Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: apituluaheb on March 21, 2011, 06:19:34 PM
-
Is there any system that allows to attack specific parts of the body? Like hands, feet, arms, neck etc
Along with the critic chart that goes with it? It would be interesting if for example hands are much harder to aim to than the body. You could never kill someone just by hurting his hand, perhaps critics 66 and 90 and above could amputate the hand. Know anything that would help?? If you look at it from an strategic perspective it could be AWESOME. ( i am spanish by the way so sorry for my english! :) )
Thanks!
-
No there is no chart or rules for what you are talking about that I know of.
Welcome to the ICE Forums and your English is very very good.
MDC
-
RM2 Arms Companion offered something called 'Strategic Targeting'. These are rules that allow targeting of specific parts of the body with a (kind of) crit table thrown in. Be warned though, these are not the best thought out rules I have experienced in Rolemaster.
-
Ah the "called shot" system.
In the past my players have always argued that they should be able to do this. My counter argument is that when you are engaged in mortal combat the attacker is taking the most open opportunity to strike at a weak point in the defenses. Doing a called shot isn't exactly useful in combat.
Imagine a heavyweight fight with two boxers in the ring - one boxer is using normal tactics and the other has decided "hey I am going to punch him in the nose" - by putting all his focus there he is missing opportunities to get in good shots elsewhere and also leaving himself open to absolute defeat as any smart opponent would be able to see that he is over focusing.
It's the same as an NFL Quarterback "staring down" a receiver... it usually ends up in a pick 6.
The only time I allow called shots is when there is an overwhelming advantage of one opponent over the other.
-
Ah the "called shot" system.
In the past my players have always argued that they should be able to do this. My counter argument is that when you are engaged in mortal combat the attacker is taking the most open opportunity to strike at a weak point in the defenses. Doing a called shot isn't exactly useful in combat.
Imagine a heavyweight fight with two boxers in the ring - one boxer is using normal tactics and the other has decided "hey I am going to punch him in the nose" - by putting all his focus there he is missing opportunities to get in good shots elsewhere and also leaving himself open to absolute defeat as any smart opponent would be able to see that he is over focusing.
It's the same as an NFL Quarterback "staring down" a receiver... it usually ends up in a pick 6.
The only time I allow called shots is when there is an overwhelming advantage of one opponent over the other.
Seriously it would be awesome!! You might want to attack someone who´s fleeing from a combat for example, and want to hurt his foot. Ot you might want to "save" a very good attack bonus for an specific blow to the head.
Or just have fun trying to leave an oponent handless!!! :D
I personally think that it would be key to an advance combat situation.
Actually one of my players is a martial art expert (black belt) and gets MAD when he cannot target what he wants. We´re not talking about targetting the nose, but maybe bigger and more interestings parts, just like hands, feet, legs, arms, chest and head. :)
Thanks for the welcoming everyone!
-
I used some Ad Hoc rulings in the past where you could try for a certain spot or area and if you got a critical, I would move it to affect that area (with possibly different attendant results). But otherwise, no "called shots" per se (but "Aiming" rules of ROCO VII was it? Grey Worlds? are similar).
Ciao,
Old Man
-
I'm agreeing with Zedul here. This used to drive me crazy when players asked for this. But combat is just like Zedul was saying. It's not just "swing! swing! swing!". I assume that a lot is going on in that 10 second round: some footwork, feinting, adjusting your grip, ducking, etc. To me, a character's OB reflects their skill at fighting with that weapon, which boils down to a lot more than how hard you can swing it. Ultimately, any successful attack and criticals achieved is the culmination of this action and skill, when an opportunity to strike finally presents itself and the attacker has the wherewithall to seize it! And if no lethal attack was possible, a skilled fighter will weaken his opponent with the most effective strike available.
So, in comes the called shot. Usually goes something like this: "I want to hit him in the head!" (personally, I've never heard anybody call anything but the head), the common belief usually being that it should be harder to achieve but more damage delivered if successful... or something.
So here's what I hear when players use a called shot: "I don't want any criticals that aren't on the head!" So that critical that sent that guy's hand flying off? Sorry, not the head, didn't happen, no damage, no crit :P
This explanation usually cures this whole called shot nonsense ;)
-
One house rule we used that worked was to allow people to reduce the critical by up to the ranks they have in a weapon. . .if there was a critical within that range that affected the body part they wanted, then they made the shot. . .this didn't work for head-shotting a target since the head results mostly sit at 98-00, but it worked for aiming to knock something out of someone's hand, or to chop the arm/hand of the giant squishing your friend, etc.
(Didn't allow this mechanism to shift down to 66, unlike ambush)
-
Aren´t role games supose to be as close to reality as possible??
Then why not allow people to aim to different things?
Ok, i am gonna try to make a critic chart along with some table... we ll see the result.. i might upload it for you to see, though it might take me a while to do it.
Any advice is more than welcome!!! :)
-
Aren´t role games supose to be as close to reality as possible??
Nope! I can assure you, if the game I'm GMing was anything like my life, or reality in general, the players would flee in a split second..
From jokes to guns*; Trying to make RM approach reality more than the RAW has already done has destroyed quite a few sessions for my part. Then again, if everyone around the table is on the same page, theres no problem..
(*That Norwegian saying didnt work out too well in english...)
