Realism opinion question with damage
The Amorphous Mass
> Maybe I'm just not interpreting the rules right but here goes...
>
> I have a reasonable level fighter/thief who is especially good with
> throwing knives (juggling, rediculous DEX, etc...) Now, according to
> our DM, and as far as I can find, the rules as written, even if she
> takes a called shot say to the head/eye, the best she could possibly
> hope for would be maybe 6-8 pts of damage. Now, I'm sorry, but a dagger
> through the eye should by all rights kill most any humanoids with any
> reasonably sized brain. But that is certainly not the equivalent HP
> to kill something. My argument was, "Ok, fine if it's only 6-8 points
> damage, it still has to be 6-8 pts to the brain/eye/spinal column/etc
> this should in the VERY LEAST put someone on their ass permanently. How
> can this be justified as the rules are currently written? Am I just
> wrong in my logic or what??
The problem is that AD&D simply isn't that kind of game. The AD&D logic
would be that your shot _would've_ hit him right in the eye, but some
sixth sense honed by years of battle kicked in and he turned his head at
the last second, so that the knife grazed the side of his head. The
best the DM could do is rule that it grazed the eye and the fighter is
at a -2 to hit because he's been (temporarily) blinded. If you
want lethal called shots, you will have to reinvent the combat system and
you should be prepared to lose characters left and right, because it's
really not that difficult IRL to kill someone with one move, if you know how.
As currently written damage is _completely_abstract_ and it's assumed
that unless the blow reduces the combatant to 0 or fewer hit points that
it did _not_ hit the spine/brain/whatever. Even then, there's no room in
the core rules for missing or damaged limbs, etc. If you want to stay
with AD&D, you can look at the "Hit Locations" system in the Complete
Fighter's Handbook, which is still abstract but allows limbs to become
damaged or useless (they also heal up fast). There's also Combat &
Tactics, which allows for all kinds of (randomly-determined) critical
hits, but still stops short of allowing lethal called shots.
If you want a more lethal game, then GURPS, Call of Cthulhu and
Rolemaster (which has ZILLIONS of very explicit tables for the types of
injuries caused by every kind of weapon against every kind of armor)
might be more like what you're looking for.
----------------
The Amorphous Mass (james-r...@uiowa.edu)
aka Hyacinth, elven ambassador to the Human Islands
TAF/TP
I have a reasonable level fighter/thief who is especially good with
throwing knives (juggling, rediculous DEX, etc...) Now, according to
our DM, and as far as I can find, the rules as written, even if she
takes a called shot say to the head/eye, the best she could possibly
hope for would be maybe 6-8 pts of damage. Now, I'm sorry, but a dagger
through the eye should by all rights kill most any humanoids with any
reasonably sized brain. But that is certainly not the equivalent HP
to kill something. My argument was, "Ok, fine if it's only 6-8 points
damage, it still has to be 6-8 pts to the brain/eye/spinal column/etc
this should in the VERY LEAST put someone on their ass permanently. How
can this be justified as the rules are currently written? Am I just
wrong in my logic or what??
K
Dr. Erin D. Smale
I don't think you're wrong in your logic, but I do think that you're
misinterpreting the rules. HPs were not designed to measure physical
resistance to damage alone, but rather to represent a combination of
endurance, combat skill or prowess, and luck (a better explanation of this can
be found in the 1st ed. DMG--not sure which page). Further, the *original*
combat system was not designed to include hit locations, so a shot to the
eye is impossible (I'm not current enough to know if S&P or certain NWP
change this). In a nutshell, though, combatants struck each other, dodged,
turned fatal blows into mere nicks, etc, and the greater your quantities of
endurance, skill, and luck, (equals HP), the more likely you were to survive
combat.
Admittedly, this causes a problem, since, as you state, a dagger to the eye
(or the heart or even the upper abdomen, for that matter) is enough to
kill--which it will do if the victim has few HP (or, in this case, no more
than 6-8). The big problem occurs when you nail the head/eye/throat/lung of a
combatant with more hit points than such a (realistically) fatal shot would do
in damage.
Without going into too lengthly a description, there are only two ways I've
been able to circumvent this limitation. The first is to read the rules and
accept them. If you chose this, the thread would end here, and, since that's
no fun, I suggest option 2:
If your DM allows it, create (or co-create) hit location tables and
weight them so that damage to certain locations will be
magnified; a hit to the leg might do normal damage while a hit to
the head might do triple damage.
In one campaign, the DM ruled that every time a damage roll indicated maximum
damage, a critical strike had occurred, the results of which might cause
additional damage, sever a limb, gouge an eye, or maybe even nothing.
Though this may be infeasible, part of the solution to this problem (if indeed
this is a problem) is the fact that characters and monsters in the game can
acquire such astronomical amounts of HP that the effect of obviously fatal
(and single) shots like that which you describe can never be accurately
represented during play. Doubtlessly, others will come up with other
solutions, but this should be enough to get the ball rolling...
