House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

[Killer Shrike]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

Cool. As you don't post as "Killer Shrike - Former Marine" I didn't know that.

No need to get snippy; I didn't imply that you should know it.

 

 

True it isn't. But it is more than the no additional penalty when trying to hit someone in the head that this house rule/optional rule models. Neither is 100% realistic. As you know, in reality if you aim for the head you miss more often, you hit the head more often, and sometimes you hit something else.

How did you intend this general commentary to relate to the house rule in question, which doesnt involve declaring an aim for the head, but rather abstracts greater accuracy based upon relative success of the to-hit roll?

[Alibear]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

I would interested in how this went..keep us informed whatever you plan on doing.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

Well, my problem with the rule is that +1 or -1 is not always equal in moving around the bell curve - linear bonuses and bell curved results cause problems.

 

I realise that skill levels already pose a problem here. I dont think that there is a good way to avoid trhis but having a house rule that allows the extremes of the bell curve to be exploited regularly would suggest that we discard the 3D6 and take something that doesn't have that distribution (such as a D20! )

 

Personally I would be more inclined to ask for called shots to be used (and to answer Killer Shrike's concern) allow for rolls that make half the penalty to do a x1 BODY, x2 STUN hit to the chest area.

 

That way missed called shots hit the central body area with the potential for doing BODY but probably not much STUN.

 

So a called shot to the head (-8 penalty) would hit the head if the -8 was made and would do the minor hit if a -4 was made.

 

 

Doc

[ghost-angel]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

What concerns me:

 

This houserule makes things that contribute to lowering people's DCVs incredibly powerful. Invisibility, entangle, flash, darkness etc. etc. etc.

 

It devalues defenses in that it makes it too easy to get a 150% or 200% damage result.

 

I got curious so I just had to crunch some numbers.

 

If you hit by one (or two if you use the 1/2 version) then you average 124% damage.

If you hit by two (or four if you use the 1/2 version) then you average 144% damage.

If you hit by three (or six ...) then you average 162% damage.

 

This will severely reduce my enthusiasm for playing a brick with these rules.

 

You seem to be approaching this rule from the perspective of running a Superheroic Campaign - which is it not only not intended for, but would likely pose many issues.

 

As KS points out, it would make combat brutal. It's not for campaigns with CvK, Cinematic Action or Low Lethality Rates (like most HERO campaigns).

[Diamond Spear]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

Re-reading my replies which, as they were posted from work, aren’t the most intelligent thing I’ve ever said and reading the replies posted since has led me to ask this question: do we really need a new mechanic for this? Why not simply allow characters to buy “+1 OCV only to improve hit location roll”? That way people who want better hit location rolls can buy levels to get them, perhaps reflecting their superior training and those who don’t want to spend the points get what chance gives them. As for the “called shot misses altogether” that’s a game mechanic that is designed more for balance than to reflect real life exactly. I guess after long exposure to Rifts where there truly isn’t a reason to not call your shot every time I’ve become a little picky on that point.

[archermoo]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

No need to get snippy; I didn't imply that you should know it.

 

Wasn't intended to be snippy, sorry if it came across as such. You seemed to be implying that I shouldn't have posted what I did as you already knew it. I was just pointing out that I had no way of knowing that.

 

How did you intend this general commentary to relate to the house rule in question' date=' which doesnt involve declaring an aim for the head, but rather abstracts greater accuracy based upon relative success of the to-hit roll? [/quote']

 

"Greater accuracy" implies an aimed target, even if that aiming is being abstracted. Even if the player doesn't declare a specific target until after they roll the dice the character was aiming there all along.

 

My point was basically that if characters are spending some part of their time aiming at the head (not a pre-roll declared shot by the player, but the character hitting someone in the head on purpose), then realistically they should be missing more often than if they were always shooting at the chest. Whether or not it is worthwhile to try and model that in game is another discussion entirely.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

My point was basically that if characters are spending some part of their time aiming at the head (not a pre-roll declared shot by the player' date=' but the character hitting someone in the head on purpose), then realistically they should be missing more often than if they were always shooting at the chest. Whether or not it is worthwhile to try and model that in game is another discussion entirely.[/quote']

 

As well, I would suggest that characters with the exact same OCV, one aiming for the head and the second aiming for the knees, should have very different chances of hitting the feet should they miss their intended target.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

I realise that skill levels already pose a problem here. I dont think that there is a good way to avoid trhis but having a house rule that allows the extremes of the bell curve to be exploited regularly would suggest that we discard the 3D6 and take something that doesn't have that distribution (such as a D20! )

I'd say just don't allow Levels to figure into the adjustment of the hit location, or if they do, they do so *instead* of adding to OCV. After all, CSLs are supposed to be only used for one purpose at a time. If you use them to add to OCV, they can't also be added to damage, so likewise, they shouldn't add to Hit Location modification.