-
I'm siding with Dangerman on this one. An RPG doesn't have to accurately reflect reality. It only has to be fun :)
The situation with the giants I would consider to be an exception, solely due to size difference. Any creature big enough to pick up a man with one hand would certainly take crits on the Large or Superlarge tables. As I recall, most of these crits are just extra damage and not location specific. I would allow targetting to some extent in this case, especially for ranged attacks, as this is not what I would consider "ordinary combat".
-
From jokes to guns*
(*That Norwegian saying didnt work out too well in english...)
With alliteration:
From wits to weapons?
From puns to pistols?
-
From jokes to guns*
(*That Norwegian saying didnt work out too well in english...)
With alliteration:
From wits to weapons?
From puns to pistols?
Ah! Much better! Thanks! Have a "linguistics point"! :D
-
The way I put it to my players was to ask, if during that 10 seconds you don't get a decent shot at _____, are you going to just parry or are you gonna take whatever presents itself?
The decision of where you hit him isn't solely up to you. You can't get that shot unless you can successfully draw your opponent into participating in it, and giving you that opening.
-
I look at combat (and all other aspects of the game) like this: What is it you* are trying to achieve?
If you are just trying to kill them, then the regular attack/combat rules is how we go about it. If you want a specialized effect, say putting your arrow through your opponents weapon arm in order inhibit his combat capabilities, then I would hand out a negative modifier (not very light, depending upon the results wanted and action undertaken) and you would go about making your attack (or skill check, whichever). How well you do, determines how well you do. If you get a roll over and finish with a total of 287, then I would adjust the critical to reflect the desired affect. (In this case, very likely you pierced his arm in such a way as to make it impossible to use, as well as delivering stun/bleeding/etc...)
The tables aren't sacrosanct. It is the desired effect and success "grade" that matter.
*Whoever is performing the action at hand.
-
While I agree that called shots are problematic, it does make a Highlander like setting very difficult.
.
-
While I agree that called shots are problematic, it does make a Highlander like setting very difficult.
So it does, but it's difficult to solve the problems of called shots unless your combat system takes tactics and psychology of the combatants into account. The bottom line is that where you hit him isn't solely up to you, unless he's basically helpless. Even someone bound and gagged can make his attacker's shot go awry, that's why torturer's chairs have all those straps and things on them.
I want called shots as much as anyone, I just don't see any way to do it without making the mechanic acknowledge the attacker (who called the shot) having to basically trick the defender into giving him the opening in order for the called shot to land.
-
Well if you're doing Highlander, you could just rule that the killing blow is always a decapitation, regardless of what the crit says ;)
Such a setting would be another exception I think, as decapitation is central to the plot :)
-
I've done highlander, and I think perhaps 2 people ever got decapitated in combat, all the rest got put down by a mortal blow then decapitated while unconscious on the floor. . .much like it's easier to down the undead with weapons, then burn the bodies after combat, than to try beating them to death with a torch.
-
I think called shots would be more important in something like a modern day Zombie apocalypse setting where players would be wanting to go for a head shot using a gun or something similiar
-
The thing is, every time I throw a punch, or a kick, or stab with a knife, it can be argued that I am making a called shot, as I am aiming (at that moment) for a particular location. I am not just blindly swinging in hopes of hitting something (of course, I hope to hit.....). Now, that location is generally a target of opportunity, but once I am thrusting or swinging, it is for a location.
RMs combat system is an "after the fact" targeting system, where after the results are tallied, the location that became open prior to the strike is determined. (I guess it could be called a retroactive targeting system.)
But, not taking into consideration the concept of called shots, just because they are harder than regular attacks, is a miss in my book. But, then again, I have no problem in doing it my own way anyway. Something as easy as a -50 to -100 OB, depending upon the location shouldn't be discounted. (I think those mods are a little high - I would go with -30/leg to -100/eyeball, or something like that.) And remember, they still need to us OB for their own defense, so this is just another thing cutting into their OB.
Also, I think it is totally reasonable to require them to develop Combat Skills that could/would support it, like Disarm, Feint, Swashbuckling, etc... Maybe saying that the maximum OB they can devote to a called shot is dependent upon that skill bonus (before the mod).
-
Here's an idea.
1. You can't call the shot unless you get a crit.
2. Your target number for a called shot is 101-(crit roll)-(1 per skill rank attacker has in Tactics)+(1 per skill rank defender has in Tactics). If you get a crit, roll for called shot. If you roll higher than the target, you get to call it. But the higher your original crit was, the easier it is to hit the called shot target, and tactics skill (both yours and your foe's) does apply.
Clumsy, but it seems to cover all bases.
-
For a simpler version, attacker can adjust the crit location, but not the damage, up or down by (attacker's tactics)-(defenders tactics). If that's a negative number, defender gets to do the adjusting instead of the attacker.
-
Just ask your players if they want called shots against them from their opponents. I can bet what the consensus will be
-
I look at combat (and all other aspects of the game) like this: What is it you* are trying to achieve?
