Topic: 50% left/right hit?

[calmacil]

A question for those who know about real life melee.

I'm using hit locations for HARP. We were going to use a simple system to determine whether a strike lands on the opponents left or right side. Odds=left, evens=right.


Assuming both combatants are right handed. My question is ........ are you more likely to hit your opponents left side? (his shield side)
In other words, should it be 70% chance of hitting your opponents shield side and 30% weapon side? rather than 50/50.

[Kristen Mork]

IMHO, it depends on the style.  When fighting sword and board, you lead with your shield and the default forehand will target the left side.  However, hits to the left forearm/hand are extremely rare (there's a shield in the way, after all).  Conversely, when fencing, you lead with your right leg, but the default lunge targets the center of the chest.  Given the way people squirm (some might say dodge), the right side of the body is more of a target (especially the right arm).  The only constant seems to be that blows to the left forearm/hand are rare (but I've never used two-handed weapons).

[Cory Magel]

Apart the any 'style' a skilled combatant will make sure they change up which side they attack regardless.  If they did not their attacks would become more predictable thereby reducing their effectiveness.  So I would simply assume 50/50 not just because it's realistic (for someone who knows how to fight) but also because it saves any needed discussion on who is or isn't right or left handed, dice rolling considerations, etc.

[Kristen Mork]

I agree with Cory that 50/50 is the way to be.  (However, when fencing, your leading leg and arm are much more likely to be hit than your trailing leg and arm.)

[calmacil]

Thanks for the replies, very interesting.  It was just something that crossed my mind as i was writing out critical tables.

I'll stick with the 50/50

[Cory Magel]

I agree with Cory that 50/50 is the way to be.  (However, when fencing, your leading leg and arm are much more likely to be hit than your trailing leg and arm.)

You're thinking of a modern fencing match, which is really a sport (with rules to boot), not a fight.  A true fight wouldn't be remotely fought the way a modern fencing match is.  Even though I do not subscribe to the "A round is a series of actions and reactions..." I'm still of the opinion that an overall combat is still a semi-chaotic, constantly moving, maneuvering, positioning, etc, etc, event.  There also are no rules when you're fighting for your life.  You often (most the time really) can not rely on a modern interpretation of medieval/ancient combat.  Even in the SCA the 'light fighters' fight very differently than you do in a fencing match... they do not stand near as 'sideways' as a fencer does, and even those fights are not truly accurate to a real fight because they are not fighting for their lives and there are still some rules.

[Puin]

As a medieval fencing novice, what is called "cience of the sword", I got somewhat frustrated as what I did expect.
That was noble dueling, with what we call longsword, bastard, hand-and-a-half or even two handed sword. They are all always helded with both hands as is your opponent.
As "noble" dueling there was some etiquette, althought those duels could be deadly. Just to say, low blows (lets say below hips) were not frequent at all. And the best blows are those trusting the point against the opponent (they are the fastest attacks while keeping you shielded and under control of the other sword, both by your own sword  ) so "puncture" crits will be much more usual than "slash".
There are slash attacks, of course, 7 that I can remember but are usually used in "series" of blows. You know ... hint that, test this, trust hard and if you are parried contra-attack with that specific slash. Just to say that in one-on-one fight it's quite easy to see and parry a direct slash attack, and with nice chances of having a deadly contra-attack.
The main target is at the collarbone height and a lot of contras are against the head. 
This to say that even serious medieval fencing doesn't reflect the mayhem of an open medieval fight involving many fighters. I've seen also some practice of foil ans dagger combo vs idem and they are rather awkward, both fighters crouching and hiding themselves behind their weapons guards. But it's amazing how much can shield the foil's guard, vs some of it's kind really. Thats what's must odd of fantasy, the bizarre combinations of weapons and armours. The are wearing chain, forget the foil and the short sword. Are they unarmored? I choose foil well before a mace.
So I must say that, in order to assign chances of hitting sides, you should evaluate the style of both fighters and the weapons they are using because they will always tend to keep as much lower profile as possible and give a fast attack. The faster the better.
Just my two cents 

[GrumpyOldFart]

A true fight wouldn't be remotely fought the way a modern fencing match is.  Even though I do not subscribe to the "A round is a series of actions and reactions..." I'm still of the opinion that an overall combat is still a semi-chaotic, constantly moving, maneuvering, positioning, etc, etc, event.  There also are no rules when you're fighting for your life.

Exactly. Which is precisely why I'd tend to stay with 50/50. The fact is trying to model someone fighting for his life is far too chaotic (in the mathematical sense, meaning far too many factors to track them all) to have any hope of true accuracy. When survival is at stake, the rule is "if you get an opportunity, you take it". And since tracking all those factors to get a precise result at this place in this time is flatly impossible, we all settle for "on average".

The only nod I'd bother to give to accurate modeling in random (as opposed to "called shot") hit locations would be a "rough" based on size, likely motion and distance from "target center" of a given body part. For example, feet are a less likely than usual target, partly because they're a comparatively small part, partly because they're often in motion and hard to hit, partly because they are usually so far from both the likely source of threat (foe's arms/upper chest area) and the likely source of your response (your arms/upper chest area), partly because most fighters fail to consider them.

On the other hand, for "called shots", I'd consider the overriding factor to be the disparity (if any) between the combatants' skills as fighters, said skill being much more in the head than in the body. This could turn Tactics into a primary game skill. It could also put back some of the power attendant on true mastery that tends to get taken away by the diminishing returns of skill bonuses.

