causing (or tendency to cause) unconsciousness without killing.

 

[snip]

 

Frankly, I'm not sure which locations should have the highest S/B ratios. My suspicion is that the head should have a high-ish ratio (hits to head are deadly, yes, but are even more noteworthy for causing unconsciousness) and the stomach a low-ish one (having heard stories of people walking around mortally wounded in this area). But I have no particular expertise on this subject. I just can't believe that, for example, the vitals, thigh, and foot should have the same S/B ratios while the leg has a ratio twice as high.

 

I think you need more sophisticated ratios.

 

Vitals is 2 the same as the thighs and feet. A 5 BODY attack on each location however results in the vitals does 10 BODY, 20 STUN, while the same attack on the thighs does 5 BODY, 10 STUN and on the feet does 3 BODY, 5 STUN.

 

A huge range for the same ratio. That is because you aren't taking the absolute values into consideration.

 

The same hit to the leg causes 3 BODY, 10 STUN. A worse outcome than the vitals hit but better than the feet.

 

I don't think that you can draw any absolute conclusions from relative ratios.

 

The approach I'm toying with is to start with Utech's stun lotto tamer: STUN X = (3d6-3)/3' date=' rounding off, and then to apply the BOD X modifier to both STUN and BOD (after defenses). I think this makes the average S/B ratios the same for all locations (which, I believe, is an improvement over the current chart, though perhaps further improvements are possible). [/quote']

 

If you treat STUN and BODY the same, then all the ratios will be 1. I don't think that proves anything.

 

I suppose what you get then is that a hit anywhere on your BODY is as likely as anywhere else to KO before killing but that some locations on the BODY are more likely to both KO and kill.

 

 

Doc

[sbarron]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

Hand, vitals, thigh, or foot: 2

Head: 2.5

Shoulder or chest: 3

Arm, stomach, or leg: 4

 

Now I am not claiming that a higher number makes for a more effective attack. Clearly, a head hit is more effective than an arm hit. But still, the STUN to BOD ratio should represent how painful (or how likely to cause unconsciousness) it is to be be shot or stabbed in a location relative to the lasting damage done. And from that perspective, the numbers strike me as rather odd.

 

What do you think?

I think that the above ratios are a totally artificial construct, and it doesn't strike me as odd that they don't model anything very well. One of the problems with these ratios is that they do not account for the relative magnitude of the multipliers for each hit location.

 

The fact that a leg shot has only x2 STUN and x0.5 BODY multipliers, which are relatively low, and has a high ratio demonstrates the flaw. The leg multipliers are only 1.5 units apart, which gives their ratio of 4 less significance than the headshots ratio of 2.5, which is 3 units apart at the x5 and x2 level, and relatively high. On the face of it, the headshot clearly is more likely to knock you out than kill you, given the fact that the multipliers are so far apart.

 

A better way to look at these multipliers might be to look at the total difference between the BOD and STUN multiplier, to see how much more STUN they do vs BOD.

 

Head: 5-2 = 3

 

Stomach: 4-1 = 3

 

Shoulders, Chest, Vitals: 3-1, Vitals 4-2 = 2

 

Arms, Legs: 2-.5 = 1.5

 

Thighs: 2-1 = 1

 

Hands, Feet: 1-0.5 = 0.5

 

These results make more sense. Does that mean that the numbers I gave above have any deeper meaning about relative HERO damage? I don't think so. I do however, think they tell us more about the likelyhood that a given attack will do more STUN than BOD than Just Joe's ratios.

 

There is probably a way to come up with ratios for hit location multipliers that makes sense. I'd think, somehow figuring the relative magnitude of the multipliers into the formula would have to play some role, but I'm not really sure how to do it. It seems to me ,Just Joe, that the ratios you came up with only confuse the issue. We are only talking about 8 different multiplier settings here. 1-5 for STUN and 0.5. 1, and 2 for BOD. It would be just as easy to eyeball it.

 

Stomach shots do lots of STUN and avg BOD. Headshots do lots of both. Hand shots do little of both. If you don't think the Stomach mulipliers are an accurate representation of reality, then you should change them. Maybe x3 STUN and X1.5 BOD? I'm just throwing out ideas here. I hope this helps.

[Just Joe]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

Oh well . . .

 

I still think the S/B ratios are significant, and that the chart as constituted does not give acceptable results, but I'm clearly not persuading anyone, so I'm just going to drop the subject.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

 

Oh well . . .

 

I still think the S/B ratios are significant, and that the chart as constituted does not give acceptable results, but I'm clearly not persuading anyone, so I'm just going to drop the subject.

 

Sorry I didn't shed any light...

 

 

Doc