Jump to content

Hit Locations or Not?


Blackout

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 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.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by mudpyr8

I know people can make arguments about the chaos of combat, blah, blah, blah, but it comes down to the feel of the game...... Players will never be taken out by a random shot (if you apply the system to PCs).

 

I, as both a GM and player, enjoy games more when I know that anyone can die at anytime......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by keithcurtis

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.

 

You don't want to make the effort to memorize a chart with at most a dozen entries... but you have time to make a database to handle all combat.

 

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.

 

Combat Luck.

 

How can good playing reduce the chance of a facial wound? I assume you mean by wearing a helmet.

 

No, I mean by dodging or blocking when someone takes a swing at you.

 

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.

 

None of the characters I ran ever had a facial scar either. It's funny, but all my characters really didn't scar up much at all, even on those freak occasions when they did get hit in 3-5. Unless I thought it would look cool, anyway.

 

Again, you sound like you're deathly afraid of having your heroes get hit in the face in combat. To reiterate: it rarely happens, and if it does happen, so what? Hit locations do not force you to model gangrene and facial reconstruction.

 

It all comes down to what you are trying to simulate.

 

It all comes down to what's more fun to play, actually. Having a leg wound is more interesting to me than a hit point countdown. The possibility of sudden death is more interesting than wading into combat secure in the knowledge that I can take two solid hits from this guy's shortsword before I risk negative body.

 

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.

 

IMO what you have is a hit point system that takes longer. It has all of the drawbacks of hit locations and none of the benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blackout has written

"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")."

 

 

 

Okay. DON'T do that.

 

My CV is 5 pts lower than that guy's. I'm not likely to hit - but if I hit at all, it's in the HEAD? And somehow no one EVER gets hit in the foot? Forget it.

 

Personally, I'm all in favor of using hit locations, but perhaps not all the time. If you fall in a pit or get hit by lightning or a catapult stone or hit a pixie with a mace or have to fight a swarm of rats, I could consider it "generalized" damage. (The damage you do to the rat you hit, that is - the rats are attacking your feet and legs.)

 

Now, what you COULD do if you want to put a little work in it, is create a compromise system that IS based on how well you hit, such as -

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vitals - any roll that was made by 10 pts, or any roll of 3

 

Head - any roll made by 8 or 9 pts, or any roll of 4

 

Roll hit location - any roll made by 5 to 7 pts

 

Called shots - anyone can try a called shot at any time.

 

All other successful hits - "generalized" damage.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Or maybe

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Damage multipliers for location do not apply.

 

Stun multiple is half the points the roll was made by.

 

Called shot - considered impairing if any STUN is done, disabling if 2 or more BOD is done ("impairing" could just mean they dropped a weapon and lose a phase drawing a new one.)

 

Roll was under half what was needed to hit - roll for location, apply impairing and disabling rules by the book.

 

Roll was 10 under, or roll of 3 - ATTACKER CHOOSES location.

 

Roll was 8 or 9 under, or roll of 4 - DEFENDER CHOOSES location.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Personally, I just use the hit location rules as written in most cases. They can be overused - how is an explosion going to hit just your foot? - but I have to disagree with those who say not to use them at all.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I never did write a hit location chart for a palindromedary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally use the HLC for all targeted (i.e. single target rather than AE/Explosion types) killing attacks in all genres. I like the results better than using the base 1d6-1 for StunX. I don't generally use the HLC for normal attacks unless someone is specifically targeting a hit location, and I don't generally allow the HLC for special attakcs (NND, AVLD, etc) at all. All of the above subject to what seems like a good idea at the time. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Shadowpup

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.

 

No, it's a book thing. Read the description as they set out from Rivendell. (Fellowship, Ballantine PB edition pp. 365-6) Gimli is the only one openly wearing armor, a short coat of rings. (no helmet, I mis-remembered). Frodo has his hidden shirt of mail and Bormoir has a shield. That's it. Not even leather, though they did have jackets and cloaks lined with fur.

 

I agree about Combat Luck, though. Only problem I have with Combat Luck is it should have an activation roll, or the characters are fairly immune to low-level attacks.

 

Keith "I'm not sure if I made any real point there :)" Curtis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Old Man

You don't want to make the effort to memorize a chart with at most a dozen entries... but you have time to make a database to handle all combat.

Actually, the combat handling is only part of the database. It also keeps records and creates characters. But I don't program during a game.

 

 

Combat Luck.

I don't like combat luck as written, since it always succeeds. I have thought about putting an activation roll on it, just for the thrill of it, but who wants to re-write all the existing characters?

 

No, I mean by dodging or blocking when someone takes a swing at you.

 

quote:"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.