If you are just trying to kill them, then the regular attack/combat rules is how we go about it. If you want a specialized effect, say putting your arrow through your opponents weapon arm in order inhibit his combat capabilities, then I would hand out a negative modifier (not very light, depending upon the results wanted and action undertaken) and you would go about making your attack (or skill check, whichever). How well you do, determines how well you do. If you get a roll over and finish with a total of 287, then I would adjust the critical to reflect the desired affect. (In this case, very likely you pierced his arm in such a way as to make it impossible to use, as well as delivering stun/bleeding/etc...)
The tables aren't sacrosanct. It is the desired effect and success "grade" that matter.
*Whoever is performing the action at hand.
I totally agree with Randalthor. And by the way i am sorry but i meant "... most realistic AMONG table games" Sorry! My english keeps triking me...
I gave up on making charts and specific critics for a few reasons:
The charts are mathematecally VERY difficult to make, as i have no other similar chart to take examples from. For example, i started with the head chart thinking it would be good to make very difficult to hit, but as soon as you hit it the critic is C or above... or even directly D or E. But i forgot about the armor class and stuff and it all suddenly turned too complicated, and i hadn´t even started with arms or legs charts...
So what i am going to do ( as the game starts tomorrow and my players are getting impacient and i told them it would be a very realistic world full of possibilities.. ) IS: I ll apply negative modificators to their OB depending what they aim for. If the blow/shot is aimed as ussually then i ll use the chats like always.
Now i am thinking about this, give me a clue if it´s more or less correct.
-Shots and Blows to the HEAD: -55 ( as it s the first thing we "naturrally" "move away from damage", See what happened to Bush and the Shoe-thrower :) )
-Shots and Blows to the ARMS: - 45 ( as they move fast but are in the "natural" position for attacking/grabbing etc, so more vulnerable)
- Shots and Blows to the Legs: - 35 ( as they move less fast than the arms, note here that i been practicing Muay thay sice i was 17 and low-kicks are the easiest and nearest targets :) )
I will then apply the general concept of the critic obtained to the part of the body hit.
Ok so that s it! Thanks for the repplies so far! :D
-
Those numbers don't change seem bad. The only thing I would change is the modifier to hit the head, I would make it closer to -70 because we are naturally geared to protect our heads/faces (and, more specifically: our eyes).
How are you going to modify the crits? (If you are at all.) I was thinking that, if I target your arm specifically (trying to limit your attacking, or whatever), and I succeed, the effects could be heightened, like double the modifier (if any) from the bonus as it applies to the injured arm, but it would be normally applied to other actions. Stuff like that. Another idea, one that I think only works for a head or other vital called shot, is moving the critical up by 1, so an A becomes a B, C becomes a D, etc.. If you happen to get lucky and get an E crit, then the roll could be modified by +20.
I think it is worth remembering that the character (or NPC, for that matter) is taking a fairly hefty negative to their base OB, making it more likely they fail to hit at all, in order to gain an extra effect if they do happen to hit. So, I think it ultimately balances itself out.
-
So what i am going to do ( as the game starts tomorrow and my players are getting impacient and i told them it would be a very realistic world full of possibilities.. ) IS: I ll apply negative modificators to their OB depending what they aim for. If the blow/shot is aimed as ussually then i ll use the chats like always.
Now i am thinking about this, give me a clue if it´s more or less correct.
-Shots and Blows to the HEAD: -55 ( as it s the first thing we "naturrally" "move away from damage", See what happened to Bush and the Shoe-thrower :) )
-Shots and Blows to the ARMS: - 45 ( as they move fast but are in the "natural" position for attacking/grabbing etc, so more vulnerable)
- Shots and Blows to the Legs: - 35 ( as they move less fast than the arms, note here that i been practicing Muay thay sice i was 17 and low-kicks are the easiest and nearest targets :) )
I will then apply the general concept of the critic obtained to the part of the body hit.
Ok so that s it! Thanks for the repplies so far! :D
Allow me to complicate things further :P
Your system is not bad, but if you really want things to be realistic, don't forget the possibility that even if your players are targetting a specific body part, it's still possible to hit their opponent somewhere else. This could be on accident because the defender suddenly moves (for example, raising their arm to block a head strike), or because the attacker attacks another open spot reflexively ("crap! i couldn't resist that rib-shot"). All kinds of stuff could happen.
You might want to combine Marc R's idea with the penalties you're describing. If the attacker scores a critical, they can adjust the result by up to their rank with that weapon/attack. Then let the player choose. So if they're targetting the arm for example, and there's a result within their range that describes arm damage, they can change the critical to that. But if there is no arm crit (maybe only legs, trunk, etc) then maybe allow them to choose their original critical, or get no critical at all. Just an idea :)
But I suggest that whatever system you choose, make sure you explain all the details to your players beforehand, and tell them that you're still experimenting with this system to see if it works. If it seems too unbalanced, or if you find any other problems with it, you'll change the system to something else. This way they'll be ready for the likely event that it'll be changed later, as you work out the bugs, and you won't have to spend a lot of time explaining/justifying the change :)
-
VZ, what you are describing here is similar to the Ambush skill, and something I was thinking about. It is definitely a way to go, but I would say, instead of using their full ranks as the maximum they can modify to get the desired result, use a divisor, like one-half or one-third (rounding down - all RM rounds in a way that is least favorable to the PCs). Or make them develop the Ambush skill (making it a Combat Maneuver, and developing it for each weapon you want to be able to call shots with) to reflect specialized training. Of course, you can just use the skill Swashbuckling......
