Incorporating Hit Location effects into Attack Roll

[Steve]

Give it a try and let us know how quickly your players can multiply by 1.75.

 

 

And I have to ask - who uses the Hit Location chart and DOESN'T use the Impairing and Disabling rules, and why would you?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Have you see the Hit Location Chart for the palindromedary?

 

I'm puzzled by the seeming snark in your first sentence and wonder if you feel 75% Damage Reduction is an overly complicated calculation as well.

 

Impairing and Disabling do require the use of the location chart. I thought I had already conceded that in an earlier posting.

 

In the case of campaigns that don't use Hit Locations, Impairing or Disabling (like Champions), the damage increase option I feel would be easy to implement, since it could be done as the same increases for Killing or Normal damage, which is currently treated two different ways on the Hit Location chart.

[Outsider]

Halve it, then halve it again is much easier to do in one's head for most people than add 3/4.

[Steve]

Halve it, then halve it again is much easier to do in one's head for most people than add 3/4.

 

True.

[Doc Democracy]

....let me make sure I understand you.You're proposing to regularly multiply damage rolls by 1.25 or 1.75....and this is supposed to make the game run faster or simpler or less complicated or something?Lucius Alexanderand one and three quarters palindromedaries

You take away a second roll with results that are often contrary to how well you think you might have done.

 

I like the idea of having a choice of hit location based on how well the roll was made, rather than on the basis of a random roll. Shooting a gun out of someone's hand should be more difficult than hitting someone in the head. Being able to choose makes a lot more sense and provides players with some continuity between to hit roll and location. I would make aiming at a location a bit easier than choosing one after the roll...

 

Doc

[Steve]

You take away a second roll with results that are often contrary to how well you think you might have done.

 

I like the idea of having a choice of hit location based on how well the roll was made, rather than on the basis of a random roll. Shooting a gun out of someone's hand should be more difficult than hitting someone in the head. Being able to choose makes a lot more sense and provides players with some continuity between to hit roll and location. I would make aiming at a location a bit easier than choosing one after the roll...

 

Doc

 

It's kind of annoying to keep hitting someone with great dice rolls and then following up those successes by rolling hands, feet or arms for location again and again.

 

I wonder. Could the chart incorporate the excess success of your roll? For example, you hit someone by six and then roll hit location eighteen (feet), which kind of negates what seemed like a great hit.

 

Maybe take a portion of that success to improve the location? If you hit exactly, you have to take the location that comes up on your roll, but if if you hit by six and then roll a foot shot, you could instead shift that location by taking half the excess success (in this case three) and moving the location up to 15? This would still give a benefit to calling shots but also allow for really good hits to matter more than they would if that good hit is followed up by a bad location roll.

 

I've known many players who keep rolling hands and feet for locations, and this could mitigate that.

[Hyper-Man]

I know I sound like a broken record but the proposal I posted up thread already handles this exact situation.

[Doc Democracy]

Etherio's proposal is a good one Hyper-Man, no one has criticised it at all. I am not sure it covers all the wants of the OP, we are riffing round the same idea.

 

Personally, like I said, I prefer the ability to choose after the shot, if I roll good enough, to pick various sites that roll could hit (regardless of contiguity).

[Hyper-Man]

The issue I see with providing the option to modify location AFTER the roll is that it is inconsistent with the way everything else works in HERO.  Rolling With The Punch is the ONLY exception in that a character can choose to abort to it AFTER they've been hit by an attack.

 

Character's that want to use precise targeting in combination with the Hit Location Chart should pay for it instead of getting greater benefit from 'lucky' rolls and no corresponding detriment from bad rolls.

 

This just puts a greater premium on OCV and I doubt many characters would devote any points to PSL's vs. Hit Locations as a result.

[Lucius]

I'm puzzled by the seeming snark in your first sentence and wonder if you feel 75% Damage Reduction is an overly complicated calculation as well.

 

If I use Damage Reduction at all, I will almost always use it at the 50% level.

 

Impairing and Disabling do require the use of the location chart. I thought I had already conceded that in an earlier posting.

What I was trying to say is, if you aren't using Impair & Disable rules, I don't see a reason to use "Locations" at all.