 

For example, if you have three CSLs with the attack, vs an opponent with a DCV three higher than your base OCV:

If and you use all three levels on OCV, you need an 11 to hit, and you rolled a 9, you hit, but you don't get to modify the HitLoc at all.

If and you use two levels on OCV, you need an 10 to hit, and you rolled a 9, you hit and you can modify the HitLoc by one.

If and you use one level on OCV, you need an 9 to hit, and you rolled a 9, you hit and you can modify the HitLoc by two.

If and you no levels on OCV, hoping to use all of them on HitLoc, you need an 8 to hit, and you rolled a 9, you miss.

 

And remember that 2-point CSLs can only be used to increase OCV, not to increase damage, or to modify Hit Locations.

[archermoo]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

As well' date=' I would suggest that characters with the exact same OCV, one aiming for the head and the second aiming for the knees, should have very different chances of hitting the feet should they miss their intended target.[/quote']

 

I agree. And the Head Shot, High Shot, Body Shot, Low Shot, and Leg Shot targeting seem to mimic that pretty well. The Head Shot for instance gives you a 33% chance of hitting someone in the head with no chance to hit their foot, while giving you a -4 to hit. On a random roll you only have about a 0.5% chance of hitting the head.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

It really boils down to how you envision resolution rolls in general and to hit rolls in specific. If you envision them as purely declarative, then it wont make sense for you. If you envision them as a representation of degree of success, then the concept isn't a stretch.

 

Personally, I lean more towards the degree of success concept, since that is how other 3d6 rolls are generally resolved in the HERO System. You declare a basic intent, and the result of the roll acts as a guide to interpret how well you succeeded or failed at that intent.

 

 

 

But honestly, I'm not sure why some of you are protesting so much against it. The OP is perfectly capable of giving it a try in their own game and determining if it works for them or not. No one is going to come to your homes and take away your big black and green rulebook if you don't strenuously voice your opposition to the idea, or make you implement the house rule yourself.

 

You personally may not like the idea; it may not be for you or your group, it is too lethal for many campaigns, it does have some design bias favoring some characters over others (like practically all mechanics do). But, it does work in some contexts, it has been tried by others, and it is worth trying out if it seems like an interesting approach.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

But honestly' date=' I'm not sure why some of you are protesting so much against it. The OP is perfectly capable of giving it a try in their own game and determining if it works for them or not.[/quote']

 

The OP also asked for feedback and expectations of the results of such an approach. That's what we're providing. I'd say he has a pretty good idea what this approach may cause in-game, and can make an informed decision whether to playtest it in his game, as initially conceived or modified for comments received.

 

For everyone who protests excessively, there's someone who supports it excessively. To me, that says "maybe, maybe not, depending on the effect you're looking for".

[BNakagawa]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

This is also true of called shots.

 

 

Post your work please...how are you arriving at these numbers?

 

 

...when you say "brick", do you mean in the superheroic archetype sense, or in some more generic "tough but not so fast" sense?

 

Point 1: Called Shots have the drawback of missing entirely when you fail. This house rule eliminates the risk and only provides reward. This is what I like to describe as unbalanced.

 

Point 2: There are 216 possible rolls for a 3d6 location check and 16 possible results. Normally 3 results (3-5) yield double damage. Under this house rule, if you hit by 1 (or 2) then 3-6 yields double damage. Normally 12-13 yields 150% damage. Under this house rule, if you hit by 1 or 2, then 11-14 yields 150% damage.so, now you've got 20/216 hits doing double damage and 88/216 hits doing 150% damage, 83/216 chance of doing X1 damage and 25/216 chance of doing 1/2 damage. On the average, that's ((20*2) +(88*1.5)+(83)+(25*.5))/216 = 1.2384 (124%) The above figures assume that you are interested in doing more damage and not less. If you choose to use the +-1 on the hit location chart to avoid doing damage, then your figures will differ.

 

Point 3: Yeah, the tough guy archetype gets the shaft. The duellist package out of FH is the king of the hill. Superheroic, heroic, doesn't matter much. Low DCV now suxxorz.

[Mike W]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

I tried to search the forums for any mention of this house rule I'm considering, but the search system didn't seem to be working.

 

I'll be amazed if anyone hasn't already proposed this.