But, no matter how you do it (if you are), I suggest always making sure the player gives a clear effect they desire out of the called shot, and having that be the "total success" if they do really well - no matter what the table says.
-
Good point, Rand. I guess there would be no reason to develop ranks in Ambush if anybody can just call shots and get the same effect. Well, I guess the difference would be the hefty penalty to the called shots, but that's about it.
I thought Swashbuckling was more about flash than actual combat effectiveness, so I'm not sure that's the route I would take, especially when I've never seen a player in RL with any ranks in it :P Though I would love to hear the phrase, at least once, "I want to swashbuckle his head off!"
A general skill check might be the best route to go, with a GM assigned difficulty level, using the attacker's OB. Though I shudder to think of limbs and heads flying as a result of a single "non-attack" roll :o
-
Ages ago, before the advent of the current iteration of Rolemaster, there was a newspaper like ICE product a buddy of mine showed me with variant critical tables broken up by location so you could either randomly generate or pick a location (with a OB penalty) and any criticals dealt were checked against the appropriate critical table.
Alternatively you could port over the hit location & critical system from HARPs Martial Law.
For my own games, such actions are resolved with the Ambush skill with the attacker modifying up or down the critical result by their number of skill ranks in Ambush. This gives the player some control of where the blow lands and the in-game effects.
>>ReaperWolf
-
Though I would love to hear the phrase, at least once, "I want to swashbuckle his head off!"
That would be funny. The point being, though, there are skills already in place that are used similarly to what you are looking for.
A general skill check might be the best route to go, with a GM assigned difficulty level, using the attacker's OB. Though I shudder to think of limbs and heads flying as a result of a single "non-attack" roll :o
The main reason I buck this concept is because the rest of the game (I am talking RMSS/FRP primarily here) is built on the idea that a single skill isn't generally used in a multiple of ways. In order to use a skill differently, you need to develop another skill that allows you to do that. This is the typical ICE, never make it easy for the player-character ideology.
Take Tracking & Reading Tracks, as examples. With tracking, you can follow the trail, but in order to know what you are following you need read tracks. In the vast majority of other game systems out there the tracking skill is used for both, and there are likely other uses, as well. As another example, look at all the combat maneuver skills. You need to develop each of those, usually for a particular weapon, in order to do them, you don't just use your weapons ranks to reflect how good you are in disarming, feinting, etc... (Other than as one part of the limiter, i.e.: the bonus is derived from the lower of the two skills.)
So it doesn't seem to fit with the RM system to use your skill ranks in attacking with the weapon to also affect your called shot in the way you mention. (Personally, I am OK with it, it just doesn't fit the rules system.)
-
That was one of the reasons I used Tactics instead of Ambush. You can specialize it to Tactics (Close Combat) if it helps. The other reason was so it could be put in terms of skill v. skill, to put the defender back into the process.
I dunno what you'd use for called shots at range though, since you don't have any way to sucker your target into giving you the opening you want and you have to successfully predict his motion while the missile is in flight in order to hit the spot.
-
Very good answers here, thanks a lot to everyone.
I start the game in a few hours, i ve been thinking that in order to put all this in practice i might start the game with a "cultural meeting" (with all kinds of competitions) so they can practice and get use to it without worriyng about the damage... So they ll fight with wooden swords etc...
By the way there is no magic in the world i created, so i allowed only Semi-spell casters and no-spells caster, and modified the spells list to make them look like skills, taking away those of them who where not realistic (such as fire, ice etc)
That s why i want close combat to be as real as possible offering millions of possibilities.
I ll tell you all the results soon!! :)
-
Ambush at rabge is Targeting, or Sniping. In SM, Targeting is used to reduce range penalties when firing a single shot in a melee round and sniping is ambush at range.
Toemato, tomato.
-
Generally I wouldn't try allocating specific percentages to different areas... base it on the size of the area in relation to the attacker.
For Human vs Human assume a 20% chance of hitting the desired location, and apply a -40 to the attack.
If the attacker would PREFER to hit the specified area but really doesn't mind hitting another part then...
If the attack still connects with the full penalty applied then it has hit the specified location, adjust the crit discription to reflect it, but don't adjust the severity.
If the attacks fails to hit with the full penalty, but would hit with half the penalty applied then the target has been hit as normal.
Other than that the attack misses completely.
If the attacker wants to avoid hitting any area EXCEPT the specifed area then simply apply the twice the penalty, and apply as above.
Against an unaware target... or one that simply doesn't have the intellegence to spot that a specifc area is being targeted and vunerable (i.e. a Zombies head). Then either use Targeting/Sniping/Ambush... assume the desired location is hit with the discription or halve the penalties mentioned above with basic melee attacks.
-
If the attacker wants to avoid hitting any area EXCEPT the specifed area then simply apply the twice the penalty, and apply as above.
You could do all that, but in my opinion it's like trying to raise the chassis and put off road tires on a Porsche Roadster.
Seriously, I think Rolemaster is complicated and time consuming enough in combat rounds and doesn't need any additional hankering for more advantages for players. If you want a smooth running fun game session then bogging down combat rounds with endless optional called shot rules and so on and so forth just gets vexing. We tried it before and the system just isn't set up to operate that way, if it is super important I would use another game system entirely.