 

What you seem to be trying to do is create a kind of "graduated critical hit" scheme.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks a graduated critical hit must have graduated from the school of hard knocks.

[Doc Democracy]

What I was trying to say is, if you aren't using Impair & Disable rules, I don't see a reason to use "Locations" at all.What you seem to be trying to do is create a kind of "graduated critical hit" scheme.Lucius AlexanderThe palindromedary thinks a graduated critical hit must have graduated from the school of hard knocks.

It is something I have struggled with playing HERO since almost the beginning. It is GREAT fun throwing 13D6 for damage but the truth of that is that the more dice you throw the bigger the trend to average results. The tyranny of probability. It matters not if you hit by fifteen or one, the 13D6 will probably, more often than not be between 42 and 48 STUN and 13 BODY. Obviously that may vary another three on either side often enough but you will almost never get 30 STUN or 60 STUN in a game session and those are not even extreme results.

 

There is often a wish in players that a good to hit roll gets some recognition by the system. Hit locations are a decent way to do this, better hits can either hit vulnerable locations to increase damage or useful locations that hinder the opponents ability to fight on (though may do less damage).

 

HERO does not accommodate a good shot giving you extra unless you gamble missing with what would normally be a hit.

 

That may constitute a graduated critical hit system and may be more bureaucracy than you (or your group) want to countenance but it is not fundamentally Bad Wrong Fun.

[Lucius]

HERO does not accommodate a good shot giving you extra unless you gamble missing with what would normally be a hit.

 

That may constitute a graduated critical hit system and may be more bureaucracy than you (or your group) want to countenance but it is not fundamentally Bad Wrong Fun.

I have to agree with you - it's not. There's nothing wrong with a graduated critical hit system, and I have thoroughly enjoyed at least one game I remember that had one (Runequest.) Nor with wanting a good to-hit roll to translate into doing more damage.

 

I often grant an "ad hoc" advantage of some sort on low rolls in Hero games I run, such as bypassing armor or knocking someone down. And I can't see a good reason to object to something more formal and codified in that regard.

 

But what Steve was describing is also not "Incorporating Hit Location effects into Attack Roll." It's "Do More Damage on a better Attack Roll." "Incorporating Hit Locations" would mean it actually makes a difference WHERE you hit; Mallet's proposal of giving a combatant a wider choice of targets on a better roll, with meaningful consequences such as disarming someone by hitting the hand, would be an example of "Incorporating Hit Locations" although I may have some questions and concerns with it on other grounds.

 

As for the issue of multiplying damage by 1.25 or 1.75, I was trying to point out that the standard Hit Location chart doesn't call for math more complex than multiplying by 1.5 (unless my memory is failing badly) and speaking just for myself, I have some players who are challenged by doing that much.

 

So I apologize for being snarkier than I have cause to be. I'm just saying that multiplying damage by 1.75 in the middle of combat is something I don't want to try at my table, and that while I have nothing in principle against a graduated critical hit system I dislike calling it "Hit Locations." Also, a Hit Location Chart consisting of "Head" and "not Head" bugs me.

 

I also probably shouldn't post right after getting out of bed. I hope I'm not coming across as grouchy or snarky and making things worse.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says I'm probably making things worse, but doesn't make anything better by proposing a chart consisting of "Head" "Not Head" and "Other Head."

[mhd]

Given that the HERO damage system doesn't appear to be that linear, why multiply at all? Adding DCs would get you a similar effect and be more in line with the rest of the rules. (Going one step further and treating armor as damage negation would take away the joy of rolling more dice, so that's probably a bit too far)

 

What I've seen in other systems was removing the connection between hit locations and the sheer amount of damage, if you could gain the damage from somewhere else (i.e. the margin in this place). That leaves us with the benefits of striking a more badly armored section and causing more beneficial impairment. That would also mean removing something like the "Vitals". Whether your torso hit connects with an organ or your head hit caused brain injury is a factor of the damage alone then.

 

One could easily divide ones margin to achieve said effects. If impairment rules alone aren't enough, maybe add some additional benefits of hitting certain zones (e.g. reduced CON vs. Stunning for head hits, limbs not contributing to death etc.).