 

I was thinking of a house rule for a Heroic Level campaign where PCs can use the overage on their hit rolls on a one-to-one basis to modify their roll for Hit Location.

 

So, example, Dick Dashingford, Private Eye, is punching at an assassin who is rushing at him with a machete. He needs to hit, so he doesn't call a location. He hits on a 13- and rolls a 8, succeeding by five.

 

The GM calls for Dick for roll Hit Location, and Dick rolls a 10, hitting the guy in the Chest location. Not that helpful.

 

But the GM rules that he can adjust his Hit Location roll up or down by up to five, the amount by which he made the roll.

 

Dick adjusts it down to Hit Location 5, which the GM says is the attacker's chin.

 

Would this rule be rankly abused all the time, or would this be a good way to introduce a more heroic tone?

 

It's not often that a strong-jawed hero in a pulp novel punches a bad guy in the shoulder.

 

I'm not crazy about this simply because I think it discourages roleplaying and risk taking. Why bother EVER trying a called shot and taking the negatives when you can make a standard roll with better odds?

 

I also think this has the possibility to get abused really easily, especially if you using disabling rules with it.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

I'm not crazy about this simply because I think it discourages roleplaying and risk taking.

 

I disagree with this entirely. If anything it lends players of skilled characters more confidence as it is a less random which will influence their roleplaying for the better IMO.

 

At any rate when we used it I never felt like our roleplaying or risk taking was discouraged in the slightest.

 

Why bother EVER trying a called shot and taking the negatives when you can make a standard roll with better odds?

 

Why indeed?

[MorpheousXO]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

Why bother EVER trying a called shot and taking the negatives when you can make a standard roll with better odds?

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure that this system isn't intended to be mixed with called shots, because it really is the same thing done two different ways. Personally, I'm very intrigued by this, and I'm not really sure how I'd want to with this. If I can get an actual group I'll have to try things out to see how I like them for high fantasy.

[archermoo]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

It really boils down to how you envision resolution rolls in general and to hit rolls in specific. If you envision them as purely declarative, then it wont make sense for you. If you envision them as a representation of degree of success, then the concept isn't a stretch.

 

Personally, I lean more towards the degree of success concept, since that is how other 3d6 rolls are generally resolved in the HERO System. You declare a basic intent, and the result of the roll acts as a guide to interpret how well you succeeded or failed at that intent.

 

 

 

But honestly, I'm not sure why some of you are protesting so much against it. The OP is perfectly capable of giving it a try in their own game and determining if it works for them or not. No one is going to come to your homes and take away your big black and green rulebook if you don't strenuously voice your opposition to the idea, or make you implement the house rule yourself.

 

You personally may not like the idea; it may not be for you or your group, it is too lethal for many campaigns, it does have some design bias favoring some characters over others (like practically all mechanics do). But, it does work in some contexts, it has been tried by others, and it is worth trying out if it seems like an interesting approach.

 

As a note, I at least am not protesting against it. Just providing my feedback. My understanding was that that was what the OP was looking for. To extend your analogy, my stating my problems with the rule doesn't mean that I'm going to come to your house and force you to not use it, or take your big black and green rulebook away.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

As a note' date=' I at least am not protesting against it. Just providing my feedback. My understanding was that that was what the OP was looking for. To extend your analogy, my stating my problems with the rule doesn't mean that I'm going to come to your house and force you to not use it, or take your big black and green rulebook away.[/quote']

 

Actually, it might be amusing if you tried. Its MINE!

[ghost-angel]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

I'm not crazy about this simply because I think it discourages roleplaying and risk taking. Why bother EVER trying a called shot and taking the negatives when you can make a standard roll with better odds?

 

I also think this has the possibility to get abused really easily, especially if you using disabling rules with it.

 

Actually - I think it might do the opposite, using this rule could make the frequency of martial maneuvers with OCV bonuses and DCV minuses more common as the character takes more of a risk to try and get that one shot kill.

 

It is intended to be lethal, the Optional Rules starting on p185 of DC are intended to create "grittier" games, more lethal games and flat our more dangerous games. It's a step away from cinematic.

[archermoo]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

Actually' date=' it might be amusing if you tried. Its MINE! [/quote']

 

Heh.

 

:bmk::bmk:

 

[Flames]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

Dang, I wish the Search had been working the day I posted the original topic.

Killer Shrike described himself as using the exact system I was proposing, and noted the lethal nature of it.

 

I might take a close look at etherio's system as well for my next Heroic-level campaign.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

Another implication of this rule: Non-damaging attacks such as Entangles and Flashes, as well as Mental Powers and other attacks that don't have a hit location, such as most NNDs and AVLDs, become relatively weaker. That is, they remain the same while attacks that take a hit location roll become more powerful. Just something to keep in mind.