If a player pressed for the called I would apply at least a -100 OB penalty as there are that many different regions on the body. A -200 penalty if they insist on "only that part no exceptions" and that should be sufficient to cover the bases. Meaning they wouldn't do it unless they have a clear overwhelming advantage in which case the gm would just rule it done rather than wasting time rolling dice.
Each to their own though. :)
-
There might be occasions where both the GM and the players wish to go for called shots... such as not wanting to kill only capture...shoot them in the leg. So, coming up with an alternative that allows that opportunity, rather than a random hack at the opponent and hoping for such a result, is a good thing and at least merits discussion.
I can understand why "Pandering" to players might be considered a bad thing, especially when the "Pandering" is a one way street. Allowing called shots to the head which cause instant death, or blindness is one of those sorts of rules that "goes against the grain" when compared to the remainder of the system where such effects are relatively random. If any players demand inclusion of that sort of rule then they should expect equal treatment by the GM. The trick is using a system that is similar to one that is very close to what is already used. easy to remember and does not overly favour the result or unduly dissuade the attempt.
-
There might be occasions where both the GM and the players wish to go for called shots... such as not wanting to kill only capture...shoot them in the leg. So, coming up with an alternative that allows that opportunity, rather than a random hack at the opponent and hoping for such a result, is a good thing and at least merits discussion.
Again, I'm thinking that in this situation merely excluding non-targetted criticals achieves the desired effect. I would still argue that a combat round is much more than a random hack, and ultimately reflects the combatant's ability to land an effective attack. If they want to specifically shoot them in the leg, then just ignore/cancel non-leg crits.
Just to expand a bit on this, the above mentioned method makes perfect sense for "careful" attacks, as you're looking to injure, not kill, so excluding crits would be a good way to go, imo. But I always have people calling head shots, going for a quick-kill and trying to bypass the normal combat system. If this is allowed, then it undermines a central element of the game, providing a way for players to dipatch their enemies quickly, an attractive alternative to spending rounds upon rounds of normal attacks, and is just begging to be abused.
Anyway, if you just want to catch your enemy, isn't that what subdual attacks/crits are for?
-
There might be occasions where both the GM and the players wish to go for called shots... such as not wanting to kill only capture...shoot them in the leg. So, coming up with an alternative that allows that opportunity, rather than a random hack at the opponent and hoping for such a result, is a good thing and at least merits discussion.
I can understand why "Pandering" to players might be considered a bad thing, especially when the "Pandering" is a one way street. Allowing called shots to the head which cause instant death, or blindness is one of those sorts of rules that "goes against the grain" when compared to the remainder of the system where such effects are relatively random. If any players demand inclusion of that sort of rule then they should expect equal treatment by the GM. The trick is using a system that is similar to one that is very close to what is already used. easy to remember and does not overly favour the result or unduly dissuade the attempt.
Perhaps it's just my experience but almost every player I've had who has bugged me about called shots was always seeking to min max and gain a special advantage by doing so. When it comes to combat systems on games I really don't like to alter them and include a whole separate critical range for called shots because its always "going for the heart" "going for the head" as the player wants to be the ultimate tough guy and just kill whatever they hit instantly. ::)
The times I consider their request are when they are honestly doing it for the roleplay purposes, such as when the evil wizard is waving a wand of ultimate destruction and the player is intent on knocking that wand the heck out of the bad guys hand, but when it's all about "I am going to be better than other players because I am going to shoot the bad guys eyes out whenever I go into combat." It just irritates me until I sick a Greater Black Reaver on them and ask them to try a called shot on that thing. :o
After 30 years of GM'ing I suppose I have developed a bias and a short fuse with players over issues like this because I heard it all a million times.
Anyway, just my take or add to the discussion. In the end everyone is going to run their session in the way that makes their players and themselves the happiest. I am usually in the minority on such things. :)
-
Anyway, if you just want to catch your enemy, isn't that what subdual attacks/crits are for?
;) *Nodding in agreement*
-
Actually, imobilizing someone is more akin to wrestling than subdual.
As for called shots, several years of medieval fencing told me that you strike where you can, not where you plan to. From there, I decided never to design a rule for called shots.
-
Anyway, if you just want to catch your enemy, isn't that what subdual attacks/crits are for?
;) *Nodding in agreement*
Yes. I quite agree too. However IIRC that requires another skill, not just trying to hit the enemy in the leg with a normal blow. Personally, I let the players choose to use the subdual crits without a skill using thier normal weapon skill but at -20. Like you I can't see the point in using a different rule/skill for every concievable situation that could be covered by something that already exists.
I also agree that ignoring criticals for everywhere else *but* where the attacker is aiming for works as well, but does preclude the effect that the defender is making defensive attempts whilst fighting, and a strike elsewhere is likely to happen and if it does may still cause unintentional critical damage to another location.
The suggestion I made does not increase the chance of automatic kills, rather than increases the percentage chance that a specified area is hit purely with regard to the criticals discription. This does not increase the magnitude of the injury caused by the critical, but changes it to a pre-specified location rather than that of the one in the critical discription. Any advantage to be gained by aiming to an unarmoured area is actually already generated by the table results themselves.
e.g. Some critical results differencate damage caused when greaves/helmet are worn. Its ONLY in those occasions where any real difference may occur in the critcal result based upon the location of the hit.