[Hugh Neilson]

Two things.

 

First, in addition to linking the success of the to hit roll to the results of the hit, all (most?) of these suggestions seem geared at eliminating a poor result, as they start at “you hit the chest by default” or “you get your normal damage by default”. If a really good roll means significant extra damage, while a roll too poor to hit means no damage, shouldn’t “just barely hit” mean a graze (reduced damage/hand or foot hit equivalent)?

 

Second, I agree with mhd that DC’s seem a better approach than multiplication, as long as we’re changing everything else.

 

To pick some numbers, maybe “barely hit” is a graze which deducts 4 DC, with 1 DC added per point by which the roll succeeds, so hitting by 8 means adding 4 DC. Let’s cap it there – that’s the head shot modifier, so that would reasonably be as good as it gets.

 

In a typical Supers game, this means “barely hit” drops my usual 12d6 to 8d6 (averaging 3 STUN past 25 defenses), but a great shot means I get 16d6 (averaging 31 STUN past those same defenses). Now, I won’t likely use my skill levels to add DC’s, but how often do we do so in a Supers game now? If my opponent has 0 DCV, though, I stand a pretty fair chance of hitting by 8 in any case, so I might pump my damage further with skill levels rather than likely hit by 12 and “waste” my skill levels. Maybe that’s why those surprise cracks on the head KO so many golden age Supers. 

 

If we’re playing a Wild West game, that “barely hit” means my 1d6 six shooter does no damage at all, though. Maybe for Heroic games, we need to tone this down to “just hitting” only subtracting 2 DC, and every 2 I hit by adds 1 DC, to a maximum of 2 DC added if I hit by 8. Those games have lower DC totals, after all. That still means barely hitting with 10 STR does nothing, but OK.

 

Now my 1d6 six shooter grazes (only 1 BOD) if I just barely hit, but gets 1 1/2d6 if I hit by 8. Alternatively, we could just make the minimum successful hit 1 DC, and use the same progression (so 1 BOD if I just hit, or hit by 1, but 2d6+1 on a hit by 8 or more).

 

Any of these approaches makes OCV and DCV more valuable, though. Hitting by 4 with 8d6 and barely hitting with 12d6 does the same damage, but hitting by 2 with 8d6 means 10d6 damage, where missing by 2 - not hitting at all - with 12d6 does nothing. Of course, if I can Spread my 12d6 down to 8d6, I can get the exact same results as the fellow with the higher OCV.

 

Any change has ripple effects - a major change like this will create a lot of ripples, so it needs to be carefully considered, and will need a lot of playtesting. Dealing with AoE's (anything that targets a DCV of 3) becomes complex. Buying up MDCV seems a lot more important if the Mentalist hitting by 8 gets 16d6 of Mind Control instead of 12d6.

[Doc Democracy]

Ah! And we are onto real analysis.

 

Thanks Lucius, thanks Hugh. :-)

 

There are indeed ripples and as Neil pointed out, there is a need to decide what constitutes a near miss or glancing blow. Is that an exact hit, a miss by one, or what? When is damage equal to 12D6 as on the sheet.

 

I went through this a long time ago with Zornwil I think. Didn't come to a decent conclusion then either. :-)

 

Area effect is also an issue, one I would have been inclined to ignore and always deliver normal damage.

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Doc, the AoE question is another good one. If a roll that barely hits does full normal damage (the 12d6 on the character sheet; a default chest hit), and can only go up from there, I suggest that constraining AoE to its full normal damage (or the equivalent of a chest hit) makes AoE less valuable (ie the advantage cost might properly be reduced).

 

However, if the non-AoE attack might also do less than full damage if it just barely hits (or hits the foot/hand), offsetting the potential of doing more than full damage (hitting the head/vitals), then a standard effect of the normal damage of the attack seems much more balanced - the risk of a poor hit and the chance for a great hit both having been removed.

[Outsider]

Ah! And we are onto real analysis.

 

Thanks Lucius, thanks Hugh. :-)

 

Thanks.

[mallet]

So, if I am the most accurate shooter in the Wild West, I will typically hit my target in the hand or foot, but if I'm some farmboy who just picked up a gun, I'll typically get a chest hit, normally the better combat result? I would think a sharpshooter is more likely to hit whatever body part he chooses to target, not more likely to hit an extremity than center body mass.