My .02, YMMV.

[Cory Magel]

When looking at a hit location method I had considered using the 1's die from the 2d10 attack roll in the following manner...
You have 1 possible on each leg, 2 possible on each arm, 3 possible on the torso, 1 possible on the head.

0 Head
9 Torso
8 Torso
7 Torso
6 Right Arm
5 Left Arm
4 Right Leg
3 Left Leg
2 Right Arm
1 Left Arm

However, in implementing this you would really want to rework critical hit charts and (in my opinion) definitely switch to piecemeal armor.  Piecemeal armor would be fairly easy to work out, but reworking critical hit charts would be a fairly major undertaking.  Now, you could just interpret the critical hits for the hit location... but that is pretty much a matter of if you as a GM or player are comfortable with it.

[calmacil]

When looking at a hit location method I had considered using the 1's die from the 2d10 attack roll in the following manner...
You have 1 possible on each leg, 2 possible on each arm, 3 possible on the torso, 1 possible on the head.

0 Head
9 Torso
8 Torso
7 Torso
6 Right Arm
5 Left Arm
4 Right Leg
3 Left Leg
2 Right Arm
1 Left Arm

However, in implementing this you would really want to rework critical hit charts and (in my opinion) definitely switch to piecemeal armor.  Piecemeal armor would be fairly easy to work out, but reworking critical hit charts would be a fairly major undertaking.  Now, you could just interpret the critical hits for the hit location... but that is pretty much a matter of if you as a GM or player are comfortable with it.

That's similar to the system we've created, but we wanted to include the different areas for each possible piece of armour, gorget to block a crit to the neck etc (same as in the HARP book) We were going to use the 1's on 2d10 roll to determine location

I wasn't keen on each hit location all having the same 10% chance, as mentioned earlier we didn't like that PC's had the same chance hitting the feet as the torso. We also felt it was too easy to adjust location with a called shot (-10 OB per +/- 1) , the problem came from using a d10. With certain hit locations you need to have lower than a 10% chance of hitting it, so it allows you to increase the % chance with other hit locations. So we decided to roll an extra die (a d20) along with the attack roll. It doesn't slow the game down.

Here's our location chart;
1 .............Feet
2,3 ...........Hand
4,5,6 ........Leg
7,8,9,10 ....Arm
11,12,13 ..Chest/back (depends if you're infront or behind victim)
14,15 ...... Abdomen
16 ........... Groin
17, 18 .....Shoulder/upper arm
19 ........... Neck
20 .......... Head

Left/Right depends on the unit die. odds=left, evens=right

When a PC is attacking a large creature they get a minus to the location ....eg a big troll you might get -1, .. so you're more likely to hit the big creatures legs, feet or his hands as they swing towards you. For something like a dragon we'd make up a unique hit location chart for it.

[Cory Magel]

The only real reason I kept it to one die is so that I wasn't creating another roll, however I think players that are going to be fans of a hit location (and possibly piecemeal armor) system probably aren't going to mind it.

I briefly considered taking the attack roll and adding the two numbers together to get a result between 2 and 20, however I quickly realized that it would cause a problem with severity vs location in the results.  For example on the two ends of the roll... if 2 (rolling two 1's) was a head shot you'd always be rolling a fumble, where if 20 was a foot shot you'd always be rolling a 100.

In the end, if I really go detailed I will just use an actual hit location die.

[Puin]

That's similar to the system we've created, but we wanted to include the different areas for each possible piece of armour, gorget to block a crit to the neck etc (same as in the HARP book) We were going to use the 1's on 2d10 roll to determine location
So we decided to roll an extra die (a d20) along with the attack roll. It doesn't slow the game down.
Here's our location chart;
1 .............Feet
2,3 ...........Hand
4,5,6 ........Leg
7,8,9,10 ....Arm
11,12,13 ..Chest/back (depends if you're infront or behind victim)
14,15 ...... Abdomen
16 ........... Groin
17, 18 .....Shoulder/upper arm
19 ........... Neck
20 .......... Head
Left/Right depends on the unit die. odds=left, evens=right
When a PC is attacking a large creature they get a minus to the location ....eg a big troll you might get -1, .. so you're more likely to hit the big creatures legs, feet or his hands as they swing towards you. For something like a dragon we'd make up a unique hit location chart for it.

Good idea !!! I was thinking in some way of altering the table from ML to have a more real spread of the hit %. I was thinking of multipliying the ones to get more options or maybe a second rol (didn't like it) but this is simple, efective and adds up some new mistery to the dice throw. Just apply a -5 OB to get a +/-1 to the table.
I borrow it from now to my HR pack   Have an idea point U saved my brain who was thinking too much , it seems !!

[GrumpyOldFart]

Left/Right depends on the unit die. odds=left, evens=right

I'm not sure what you mean by "unit die", but I hope it's one of the 2 dice in the d100 rather than the d20 for location. Otherwise,

4,5,6 ........Leg

...you'd be twice as likely to hit the right leg as the left.

[calmacil]

Left/Right depends on the unit die. odds=left, evens=right

I'm not sure what you mean by "unit die"

By "unit die" i mean the 2nd die when you roll a d100. 1st die is Tens, 2nd is units.

So an attack roll of 71 would be an odd number = you hit the opponents left side.