If a player notices that the opponent isn't wearing greaves or a helmet is wishes to take advantage of that fact, then the table already provides that information. It's up to the GM to interpret the results of the critical based on the intention of the player.
Let's say the Opponent wears greaves, but no helmet: the critical discription is "Strike to the Leg" and specified with leg greaves +5h, parry 3, -10 injury. (without leg greaves, +3 hits, stun/no parry, -25 injury.
with a hit to the head that would simply be changed to "Strike to the Head" and "with helmet +5h, parry 3, -10 injury. (without Helmet, +3 hits, stun/no parry, -25 injury.)".
-
As for called shots, several years of medieval fencing told me that you strike where you can, not where you plan to.
Exactly. Where you hit isn't solely up to you. If you got the shot you planned on, somehow or another you suckered your opponent into giving you the opening for it. Which is not to say that it can't be done, only that the skill of doing it is based at least as firmly in psychology as in weapon technique.
-
As for called shots, several years of medieval fencing told me that you strike where you can, not where you plan to.
Exactly. Where you hit isn't solely up to you. If you got the shot you planned on, somehow or another you suckered your opponent into giving you the opening for it. Which is not to say that it can't be done, only that the skill of doing it is based at least as firmly in psychology as in weapon technique.
Right. You can do this quite easily with weekend warriors, but any man with reasonable skill will be far more of a problem. I don’t think the RM combat system as is can mirror this, and I am not sure it is even interesting to mirror the dynamics of actual fighting. However, there is certainly a way to make things more diverse with wrestling, disarming, swashbuckling and such skills.
-
I don’t think the RM combat system as is can mirror this, and I am not sure it is even interesting to mirror the dynamics of actual fighting.
I don't know if it can or not, but if it attempts to I think it needs to be a skill vs. skill layout based on how the fighter thinks rather than how he moves, for the above reason. Somehow you have to sucker him into giving you that shot.
Making it skill vs. skill means you can make it so that a low level spellcaster, being the thinker type, may do better than a low level fighter, but the fighter will quickly gain skill in it where the caster will not. Thus if you (you=generic med-high level fighter type) close to melee, you can probably call shots on the casters and the newbies who don't know anything, but not on the experienced fighters. And you're in for a rude surprise if there's a really expert fighter in the bunch, as he'll start calling shots on you, because you don't have enough skill to stop him.
-
Anyway, if you just want to catch your enemy, isn't that what subdual attacks/crits are for?
;) *Nodding in agreement*
Yes. I quite agree too. However IIRC that requires another skill, not just trying to hit the enemy in the leg with a normal blow. Personally, I let the players choose to use the subdual crits without a skill using thier normal weapon skill but at -20. Like you I can't see the point in using a different rule/skill for every concievable situation that could be covered by something that already exists.
The more you take away the combat skills and just turn it into OB with a penalty, the more you make the Fighter irrelevant at higher levels. Everyone ends up with OB, but the combat specialist can augment that with flexibility in combat.
-
I don’t think the RM combat system as is can mirror this, and I am not sure it is even interesting to mirror the dynamics of actual fighting.
I don't know if it can or not, but if it attempts to I think it needs to be a skill vs. skill layout based on how the fighter thinks rather than how he moves, for the above reason. Somehow you have to sucker him into giving you that shot.
Well, to be honest, it has more to do with body awareness and the ability to feel pressure through the weapon (what we call « sentiment du fer » (iron’s feeling)) than thought. When blades move at more than 200 km/h, you don’t think, you react. And the less you think, the better you react. You just spend countless hours training and learning how to fight in order to be effective. It IS a matter of skill far more than thought.
-
RDHENRY: That's fine if that sort of skill is used to augment that sort of attempt, rather than rule that the skill replaces the OB generated by the weapon skill. I'm not saying that those sort of skills can't exist, rather than that there should be an option to attempt them without a specific skill.
Also, using a "subdue" skill to allow anyone to attempt to subdue (or state a preferance to favour an area of the target to concentrate on in melee), and only that skill, costs a lot in DP, to get anyway near the OB to effectively do anything with it.
Whereas, if the skill is used as a SM performed to "enhance" the original ob by specifically negating all or part of a penalty applied to change a normal attack to a different form makes more sense to me.. this way it can apply to all attacks made with any weapon the character uses without imposing further restrictions on the skill development.
The "irrelevancy" of the Fighter of a fighter at high levels isn't going to be helped by having to spend a heap of additional DP to achieve the ability to use a single tactic that is rarely used.. the fighter should be able to attempt a lot more with his weapon skill than simply just hit things and parry. The trick is balancing the penalties for attempting them against the reward.
Allowing this sort of approach favours the arms classes, because thier OB will be higher and cheaper to develop to start with, other classes simply won't have the DP to develop the weapons oB to the same degree.
-
Well, to be honest, it has more to do with body awareness and the ability to feel pressure through the weapon (what we call « sentiment du fer » (iron’s feeling)) than thought. When blades move at more than 200 km/h, you don’t think, you react. And the less you think, the better you react.
