Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

[Bismark]

The thread about PSLs and Hit Location (in the Hero System Discussion forum) set me thinking...

 

It could be worse - if the Hit Location Chart was more 'realistic' and less 'cinematic' [is the head REALLY harder to hit than a hand or foot? - looking at the 'degrees of freedom' involved and the distances from the standard aiming point - no way].

 

The chart from Atomik FUZION a few years back had -5 to hit the head (and I think -8 to hit the hand); only 5 PSLs required there then...

 

RuneQuest had 2 charts - one for melee and 1 for missile; the missile one had far too low a chance of hiting the chest (10%), but the melee one was the interesting one. In melee people really try to protect their head, neck, chest and (for want of a better term) 'giblets' (), and many blows end up being hitting where the leading arm or leg [particularly the thigh] would be (hence the popularity of shields and thigh armour or just big shields). As a result the head and torso only get hit when there is a catastrophic mess-up by the defender or staggeringly good (or lucky) shot/blow by the attacker.

 

Alternative HLCs could be drawn up (if you are feeling adventurous ) to take account of this.

 

Caution: If using a more 'realistic' HLC and wanting characters to actually stay alive, remember this: SHIELD BLOCK (where possible), WEAPON BLOCK (where shield blocks are not possible) or DODGE (if necessary). Also, you can use ye olde house rule of 'he hit you, but by less than the DCV bonus of your shield, and on a location normally covered by your shield, so he actually hits your shield [full on, doing normal rolled damage to it] - it may trash all but a really tough shield, but that is what they are for...

 

Also, for head shots, a little bit of GURPS 'pirating' might be in order - give the head 1 point of internal DEF (one of the reasons firearms bods not using 'cannon'-type weapons aimed for the body rather than the head was not only for reasons of target size, but also because there was a very real danger of the bullet ricocheting of the skull and barely even affecting the target's ability to shoot back (especially if they were high on adrenaline - or PCP etc.).

 

Anyone fancy the challenge of alternative Hit Location Charts? (melee with archaic weapons could really do with one)

[Markdoc]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

The thread about PSLs and Hit Location (in the Hero System Discussion forum) set me thinking...

 

It could be worse - if the Hit Location Chart was more 'realistic' and less 'cinematic' [is the head REALLY harder to hit than a hand or foot? - looking at the 'degrees of freedom' involved and the distances from the standard aiming point - no way].

 

Way. We have quite a lot of medieval corpses from battle graves and injuries to the arm and lower leg are by far the commonest. It's not because they are easier to hit per se, but because when you are hitting at someone, your hand and arm are necessarily out where someone can cut at them, while the lower leg is both exposed below the shield and also hard to retract fast enough to avoid a low cut.

 

Head cuts aren't uncommon (especially on unarmoured troops), but both head and torso were usually protected by both the best armour and also by a shield and a person's best efforts. Hence a predominance of leg and arm wounds is relatively realistic. I guess, however, that if you wanted more accuracy, then a seperate missile and melee hit location chart would be the way to go, like RQ.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Old Man]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

Even the ranged hit location table isn't that accurate. It might be if all ranged fights were between dudes squared off in the street at high noon. But I usually get hit in the head or the arms. Sometimes this is because it's all that I'm showing, especially in CQB. But even when I'm caught out in the open, the way I hold my rifle really prevents hits to locations 10-11. And even then it's unusual for me to get hit below the belt.

[LordGhee]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

One reason I like Hero is that the hit chart was a lot like my experince in medival renacting combat and Marital art experince. In sparring you garde your head and torso so hand and leg blows are recieved and deliviered more.

 

I use cover from shields and packs pouches as covering hit location.

 

In a western game i was in a player stole some gold and was shot in that location and it saved him.

 

Lord ghee

[Dale A. Ward]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

combat and Marital art

 

New from HERO Games!!