 

No, All shots are assumed to hit "centre mass" ie) the chest. The more you make the shot by, the more options you have to "move" your hit location if you chose to. 

So the farm boy who just picked up a gun and shoots and hits will usually just hit the easiest (largest) location, the chest. An expert gunslinger who makes his roll by 7+ can chose to hit any location on his target whether it is the hand, foot, arm, leg, head or vitals. 

[Doc Democracy]

Mallet is right.  If I can shoot the gun right out of your hand, then that might be the better combat result.  I have a scared information source rather than a dead opponent.  :-)

 

The better result opens up options other than just killing someone...

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

So, if I see that dry gulcher in profile as he takes aim on his victim, and I take careful aim on the gun in his hand, but I miss (let's assume he's surprised, so 0 DCV, and I miss with a 17, and have a 6 OCV, so a pretty fair shot), I miss his gun band accidentally shoot him in the chest, a full arm's length away. Hmmm...you'd think my shot would be further out from his hand the more I missed the hand by.

 

That's a simulationist viewpoint, of course. A narrativist viewpoint can easily retcon the shot as aiming for the chest (to take him down, not disarm him) or retcon a great roll as a deliberate, and successful, attempt to shoot the weapon out of his hand, rather than a lucky toss of the dice. However, the original goal was to have the degree of success influence the success pof the shot.

 

How we define success varies, though. One school of thought is "more choice" while the other is "more damage".

[Doc Democracy]

That is one way to look at it Neil.

 

My take on the scene is that the sheriff can risk it all, going all out for the hand shot with the relevant penalties invoked. If he misses, then he misses completely. That is the current system.

 

What is proposed is that the player tells the GM that he us taking a shot. He would like to hit the hand but is not going to sacrifice actually hitting to guarantee the hand shot. Then he rolls the dice. He might hit but if he rolls well then he may actually hit the hand (though the penalty, IMO, should be at least two higher than if he had gone for the head shot straight off....

 

Doc

[Markdoc]

We played around with a combined to-hit and location roll. The mechanism was simple: you rolled to hit. If you hit exactly, you rolled hit location as normal: ie. a random hit. If you hit by more than you needed, you could use the excess to offset the penalties for another location and move your shot there. So if you exceeded your needed score by 1, you chould choose a body hit, if by 2 you could choose a torso hit, if by 3, a chest hit, etc. AoE attacks always just hit a random location - after all, you can't aim a grenade just at someone's hand!

 

It was simple and fast, but we never moved it into regular games, for the reasons already alluded to in this thread: that it boosted average damage with no downside, and boosted the value of CSL, especially of 2 point levels. I decided that I did not want to rejigger the cost of CSL and damage/DEF for a fairly minimal mechanistic benefit, though I would still like to streamline the combat mechanism if I could.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

That is one way to look at it Neil.

 

My take on the scene is that the sheriff can risk it all, going all out for the hand shot with the relevant penalties invoked. If he misses, then he misses completely. That is the current system.

 

What is proposed is that the player tells the GM that he us taking a shot. He would like to hit the hand but is not going to sacrifice actually hitting to guarantee the hand shot. Then he rolls the dice. He might hit but if he rolls well then he may actually hit the hand (though the penalty, IMO, should be at least two higher than if he had gone for the head shot straight off....

 

Doc

 

First off, this seems like the issue cited above - I want the benefit of picking where my shot hits based on hindsight - knowing what I could have hit - without the cost - a called shot that misses will miss entirely, and I might roll well enough to make a normal hit, but not well enough to make my called shot.  That is, I want the benefits of called shots without the costs/risks.

 

You have added a new parameter suggesting a penalty should be higher.  This is the first suggestion I have seen that some penalty could be imposed for your ability to choose a hit location without the prospect of missing entirely.   A generic "called shot" where one selects the desired location, and accepts an OCV penalty (whether -2, -3 or something else), then gets to select any hit location within the realm of his roll (or gets the desired location I If he rolled well enough, or hits with a random location if his roll with the base penalty would have hit, but not with the called shot penalty) seems a more balanced approach.