True, if you are thinking about what you are doing you are far too slow, and you're meat on the table, you're a corpse that just hasn't stopped moving yet. But you can't say that close quarters tactics doesn't play a part, and a big one. A lot of the purpose of training your body to the point of "muscle memory" is to free your mind to devote attention to situational awareness and tactics. Something as simple as moving no more than necessary, so that 3 minutes from now he's tired and you aren't. So far as I can tell (not being one myself), in the really expert fighters the observational skills are honed to the point where within 3 minutes they'll know precisely how to sucker you into giving them the shot they want, as they'll have figured out nearly all of your strengths and weaknesses by then.
-
The problem with called shots is that the defender would need to be pretty zombie like to not make a called parry. If the wizard is using the wand of ultimate destruction to great effect he knows the enemy would love to make him unable to use the wand. Why should he not be allowed to make a called parry to cancel the effect of the called shot? Introducing called shots break the abstraction of RM combat and you get into eternal discussions about if the defender understand the danger or not.
As for the matter of attacking somebody without wanting to kill him the combat system include the rule that you can limit the degree of the critical you score. It is not perfect since you can always be unlucky, but this allows the attacker to be careful with his attacks and reduce the likelihood he get an instant death result.
If the enemy does not know about the weakness, a zombie, character wearing a cursed item or some kind of mindless construct I allow the players succeed with a "called shot" towards the weak point if they get a critical result that is high enough (your critical will affect the cursed bracelet if you get a critical and the critical roll is higher than 75), but that require the defender to be really unaware of the weakness.
-
The problem with called shots is that the defender would need to be pretty zombie like to not make a called parry.
Exactly. In one form or another, it's a skill vs. skill. If the skill of getting the defender to leave the spot open that you want is the same as the defender's skill of not going for it, the one with the higher skill gets to adjust the result to his advantage.
-
However, in applying any sort of penalty to the "called shot" attempt, you are already effectively giving the defender a significant advantage since thier parry applies to all strikes regardless of the object of the attackers attention. I suspect that it is harder to effectively parry against some areas of the body than others.. and a lot of that is dependent upon what the two combatants are armed with.
So we've done the subject of what the difficulties might be. But not exactly what the advantages are of making a called shot are in the first place and why players might be desperate to use them. This is what I believe is actually what concerns a lot of people here.
Would you define the result of the called shot an enhanced chance at causing instant death/incapacitation or simply a change in the wording of the critical discription (as I would rule). The two are not the same from a point of play balance.
-
A fist sized chunk carved out of the face is quite a different hardship from a fist sized chunk carved out of the thigh.
-
A fist sized chunk carved out of the face is quite a different hardship from a fist sized chunk carved out of the thigh.
;D
Yes, but if the magnitude of the result on the critical tables isn't changed, where you hit doesn't matter. Penalties are fairly generic... i.e. a -20 penalty affects everything regardless of where you hit. It's the higher results that may cause problems, and in those cases I'd say that penalty applied wieghs the benifit. A Leg being severed is generally as fatal as a hit on the head.
-
Why should he not be allowed to make a called parry to cancel the effect of the called shot?
An excellent point, one which I wish I'd come up with a long time ago :D
So just to expand on that a bit, what do you get when a called shot meets a called parry? To me, it seems like ordinary combat! The attacker goes for a vital spot, the defender notices/anticipates this and defends appropriately. To me, trying to call everything is just unnecessarily trying to pry open the black box that is a combat round.
Yeah the more I think about it, the more I think the easiest, fairest, most balanced way to do called shots, is by merely omitting criticals from non-called areas. A few examples to illustrate:
If the intent of the called shot is to quickly dispatch an opponent, is this not the same objective as ordinary combat? So if they can't get that head shot, wouldn't it be smart to take whatever they can get to weaken their opponent? I would think skilled combatants would realize this and take appropriate action. An unskilled combatant might not realize this and stay fixated on their initial target area, thus reducing their effectiveness. It's all in the black box at this point, because this is really just ordinary combat.
The other example is where the attacker actually does not want to kill, but maybe really wants to hit an arm or a leg to slow the target down or whatever. In this situation it would make sense to merely omit crits from non-targetted areas, as the attacker is "being careful".
I don't need to tell you that this won't work for every situation, but I think it's a good rule of thumb. And besides, it's worth it to note that the characters, who are fighting on a regular basis, might know a little more about combat and the value of called shots than their players. I would leave it to the experts and allow them to determine their approach (i.e. roll dice and add skill :P)
-
I'd rather have a rule that allows for focusing attacks.... which ends in an occasional change in critical discription rather than a complete negation of possibility.
I agree that RM combat is an abstract, in that during a round a lot of things can happen, and that includes doing damage in an area that the combatant wasn't expecting to hit (probably because the defender moved to parry an area he thinks is weak). So completely ignoring critical results of the areas not targetted is perhaps a little too simple and unrealistic.
Part of the fun of RM is the randomness and variety of combat and the detail of the effects thereof. I think that, for the most part, called shots or focussed attacks are just an option, one that the players make and that the GM interprets, that need only to be included on the rarest of occasions.
-
I'd rather have a rule that allows for focusing attacks....
Then don't forget to also make a rule for focusing defense ;)
So completely ignoring critical results of the areas not targetted is perhaps a little too simple and unrealistic.