 

Domestic Disturbances

The Ultimate Marital Arts Combat Handbook

 

[Checkmate]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

Even the ranged hit location table isn't that accurate. It might be if all ranged fights were between dudes squared off in the street at high noon. But I usually get hit in the head or the arms. Sometimes this is because it's all that I'm showing' date=' especially in CQB. But even when I'm caught out in the open, the way I hold my rifle really prevents hits to locations 10-11. And even then it's unusual for me to get hit below the belt.[/quote']

 

Then you're shooting wrong . The new tactics manual from the Military is getting people away from using the Weaver stance (where you're cocked sideways with your side pointing to the bad guy) and going to a squared off position. Body armor doesn't protect the sides and has a metal plate on the front. Pistols and Shotguns are pretty easy with this stance, the 16's take some getting used to. You have to put the stock of the gun WAY up on your shoulder so just the tip of the stock is touching. If you have a tac helmet on too (which I can't see why you wouldn't if you're in body armor) you have to cock the gun a bit to get proper sight alignment.

 

Err sorry for the hijack.

[Old Man]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

Fascinating. I know body armor has become a big issue, forcing the adoption of telescoping stocks, but I didn't know it was affecting the actual employment of the weapon to such a degree. Logically, if it is so critical to face the target so squarely, you'd have to start employing side-mounted sights, or even brace the stock of the gun against your sternum.

 

I've always wondered why shields aren't making a bigger comeback. In CQB, it seems like something about the size of a heater shield or targe would be extremely useful, without being as heavy and cumbersome as a full on entry shield.

[input.jack]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

What is CQB, please?

[Checkmate]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

Close Quarters Battle.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

It gives me the idea that maybe there should be a new Combat Maneuver or two (and maybe even Martial versions to boot) that would take this "defend the vital spots" stance into account. Sort of like a Dodge, but instead of granting a flat +3 DCV, it would give, say +/-6 to the hit location roll. This would indicate that while you may be just as easy to hit, it will be much harder to hit you in the head, or whereever. Call this Maneuver "Defensive Stance" or just "Defend" or something like that. (A)

 

Hmmm... Well that's not right, because even if you're trying to protect your head, there should still a chance you'll be hit in the head anyway, if your opponent is good/lucky enough. How 'bout: the HitLoc is rolled twice, and you get to choose which location gets hit. And with the Martial version, you could choose the best of three HitLoc rolls. This would represent taking a hit on the arm, say, to prevent a hit on the head. (

 

Or the maneuver could increase the Hit Location penalties, so a called shot to the head would become -12 instead of -8, or something like that. But what about hits that aren't called shots? Hmmm... ©

 

I'm just brainstorming here. So far, I like B the best, but it still needs work.

[Old Man]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

Or the maneuver could increase the Hit Location penalties' date=' so a called shot to the head would become -12 instead of -8, or something like that. But what about hits that aren't called shots? Hmmm... ©[/quote']

 

Realistically, there is no such thing as a non-called shot in melee. You're always trying to hit a specific body part, whether it's because it's what you want to hit or because you see an opening. Now since the target is probably moving around you could easily miss, say, location 12 and hit location 13 by accident. But even a wild baseball swing at center mass is still aimed at locations 10-11.

 

 

edit: Unless you're blindfolded.

[Outsider]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

For the 'defensive stance' you could have the attacker roll hit location twice and let the defender pick which one counts. Lots more less vital hits, but vital hits are still a possibility.

 

As for the 'all shots are called shots' thing...I agree. I've always been a bit unhappy with the "if you make a called shot, you suffer a (often large) OCV penalty, then most likely you miss all together" aspect of things. It would be a lot of math, but maybe misses due to the OCV penalty on called shots shouldnt make for a total miss, but should be how many hit locations the defender can move the actual hit location by.

 

Example :

OCV 5 striking at DCV 3 normally needs a 13- to hit. If the OCV 5 takes a head shot (location 5, -8 OCV), then he needs a 5- to hit the head. If he rolls a 10, say, he has missed by 5, which is less than the -8 for the location shot... so the defender still gets hit, but can move the hit location up to 5 pips from the head (somewhere from location 3 to 10) and chooses his heavily armored (and half BOD 2*Stun location) forearm (loc 7) as the spot.

 

 

 

It is another layer of numbers to keep track of though....