 

For example, Duke Deadeye takes careful aim, trying to shoot the gun out of his opponent's hand.  He can take a -8 OCV (IIRC) penalty. If he hits, he hits the hand, but a miss means he misses entirely.  Or he can take a -2 penalty. If he hits by 8 after that penalty, he hits the hand. If he hits, but by less than 8, he gets a normal hit location roll.   If he misses with the -2 penalty, he missed. 

 

The base penalty is a matter for consideration, but this would make a called shot a tactic to consider, not a no-brainer with a benefit lacking any risk or cost.

 

To the AoE, I can't aim a grenade.  What about a gatling gun, or The Amazing Archer whose AoE rapidly fires multiple arrows, one at each target in the area?  Precision shooting with such attacks does not seem unreasonable.  As well, giving non-AoE attacks the potential for damage multiplication (especially with no down side) devalues all attacks that don't get the same benefits (not limited to AoE - mental powers, adjustment powers, Entangle and Flash come to mind).

 

We played around with a combined to-hit and location roll. The mechanism was simple: you rolled to hit. If you hit exactly, you rolled hit location as normal: ie. a random hit. If you hit by more than you needed, you could use the excess to offset the penalties for another location and move your shot there. So if you exceeded your needed score by 1, you chould choose a body hit, if by 2 you could choose a torso hit, if by 3, a chest hit, etc. AoE attacks always just hit a random location - after all, you can't aim a grenade just at someone's hand!

 

It was simple and fast, but we never moved it into regular games, for the reasons already alluded to in this thread: that it boosted average damage with no downside, and boosted the value of CSL, especially of 2 point levels. I decided that I did not want to rejigger the cost of CSL and damage/DEF for a fairly minimal mechanistic benefit, though I would still like to streamline the combat mechanism if I could.

 

Cheers, Mark

 

THIS - it will enhance damage, lacks any offsetting down side, and makes CSL's (and OCV) more valuable.  Now, if that's the game you want (coupled with a lot of called shots), great.  However, don't be surprised with the results.

[Doc Democracy]

Neil wrote: "Or he can take a -2 penalty. If he hits by 8 after that penalty, he hits the hand. If he hits, but by less than 8, he gets a normal hit location roll."

 

You miss the point, not a standard roll, you get base damage on the nearest location (if that remains important) that would deliver base damage.

 

I do not agree that you can do the same kind of precision shooting with a gatling gun as with a sniper rifle. Not going to happen. I agree however that the gatling gun might take penalties to improve the grouping of multiple hits. If you want all high shots take a hit every three you hit by rather than every two. Or something like that.

 

I am willing to hear suggestions for other attack types that do not have a system built into the system for bonus damage. Hit location does it for basic attack types.

 

I think there should be ways to game for advantage. Not all ego attacks should be equal. IF you are content that the added bureaucracy increases the fun, then find a way to make that so.

 

I don't think anything should be added value without risk but some things detract from verisimilitude which detracts from game enjoyment FOR SOME GROUPS(though possibly only in some particular types of campaign).

 

I find the challenge good, challenge points out what might be wrong or where a suggestion might not be fully thought through.

 

I find the undertone that a particular suggestion is bad wrong fun, and anyone who adopts it deserves all the bad things that will follow, less helpful.

 

I am enjoying the discussion, lets keep it constructive. :-)

[Hugh Neilson]

What is proposed is that the player tells the GM that he us taking a shot. He would like to hit the hand but is not going to sacrifice actually hitting to guarantee the hand shot. Then he rolls the dice. He might hit but if he rolls well then he may actually hit the hand (though the penalty, IMO, should be at least two higher than if he had gone for the head shot straight off....

Emphasis added.  

 

Neil wrote: "Or he can take a -2 penalty. If he hits by 8 after that penalty, he hits the hand. If he hits, but by less than 8, he gets a normal hit location roll."

 

You miss the point, not a standard roll, you get base damage on the nearest location (if that remains important) that would deliver base damage.