 

It's not just bricks that are "hosed" by this rule, but mentalists and other non-standard attackers as well.

 

Not that it's inherently a bad idea. It's an interesting idea and can be quite good in the right type of game. I'm certainly not "protesting so much against it." In fact, I'm not really sure who is.

[nexus]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

Another implication of this rule: Non-damaging attacks such as Entangles and Flashes, as well as Mental Powers and other attacks that don't have a hit location, such as most NNDs and AVLDs, become relatively weaker. That is, they remain the same while attacks that take a hit location roll become more powerful. Just something to keep in mind.

 

It's not just bricks that are "hosed" by this rule, but mentalists and other non-standard attackers as well.

 

Not that it's inherently a bad idea. It's an interesting idea and can be quite good in the right type of game. I'm certainly not "protesting so much against it." In fact, I'm not really sure who is.

 

On the other hand, attacks that don't take a hit location also don't have to worry about hitting "bad" locations that reduced damage either.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

Another implication of this rule: Non-damaging attacks such as Entangles and Flashes, as well as Mental Powers and other attacks that don't have a hit location, such as most NNDs and AVLDs, become relatively weaker. That is, they remain the same while attacks that take a hit location roll become more powerful. Just something to keep in mind.

 

How do you figure? Attacks that don't care about Hit Location don't care about Hit Location, no matter how you slice it. Non issue.

 

It's not just bricks that are "hosed" by this rule, but mentalists and other non-standard attackers as well.

Again, as I asked someone else, how do you mean brick? Do you mean in the superheroic sense? Because for starters this is an Optional rule for HEROIC games. For seconders, if you just mean low DCV high DEF characters then not necessarily -- they aren't getting hit any more often than previously, but rounds are going to get pushed to higher multiple locations (typically)...where high DEF characters tend to concentrate their defenses anyway. The STUN multiple is really more of a concern in such a case than the BODY multiple...which is still better than low DEF characters that just get dead rather than KO'd.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

How do you figure? Attacks that don't care about Hit Location don't care about Hit Location' date=' no matter how you slice it. Non issue.[/quote']

It's fairly easy to see. This rule makes hit-location attacks (like KA) more powerful while non-hit-location attacks (like Ego Attack) remain the same. If KA and EA are balanced with each other without using this rule, then they become unbalanced if you do use this rule. Which is not necessarily a problem depending on the type of game, as I said before. As BNakagawa showed, a hit-location-using attack that hits by 1 (that is, can improve the hit location roll by one), does about 24% more damage on average than it would otherwise. The non-hit-location-using attack never gets this bonus.

 

Again, as I asked someone else, how do you mean brick?

Someone with higher than average DCs and lower than average OCV. Because of this rule, a low-DC, high-OCV character can do as much (or maybe even more) damage on a hit as the "brick," and will hit more often. Low-OCV/High-DC becomes a less viable option, combat-wise.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: House rule I'm considering, Hit Location

 

How do you figure? Attacks that don't care about Hit Location don't care about Hit Location' date=' no matter how you slice it. Non issue.[/quote']

 

I disagree. Under the RAW, those attacks simply get their standard effect every time, while those with hit locations get an above average result sometimes and a below average result sometimes. Assuming that the above and below average locations balance out over time, we have a baseline.

 

Adding the "hitting by more allows selection of hit location" will reduce the frequency of attacks that hit below average locations, and increase the frequency of attacks that hit above average locations. This increases the effectiveness of attacks which are modified by hit locations. Since attacks not modified by hit locations are unchanged, they have lost ground compared to attacks for which hit locations apply.

 

The average damage inflicted by the Killing Attack, for example, rises while the average damage inflicted by the Ego Blast stays the same.

 

Again' date=' as I asked someone else, how do you mean brick? Do you mean in the superheroic sense? Because for starters this is an Optional rule for [i']HEROIC [/i]games. For seconders, if you just mean low DCV high DEF characters then not necessarily -- they aren't getting hit any more often than previously, but rounds are going to get pushed to higher multiple locations (typically)...where high DEF characters tend to concentrate their defenses anyway. The STUN multiple is really more of a concern in such a case than the BODY multiple...which is still better than low DEF characters that just get dead rather than KO'd.

 

The high DCV characters are getting hit with the same (reduced) frequency as before. In addition, the hits that do connect won't be as easy to move to a higher damage hit location, so the high DCV, low DEF structure has better results than under the standard model, meaning the low DCV, high DEF characters have lost ground.