 

The quote above is what I was referring to. A face hit is a face hit. You have no way of knowing to dodge before the hit is announced. If you are dodging or blocking, you are dodging and blocking all attacks, not just called ones. Unless you require your NPCs to announce to the players that they are going to aim for their vitals before they roll?

 

 

 

None of the characters I ran ever had a facial scar either. It's funny, but all my characters really didn't scar up much at all, even on those freak occasions when they did get hit in 3-5. Unless I thought it would look cool, anyway.

 

Again, you sound like you're deathly afraid of having your heroes get hit in the face in combat. To reiterate: it rarely happens, and if it does happen, so what? Hit locations do not force you to model gangrene and facial reconstruction.

 

Please. I am not "deathly afraid". :rolleyes:

I took one consequence of HLC to make an example. I am not afraid of hitting a character in the face. And I have seen too many munchkins exploit things like the HLC (in GURPS, admittedly) to distasteful effect. I once saw an Archer take out King Kong because the GURPS chart stated the eyes are 0 Defense. His eyes are HUGE. It was silly.

Granted, the HERO chart is much better in that regard.

Despite what I said about the genre we are playing, combat is not that central to the game. It's a fun adjunct to the story, which might be a mystery or political intrigue or exploration. It's not important enough to add too many options. For example, bleeding or impairing.

 

 

It all comes down to what's more fun to play, actually. Having a leg wound is more interesting to me than a hit point countdown. The possibility of sudden death is more interesting than wading into combat secure in the knowledge that I can take two solid hits from this guy's shortsword before I risk negative body.

 

No. I stand by my remark. I think what my players are more comfortable with is synonymous with what is more fun to play in this case. If people are uncomfortable with a rule, then they aren't having as much fun as they might.

I do have other house rules that modify the uncertainty of combat, but our games are fairly story-oriented. Characters don't generally die fighting guards. Again, it might be too unrealistic for your taste, but we don't play in the same game. If Conan dies on page 4, there isn't much of a story. If Boromir dies from a random arrow in Moria, it's not nearly as much fun (to play) as dying defending the hobbits while Frodo gets away.

 

 

 

 

IMO what you have is a hit point system that takes longer. It has all of the drawbacks of hit locations and none of the benefits.

 

You're welcome to your opinion. I think you would have to attend one of my games before you could come to the conclusion of how I run combat. I have no problem with occasionally rolling a hit location if it's important.

 

For example, two characters are climbing ropes and get into a knife fight. I might rule that anyone who gets an arm hit must make a Con roll to remain suspended. I just oppose adding the HLC calculation into every combat hit. If someone wants to run it for their own character for color, that's fine. If they just want to decide where they were hit, that's fine too. My current players are pretty good roleplayers.

 

I don't want to upset the apple cart by starting an armor race, or have everyone want to by PSLs vs head shots or something. Besides, a blow that does 5 body could be a minor leg wound or a major head wound. Modifying the damage after the location is announced is fun for you, superfluous to me. A person can be fatally wounded in almost any location of the body.

 

It's a pretty trivial thing we're debating here, anyway. I freely admit that most people use the HLC at heroic level and have a great deal of fun with it. We don't. At this point we should agree to disagree, since I rarely argue a point this long. No one is going to change anyone's mind.

 

Keith "To each their own" Curtis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lucius

I never did write a hit location chart for a palindromedary

 

Right, then, you make some very good points. (As do most everyone who's posted in reply.) I think, when I get this thing going, I'll use hit locations, but only for important opponents. Which is to say, Disposable Thugs (TM and patent pending) won't use the hit location tables against the PCs, and the PCs won't use hit locations against them (though the PCs could go for called shots).

 

In other words, when hit locations could serve to increase the dramatic tension, I'll use 'em.

 

Okay. I gotta ask this... A "palindromedary"? That'd be a camel that looks the same frontwards and backwards? Eating seems easy enough, but, um, how does it defecate? (Something that, by the by, has always bugged me about the cartoon Cat/Dog.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by keithcurtis

Actually, the combat handling is only part of the database. It also keeps records and creates characters. But I don't program during a game.

 

No, of course not. But I'm addressing your earlier claim that the hit location table is too much work. You're smart enough to write a database to handle combat, therefore you are smart enough to memorize a little chart.

 

The quote above is what I was referring to. A face hit is a face hit. You have no way of knowing to dodge before the hit is announced. If you are dodging or blocking, you are dodging and blocking all attacks, not just called ones. Unless you require your NPCs to announce to the players that they are going to aim for their vitals before they roll?

 

Of course you have no way of knowing where the blow is going to land. That's where it gets interesting. Do you dodge, or potentially take the hit? Typically this depends on what you know about your opponent's skill level and damage class.

 

 

Please. I am not "deathly afraid". :rolleyes:

I took one consequence of HLC to make an example. I am not afraid of hitting a character in the face.