I'm unclear what you are suggesting a -2 penalty be applied to. As well, I'm unclear what is happening on a miss. On a normal hit, you get a random hit location. So what happens here if he does not hit the desired hit location, but doesn't miss? He gets an automatic chest hit? So he targets the foot (or a hand held right in front of the target's head) and missing the hand or foot (by 1 or by 10) results in a chest hit? I'm unclear why that would be the case.

 

Can you spell out the system you are thinking of?

 

I do not agree that you can do the same kind of precision shooting with a gatling gun as with a sniper rifle. Not going to happen. I agree however that the gatling gun might take penalties to improve the grouping of multiple hits. If you want all high shots take a hit every three you hit by rather than every two. Or something like that.

It doesn't matter which attacks you or I agree can have the same degree of precision shooting. What matters is what the players in any given game decide should be able to benefit from this "precision shooting" rule. If you don't like the gatling gun example (picked solely for the Wild West theme common among a lot of the early thread), use the Archer who is simply making the same shot multiple times instead of once in the phase. Or apply that same logic to the sniper rifle. Now, maybe the sniper rifle is a different build which gets bonuses to offset penalties from precision shooting, which adds to the advantage of normally halving hit location penalties from the outset as it is firing from surprise at an opponent not engaged in combat.

 

Meanwhile, the Gatling Gun might be an autofire attack, rather than an area of effect. Are autofire attacks also disqualified from precision shooting? Again, we have different sfx - the gatling gun and a double tap from a pistol seem like very different attacks from their sfx, and this precision shot, but they could both be built as Autofire attacks. Application of these rules to various different mechanical and sfx variants of normal damage will be required of whatever system we choose.

 

Maybe "precision shooting" should be an adder to a power, or a skill purchased by the character, rather than a freebie given to everyone. Again, it depends on the campaign we want.

 

I am willing to hear suggestions for other attack types that do not have a system built into the system for bonus damage. Hit location does it for basic attack types.

What's "basic"? Just through quick discussion, I question whether AoE (or some versions) and autofire qualify. What about "accurate"? Although modeled on 1 hex AoE, only hits one target, really all Accurate does is eliminate the target`s DCV in favour of a flat DCV. It seems like a real disconnect if an Accurate attack is not permitted the same precision as a non-accurate attack.

 

I think there should be ways to game for advantage. Not all ego attacks should be equal. IF you are content that the added bureaucracy increases the fun, then find a way to make that so.

Not sure what the emphasized statement is getting at - I assume simply a suggestion that mental attacks should have a system for varying damage, just not the same system (hit locations as the base) used for physical attacks. Hit locations for mental attacks don`t really feel right, I agree. What about a Blast with AVAD? At what point is this no longer a "basic attack"? To some extent, the tradeoff is that the Ego Attack (to pick on that one) doesn`t get the potential for extra damage, but also lacks the risk of substandard damage - the lack of volatility cuts both ways. Once we add a system removing (or just reducing) the random down side, but retaining (or even enhancing) the up side, we change the balance between the attack forms.

 

Maybe this doesn`t matter much to the Wild West game - it will likely have guns, brawling, knives and tomahawks. But it also has some of the examples we`ve hit (Autofire gatling guns, AoE dynamite, etc.) If we shift to a Weird West game, a shaman may have mental attacks. Even without that shift, rattlesnake poison is a possibility, and nothing stops a knife or arrow being poisoned.

 

I don't think anything should be added value without risk but some things detract from verisimilitude which detracts from game enjoyment FOR SOME GROUPS(though possibly only in some particular types of campaign).

Sure - the problem is that we will all have different levels of verisimilitude - so I miss his hand by 1 and the bullet moves all the way down his extended arm to hit him in the chest? That hurts my sense of verisimilitude more than rolling a 4 to hit and rolling a Foot location. That 4 need not indicate the character made a great shot - it simply is a shot falling within the range which permits him to hit, and a normal to hit roll is binary - either you hit, or you did not. The dice are used only for the probability of either result. The tradeoff, though, is that just barely missing the hand implies a hit to the lower arm, so I lose the benefit I wanted from the hand shot, and get a hit with poor damage anyway. If I missed by more, I might have drifted further and hit the chest. So being more accurate (but not quite accurate enough) cost me instead of benefiting me.