--
______________________________________________________________________
|-- Dr. Erin D. Smale :\ | "One thing's for sure--ONE of the Lee |
| Master of a New Science | Harvey Oswalds was acting alone." |
| I haven't yet invented. | Paraphrase of the Church of the Sub-Genius'|
| E-mail: esm...@ot.com | conclusion regarding the JFK assassination |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Travis Hall
Don't worry, Mass, for once I think we are mostly in agreement. :)
The Amorphous Mass (robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote:
: On 18 Mar 1996, TAF/TP wrote:
: > I have a reasonable level fighter/thief who is especially good with
: > throwing knives (juggling, rediculous DEX, etc...) Now, according to
: > our DM, and as far as I can find, the rules as written, even if she
: > takes a called shot say to the head/eye, the best she could possibly
: > hope for would be maybe 6-8 pts of damage. Now, I'm sorry, but a dagger
: > through the eye should by all rights kill most any humanoids with any
: > reasonably sized brain. But that is certainly not the equivalent HP
: > to kill something. My argument was, "Ok, fine if it's only 6-8 points
: > damage, it still has to be 6-8 pts to the brain/eye/spinal column/etc
: > this should in the VERY LEAST put someone on their ass permanently. How
: > can this be justified as the rules are currently written? Am I just
: > wrong in my logic or what??
Called shots never allow an increase in damage. However, called shots can
cause additional effects, depending on exactly what called shot is made.
The basic called shots given in the CFH allow limbs to be numbed or made
useless (temporarily), hits to the vitals to cause sort of generalized
penalties (basically, a hit to the solar plexus winding the target, or a
kigney shot (or rather lower shot...) causing him to stagger and gasp in
pain, etc) or head shots to cause a variety of effects ranging from
blindness to falling over. So, in keeping with this, your called shot to
the eye would only do whatever small amount of damage it does, but the DM
could give additional effects. When I DM, a allow called shots to the
eye, at a -12 penalty (head armour does still count for this shot - you
can still glance off the opponent's nasal or something similar). Only one
character has ever attempted this (a week and a half ago) and that was
because he realized that the fight was about over, and thought, what the
hey, let's try something fancy. He missed. Had he hit, I would have asked
him to roll damage. If that had done enough damage, I would have allowed
the shot to automatically kill the target. (I probably would have
required at least a quarter of the target's total hit points in damage
for this.) Otherwise, the target would have been blinded in that eye, or
only temporarily blinded if the damage was pathetic. (Note: If a target
is in melee, I do not allow missile weapon called shots unless the
shooter takes an additional -4 to hit, for specifying which target in the
melee will be his target. The called shot penalty to specify target in
melee, rather than rolling target randomly, was suggested during play
about 3 1/2 years ago by one of my players. It sounded good at the time,
so I allowed it. The rule has been looked at time and again since, and
everybody seems to think it fair, including me, so it has stood ever
since. But obviously, before you can take a called shot to the eye, you
need to know you are shooting at the right person.)
: The problem is that AD&D simply isn't that kind of game. The AD&D logic
: would be that your shot _would've_ hit him right in the eye, but some
: sixth sense honed by years of battle kicked in and he turned his head at
: the last second, so that the knife grazed the side of his head. The
: best the DM could do is rule that it grazed the eye and the fighter is
: at a -2 to hit because he's been (temporarily) blinded.
Yes, AD&D isn't the sort of game which allows for instant kills of the
sort described, at least not readily. The effects given in the CFH ar
rather less than instant death. I could see a logic for allowing instant
death on the occasional called shot, though. At -12 or -16 to hit, I
don't think many characters will be hanging out for that chance at an
instant kill.
: If you
: want lethal called shots, you will have to reinvent the combat system and
: you should be prepared to lose characters left and right, because it's
: really not that difficult IRL to kill someone with one move, if you know how.
: As currently written damage is _completely_abstract_ and it's assumed
: that unless the blow reduces the combatant to 0 or fewer hit points that
: it did _not_ hit the spine/brain/whatever. Even then, there's no room in
: the core rules for missing or damaged limbs, etc. If you want to stay
: with AD&D, you can look at the "Hit Locations" system in the Complete
: Fighter's Handbook, which is still abstract but allows limbs to become
: damaged or useless (they also heal up fast).
Yes, the core rules do not allow for additional effects from specific
hits. I quite like the system suggested in CFH, as it allows most combat
to remain abstract and out of the way, yet still give the option of
specific injuries. The called shot effects I described above are from
CFH, except the eye shot, which I made up (without any real intention of
it ever being used).
I think it has to be asked, of the original poster, what sort of
penalties are you taking for your attempt at an eye shot? If the to-hit
penalty is the standard -8 for the head, you can't expect any greater
chance of death than what is suggested by the CFH (that is, none, unless
the target is reduced to 0 hp or less). If you are taking -12 or -16, you
can probably expect the effects of a successful hit to be a litle more
extreme. But with those penalties, don't expect to pull it off often.
The Wraith
Scott Schindler
fingers.
The Amorphous Mass
> I would have written what this guy did. Thanks for saving my typing
> fingers.
Which guy? It would have helped if you at least included a little
snippet. :-)
PaulRiegel
must do is take into account this and give double, triple, quadruple or
even instant kills on such called shots and making them more and more
difficult with the damage multiplier given (or reducing the base AC that
the THAC0 is against in the case of small areas). This is why a system
like in James Bond or Masterbook is a superior system for damage
allocation....Just my 2 cents worth after playing and running this game
for 22 years...