[Old Man]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

As for the 'all shots are called shots' thing...I agree. I've always been a bit unhappy with the "if you make a called shot, you suffer a (often large) OCV penalty, then most likely you miss all together" aspect of things. It would be a lot of math, but maybe misses due to the OCV penalty on called shots shouldnt make for a total miss, but should be how many hit locations the defender can move the actual hit location by.

 

I've always assumed that that's what the current table did. It abstracts the openings left by the target, the intended location of the hit, the flinching of the target, and weights it so that a 'hit' is more likely to be to a substantial target than to the arm or lower leg.

 

Melee combat is just too intricate to be realistically modeled with three dice rolls. What you suggest, however, seems like it could be an improvement.

[LordGhee]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

In my fantasy Hero games players with shield can use them as a wall. a medium round shield would cover hit locations formthe shoulder to the thigh form one hex side if you hit those locatoins you have to penatrate the shield first.

 

Roman legionires would get cover from the ankle to the shoulder.

 

This repasents the person active holding the shield up and toward an attacker.

 

A player can just take the shield bonus, which is a more active moving the shield in a parry (which randomly opens you up so you can get hit anywhere)

 

Lord Ghee

[Lord Zod]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

Realistically' date=' there is no such thing as a non-called shot in melee. You're always trying to hit a specific body part, whether it's because it's what you want to hit or because you see an opening.[/quote']

 

Naturally I agree with you, as I'm fairly sure anyone who has ever tried to hit someone with something would.

 

I usually run with the assumption that making a melee attack without making a called shot means that your character is choosing to attack whatever spot happens to be the most open, and the hit location roll determines what the defender left exposed.

 

The "unrealistic" called shot penalties (which I think is actually pretty subjective depending which factors one believes are being represented) represent the added difficulty of ignoring an exposed area and attacking something else anyway. You miss completely if you fail because the defender was ready for you and effortlessly parried your attack. This is why the hit location penalties are halved when one' DCV is halved.

 

If someone doesn't like that explanation, I think a house rule like the one Outsider proposed might not be a bad idea, though it might slow combat down since everyone will be making called shots all the time. And now that I think about it, why shouldn't the defender move the hit location by enough spaces that the attack is off of his body all together? An attack to the head is just as likely to be too high as to be too low, especially is the defender tries to duck. It might go over his head just as easily as hitting his shoulder.

 

Of course my explanation raises some other realism questions, like why a more skilled defender is just as likely to screw up and expose his head or vitals as an unskilled defender, or why the attacker can't make his hit location roll first and choose not to waste his energy if the best exposed point is his opponent's foot.

 

Oh well, IMO realism is nice to have when you can get it, but should always yield to game balance and ease of use in play, but that's another debate all together.

[Lezentauw]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

Naturally I agree with you, as I'm fairly sure anyone who has ever tried to hit someone with something would.

 

I usually run with the assumption that making a melee attack without making a called shot means that your character is choosing to attack whatever spot happens to be the most open, and the hit location roll determines what the defender left exposed.

 

The "unrealistic" called shot penalties (which I think is actually pretty subjective depending which factors one believes are being represented) represent the added difficulty of ignoring an exposed area and attacking something else anyway. You miss completely if you fail because the defender was ready for you and effortlessly parried your attack. This is why the hit location penalties are halved when one' DCV is halved.

 

If someone doesn't like that explanation, I think a house rule like the one Outsider proposed might not be a bad idea, though it might slow combat down since everyone will be making called shots all the time. And now that I think about it, why shouldn't the defender move the hit location by enough spaces that the attack is off of his body all together? An attack to the head is just as likely to be too high as to be too low, especially is the defender tries to duck. It might go over his head just as easily as hitting his shoulder.

 

Of course my explanation raises some other realism questions, like why a more skilled defender is just as likely to screw up and expose his head or vitals as an unskilled defender, or why the attacker can't make his hit location roll first and choose not to waste his energy if the best exposed point is his opponent's foot.

 

Oh well, IMO realism is nice to have when you can get it, but should always yield to game balance and ease of use in play, but that's another debate all together.