 

Well, what's the problem, then? I'm not afraid of my character getting hit in the face. I don't have him go out and block with it, but I accept the fact that what he does for a living is dangerous.

 

No. I stand by my remark. I think what my players are more comfortable with is synonymous with what is more fun to play in this case. If people are uncomfortable with a rule, then they aren't having as much fun as they might.

 

If your players are more comfortable with hit points, then that's fine. I'll never understand it, but fine.

 

I do have other house rules that modify the uncertainty of combat, but our games are fairly story-oriented. Characters don't generally die fighting guards. Again, it might be too unrealistic for your taste, but we don't play in the same game. If Conan dies on page 4, there isn't much of a story. If Boromir dies from a random arrow in Moria, it's not nearly as much fun (to play) as dying defending the hobbits while Frodo gets away.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. If everyone knows ahead of time that the group is Not Meant To Die Here, then why even play out the combat? Why not just say, "you encounter some guards, and they die, because you're the heroes," and save a lot of time? If Conan knows he's not going to die on page 4, then why read page 4? The first time you read FotR, did you know Boromir was going to survive Moria? Of course not. That's what made it interesting.

 

 

You're welcome to your opinion. I think you would have to attend one of my games before you could come to the conclusion of how I run combat. I have no problem with occasionally rolling a hit location if it's important.

 

I don't think I actually have to attend one of your games to know that I would be bored by combat. The other stuff might be great, but every time swords are drawn and it's not the boss, I know my character is in no danger. This turns combat into a meaningless exercise in die-rolling.

 

 

It's a pretty trivial thing we're debating here, anyway. I freely admit that most people use the HLC at heroic level and have a great deal of fun with it. We don't. At this point we should agree to disagree, since I rarely argue a point this long. No one is going to change anyone's mind.

 

Okay. Of course, it's not your mind I'm after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't intending to respond anymore, but I feel you are misrepeesenting my remarks. I will only address those points where my meaning was not clear or I feel you have put a spin on my words (intentional or not)

 

Originally posted by Old Man

No, of course not. But I'm addressing your earlier claim that the hit location table is too much work. You're smart enough to write a database to handle combat, therefore you are smart enough to memorize a little chart.

 

Yes, I am smart enough. I'm also smart enough to use bleeding and impairing. I am also smart enough to design my own game system. Being smart enough to do somethig has nothing to do with the desire to do it.

 

Well, what's the problem, then? I'm not afraid of my character getting hit in the face. I don't have him go out and block with it, but I accept the fact that what he does for a living is dangerous.

I'm not sure what you're refuting here, or why you seem to be fixated on a face wound, a point which I stated was just a minor example. I stated how certain aspects of the HLC do not match up with the fiction I want to model. Minor point. So minor in fact that I will concede it. Combat is dangerous and somethimes bad things happen.

 

 

If your players are more comfortable with hit points, then that's fine. I'll never understand it, but fine.

 

You are using the word hit points. Not me. I'm not sure what you mean by this anyway, save that you feel your method leads to less generic damage? I stated that I will roll a hit location for role-playing purposes if necessary. Do you use bleeding impairing and blow through? Do you model the potential for wound infection? Long term disability? Characteristic loss due to injury? Everyone likes a different level of graininess and realism to their combat. When modeling Superhero combat, FReD recommends using the HLC for color only. Different genres and styles/different needs.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. If everyone knows ahead of time that the group is Not Meant To Die Here, then why even play out the combat? Why not just say, "you encounter some guards, and they die, because you're the heroes," and save a lot of time? If Conan knows he's not going to die on page 4, then why read page 4? The first time you read FotR, did you know Boromir was going to survive Moria? Of course not. That's what made it interesting.

Please re-read my words carefully, I said: "Characters don't generally die fighting guards. " Key word: "Generally". I didn't say it was impossible, just not likely. We lost a major character to a minor encounter about six months ago. I didn't step in and deus ex machina the event. It happened. Combat is dangerous and the potential for death is always there. I never said it wasn't. Many rule systems (even Hero) have rules for making simply-overcome villains (Feng Shui's mooks rule, one-or two-hit agents, etc.)

 

 

I don't think I actually have to attend one of your games to know that I would be bored by combat. The other stuff might be great, but every time swords are drawn and it's not the boss, I know my character is in no danger. This turns combat into a meaningless exercise in die-rolling.

You're welcome to come to that conclusion. It's erroneous and totally unsupported by testimonial evidence of over a dozen players. But if you want to judge me sight unseen, I can't (and woudn't want to) stop you.

 

Okay. Of course, it's not your mind I'm after.

 

Then why do you keep trying to convince me I'm wrong? :)

 

Rebut if you want, but if you want a reply, ask for one specifically. Otherwise I'll be happy to let you have the last word.

 

Keith "." Curtis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...