 

In other words, here we have a tradeoff between benefits to the attacker and verisimilitude and must decide which will take priority, contrary to the original situation where added verisimilitude works to the attacker`s advantage.

 

I find the challenge good, challenge points out what might be wrong or where a suggestion might not be fully thought through.

 

I find the undertone that a particular suggestion is bad wrong fun, and anyone who adopts it deserves all the bad things that will follow, less helpful.

Here I`m not sure where you are coming from. I said that the proposed system will enhance damage, lacks any offsetting down side, and makes CSL's (and OCV) more valuable. I stand by that. If you see that as badwrongfun, I suggest you are imposing your own interpretation that one of us, at least, perceives those results as badwrongfun, which was not my intention.

 

Part of the exercise of evaluating optional rules should be an assessment of the impact on the game so we don`t find ourselves surprised with the results when we implement the change - that is, assess whether the results will result in the game you want.

 

Damage goes up, OCV (and CSLs) become more valuable, some types of attacks benefit (so are encouraged) and others do not (so they are discouraged), and called shots will be much more useful, so we should see a lot more of them. That may be exactly what we want, or it may not - neither one is badwrongfun. The question is whether the results, once we sit back and objectively assess them, will facilitate the kind of game we want (ie we find fun) or won`t.

 

It`s no different from implementing disabling and impairing shots, or other forms of critical hits, without realizing this will harm the PC`s (who appear in every scene and have to muddle through with these new disadvantages, since the dice will inevitably provide these results against them at some point) more than the NPC`s (where, if one takes a critical head shot and dies, another will take his place - and they don't have to deal with the disadvantage in the next scene, as we can simply have adventures with other opponents while he recovers, assuming he lived).

Actually, it`s no different from the decisions the game designers make routinely, like lowering the stun multiple for killing attacks from 5e to 6e. Some people like the result that KA`s are no longer a superior method of getting STUN past higher defenses, and others don`t. However, the purpose of the change was to make killing attacks a less desirable choice if the goal was to inflict STUN damage, and that goal was mechanically achieved.

 

It`s not even all that different from selecting the genre we want - gritty, realistic Wild West; cinematic Wild West; Weird West; High Fantasy, Horror or Superheroes against an Old West backdrop. Even choosing whether the game will be about - Cowboys and Indians, Law Officers vs Outlaws; Ranchers; Settlers building a town (to select only choices that could work in a gritty, realistic Wild West setting) or whatever campaign focus you want. It`s all part of building the game your group wants to play.

[Doc Democracy]

I'm unclear what you are suggesting a -2 penalty be applied to. As well, I'm unclear what is happening on a miss. On a normal hit, you get a random hit location. So what happens here if he does not hit the desired hit location, but doesn't miss? He gets an automatic chest hit? So he targets the foot (or a hand held right in front of the target's head) and missing the hand or foot (by 1 or by 10) results in a chest hit? I'm unclear why that would be the case.

 

Can you spell out the system you are thinking of?

I am not surprised that you are confused, I have not sat down and worked something out. Let me think out loud...

 

The sheriff has a bandit in his sight. He wants to shoot the gun out of his hand and bring the man in for trial. However, the man is a known gunslinger and he would rather hit than aim for the gun an miss completely. He does not fancy his chnaces in a straight fight!

 

His options:

- shoot the hand (-6 OCV penalty) if that roll using that penalty misses there is no effect beyond alerting bandit to his presence.

- try to disarm the bandit (-6 to -8 OCV penalty) if that roll using that penalty misses there is no effect beyond alerting the bandit to his presence.

- shoot the bandit (no OCV penalty) if that roll hits, roll random location hoping for decent outcome but playing it safe rather than heroic.

- shoot the bandit in the head (-8 OCV penalty) if that roll using that penalty misses there is no effect beyond alerting the bandit to his presence.

 

I think that covers it, no?

 

I am talking about considering another option

- try to shoot the gun but not at the expense of missing completely (-8 OCV penalty - -6 OCV for hand location, another -2 OCV for the playing it safe) if that roll including -8 penalty misses but would have hit with a -2 penalty then the target will take normal damage - 1x BODY and 2x or 3x STUN. The location would be the closest that would provide that damage. For the hand that would be shoulder or chest.