 

I guess you could just use the Special Hit Location "Body Shot" as the default for melee combat with no penalty. And, then use your explanation for what got hit, was the opening that the defender left. To better explain the hands, they could also be hit as the defender was trying to parry the attack.

 

The Body Shot is 2d6+4, for a -1 OCV. If this was the default I would just ignore the -1 for melee attacks.

 

For missle combat the normal hit locations makes sense to me in a fantasy setting. Perhaps in a DC game you may want to use the same Body Shot house rule.

[Inu]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

My justification for HLC and called shot penalties: in general combat, yes, each particular swing is probably aimed at one location. However, when you're swinging, you're also trying to find holes in their defences. The random roll for location indicates where that hole in their defence is. So it's more like 'aha, he poked his leg out too far, I'll hit that!' The roll to hit then roll for location is something of an abstraction. You get no penalty, because you see the opening then attack, rather than the reverse.

 

If you do a called shot, you're concentrating on one area, and potentially ignoring other opportunities to strike, while you force your way through their defences to hit there even though there isn't an opening to do so. You're making your job (making contact with your target) harder, because you're limiting your options and going for an area where they can more easily defend themselves instead of hitting where it's easiest.

 

This might be too abstract for some, but if you don't like it, you can always demand that people do 'called shots', and people skilled in combat simply buy a few anti-targetting levels and always take 'high shot' or something like that.

[mikesama]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

A couple of things I've learned in historical fencing.

 

1: You are never just trying to hit them, you are trying to hit them somewhere specific, always.

 

2: Unless you have a serrious reach advantage you almost never take a shot at the lower leg, unless you are behind a shield.

[Lezentauw]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

A couple of things I've learned in historical fencing.

 

1: You are never just trying to hit them, you are trying to hit them somewhere specific, always.

 

2: Unless you have a serrious reach advantage you almost never take a shot at the lower leg, unless you are behind a shield.

 

I am just not sure that the "standard" hit location tables are the best to use. As an example, if you try the get a "head shot" with an overhead slash from a broadsword, you could still hit your opponent even though you missed the head.

 

Perhaps terrain is the reason, as your opponent has the high ground.

[Korvar]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

A couple of things I've learned in historical fencing.

 

1: You are never just trying to hit them, you are trying to hit them somewhere specific, always.

 

Which leads to the "Location Table represents what's open" idea, as opposed to "Location Table represents the bit your strike randomly hit". Location penalties represent the difficulty of forcing an opening for the particular location you choose, rather than whatever you opponent happened to leave open on their own.

 

It's certainly a bit of handwaving that works for me.

[Vondy]

Re: Hit Locations for Melee (particularly Fantasy/Mediaeval) combat

 

Fascinating. I know body armor has become a big issue, forcing the adoption of telescoping stocks, but I didn't know it was affecting the actual employment of the weapon to such a degree. Logically, if it is so critical to face the target so squarely, you'd have to start employing side-mounted sights, or even brace the stock of the gun against your sternum.

 

I've always wondered why shields aren't making a bigger comeback. In CQB, it seems like something about the size of a heater shield or targe would be extremely useful, without being as heavy and cumbersome as a full on entry shield.

 

Its not just the armor in most cases, which is bulky enough. Its the myriad of pouches with gear on-top of the armor as well. The average vest we make has plates inside, kevlar in the open spots, eight pouches on the front (some with pouches on them), and two large pouches on the back. Its bulky and requires some posture adustments, especially with the helmet on, but its the only way to keep your armor where it will do the most good. This might change if the dragonskin design becomes more popular, which is effectively ballistic scale-mail with an overlay of kevlar. Its competitive with the plates from current performance metrics, and provides a greater range of body-movement. There are also some very strong nano-fibers being produced, that may significantly reduce the mass of the armor over the next decade. One will theoretically react to the impact of a bullet by becoming suddenly hard like a plate - and it can supposedly stop rifle bullets while being somewhere between flannel and kevlar in thickness. None of this compensates for all those pouches, though. Its a lot of gear.