 

My thoughts are that this helps players to make a heroic decision. I know my players, if they were going to risk a location shot, would consider it more heroic with current options to take the headshot.

 

 

If you don't like the gatling gun example (picked solely for the Wild West theme common among a lot of the early thread), use the Archer who is simply making the same shot multiple times instead of once in the phase.

These are not the same thing mechanic-wise are they? One is using autofire, the other is using a single attack over several phases. Or one is using area effect and the other a single attack. As such, I would apply precision differently to each mechanic. I suggested slightly less precision at the cost of hitting with fewer missiles.

 

 

Application of these rules to various different mechanical and sfx variants of normal damage will be required of whatever system we choose.

Agreed. The mechanic hould drive what is possible and what is not. You use the relevant mechanics to build the power effects you want.

 

Maybe "precision shooting" should be an adder to a power, or a skill purchased by the character, rather than a freebie given to everyone. Again, it depends on the campaign we want.

Agreed again. Decision for the GM.

 

 

What's "basic"? Just through quick discussion, I question whether AoE (or some versions) and autofire qualify. What about "accurate"? Although modeled on 1 hex AoE, only hits one target, really all Accurate does is eliminate the target`s DCV in favour of a flat DCV. It seems like a real disconnect if an Accurate attack is not permitted the same precision as a non-accurate attack.

Basic is anything that does ED or PD damage that can, reasonably, be applied to the hit location table- you can roll a location and with luck you can get damage multiples. As far as an attack with accurate built on it, the player has bought a way of removing an opponents DCV. They target the hex DCV as a basic - I think they paid the points, the GM has agreed this is a valid purchase (some may not) and so the calculation progresses - starting at DCV 3 and applying penalties as previously. i would suppose this is what you would do currently for a player with accurate wanting to take a headshot. no?

 

 

Not sure what the emphasized statement is getting at - I assume simply a suggestion that mental attacks should have a system for varying damage, just not the same system (hit locations as the base) used for physical attacks. Hit locations for mental attacks don`t really feel right, I agree. What about a Blast with AVAD? At what point is this no longer a "basic attack"? To some extent, the tradeoff is that the Ego Attack (to pick on that one) doesn`t get the potential for extra damage, but also lacks the risk of substandard damage - the lack of volatility cuts both ways. Once we add a system removing (or just reducing) the random down side, but retaining (or even enhancing) the up side, we change the balance between the attack forms.

You are right that I wanted to suggest that there should be some way available for GMs that wanted to reflect a more detailed kind of psychic combat where there is the risk of missing being traded for more effect if successful. the attack is not basic if it does not deliver PD or ED damage that can be related to physical hit locations.

 

Maybe this doesn`t matter much to the Wild West game - it will likely have guns, brawling, knives and tomahawks. But it also has some of the examples we`ve hit (Autofire gatling guns, AoE dynamite, etc.) If we shift to a Weird West game, a shaman may have mental attacks. Even without that shift, rattlesnake poison is a possibility, and nothing stops a knife or arrow being poisoned.

poison is indeed always an option and introduces a range of problems as every game tends to design poison differently.

 

 

Sure - the problem is that we will all have different levels of verisimilitude - so I miss his hand by 1 and the bullet moves all the way down his extended arm to hit him in the chest? That hurts my sense of verisimilitude more than rolling a 4 to hit and rolling a Foot location. That 4 need not indicate the character made a great shot - it simply is a shot falling within the range which permits him to hit, and a normal to hit roll is binary - either you hit, or you did not. The dice are used only for the probability of either result. The tradeoff, though, is that just barely missing the hand implies a hit to the lower arm, so I lose the benefit I wanted from the hand shot, and get a hit with poor damage anyway. If I missed by more, I might have drifted further and hit the chest. So being more accurate (but not quite accurate enough) cost me instead of benefiting me.

 

In other words, here we have a tradeoff between benefits to the attacker and verisimilitude and must decide which will take priority, contrary to the original situation where added verisimilitude works to the attacker`s advantage.

agreed. Everything comes down to each groups willingness and tolerance for bureaucracy to gain the level of verisimilitude that thy want to achieve.

 

 

Doc