I think we just might not see eye-to-eye on this one. To me, it is realistic that if the attacker is hell-bent on hitting an arm, excluding non-arm results makes a lot more sense than coming up with an arbitrary penalty to apply, then moving the crit around or changing it's verbage. If they're not hell-bent on hitting an arm, then it's ordinary combat, and they'll make the best hit they can.
Part of the fun of RM is the randomness and variety of combat and the detail of the effects thereof. I think that, for the most part, called shots or focussed attacks are just an option, one that the players make and that the GM interprets, that need only to be included on the rarest of occasions.
Agreed :)
-
The rule for focused defense already exists... it's called parrying. ;).
You want to focus your defense you devote more OB to parrying. Basically it's exactly the same as suffering a penalty to OB when making a called shot, except the defender is committing OB to defense rather than offence. (Or in the case of called shots, taking a penalty to increase the chances of hitting a specific area).
Though since parrying is simply OB devoted to defense, and it doesn't have to specify certain locations, it is already applied evenly across the board without penalty regardless of the area of the body under attack. (Though they do have to specifiy a split when facing multiple opponents).
I'd be quite happy for the defending character to make a combat awareness SM to counter.. perhaps doubling the penalty applied to the attacker.
-
The rule for focused defense already exists... it's called parrying. ;).
That's not focused, just increased, and that's ordinary combat :P
A focused defense would be more like the defender saying "I want to especially protect my arm from attacks", or head, or whatever, and then having a separate system for addressing that particular situation.
I'd be quite happy for the defending character to make a combat awareness SM to counter.. perhaps doubling the penalty applied to the attacker.
I think a Combat Awareness SM is a respectable approach to handling any unusual combat situations :)
-
This situation is exactly why I think that the whole "as skill to cover everything" approach doesn't work in games: we won't stop adding more and more just to do one thing. It just becomes rolls stacked on rolls stacked on rolls until it takes a dozen rolls to accomplish a task; taking way too long to accomplish anything.
This is why I prefer to go with a more free-form approach than uber-detailed rules and skills.
-
This situation is exactly why I think that the whole "as skill to cover everything" approach doesn't work in games: we won't stop adding more and more just to do one thing. It just becomes rolls stacked on rolls stacked on rolls until it takes a dozen rolls to accomplish a task; taking way too long to accomplish anything.
This is why I prefer to go with a more free-form approach than uber-detailed rules and skills.
*Applause* ;D
-
So has anyone tried to use the 'strategic targeting' skill from Arms Companion?
Or used it enough to discover it's flaws?
I ask because we had a pirate campaign a ways back, swords and guns. Arms companion came out and we tried some of the strategic targeting for the guns. But I felt the rules weren't written clearly enough, either that or we were all a little dense in our reading comprehension :-).....
Either way, everyone who had the skill wanted head shots. Human head was -75 I believe.
Roll your ST.Targeting which is stated as a maneuver I think.... so you make your roll now you can shoot.... But we got confused as to whether or not you use your OB at -75, or if the skill ranks in st.targeting were the actual 'OB' you use....?
What about the defenders db? He's bobbing and weaving and in combat, isn't his DB still tacked on as well? The rules didn't seem to mention it clearly.....unless we all missed something which is entirely possible.... We settled on just using the sniping skill, just that when in combat there's more of a penalty to roll to use it, then if you make it it's still only half your ability....very similar to ambush etc.... except you can have a foe fully aware and engaged in combat, but if you roll past our agreed upon penalty you could crack off that shot in combat while he was looking right at you.... like how close quarter combat trained swat or seal teams can get clean headshots often.
Isn't there a simple/ fast/ way to implement these concepts? Or is it truly a gordian knot and best left untouched?
-
IMHO if it was simple then it would have been thought of long ago. But then sometimes the simple things elude you the longest.
One thing to remember is that NPC's can use the skills against the players as well and this can be a bit of a shock to a high level PC's (and players) if there is not sufficient balances put in. IMHO that is the hard part.
From your text above I thought that maybe there should be some type of RR roll on part of the target if the target is an important NPC or PC in addition to the rules. Note I have not gone back and looked at the rules in the RM2 AC you have talked about but the addition of an extra layer may help out those important NPC's and PC's that can be the receiver of the skill.
MDC
-
So has anyone tried to use the 'strategic targeting' skill from Arms Companion?
Or used it enough to discover it's flaws?
I ask because we had a pirate campaign a ways back, swords and guns. Arms companion came out and we tried some of the strategic targeting for the guns. But I felt the rules weren't written clearly enough, either that or we were all a little dense in our reading comprehension :-).....
Either way, everyone who had the skill wanted head shots. Human head was -75 I believe.
Roll your ST.Targeting which is stated as a maneuver I think.... so you make your roll now you can shoot.... But we got confused as to whether or not you use your OB at -75, or if the skill ranks in st.targeting were the actual 'OB' you use....?
What about the defenders db? He's bobbing and weaving and in combat, isn't his DB still tacked on as well? The rules didn't seem to mention it clearly.....unless we all missed something which is entirely possible.... We settled on just using the sniping skill, just that when in combat there's more of a penalty to roll to use it, then if you make it it's still only half your ability....very similar to ambush etc.... except you can have a foe fully aware and engaged in combat, but if you roll past our agreed upon penalty you could crack off that shot in combat while he was looking right at you.... like how close quarter combat trained swat or seal teams can get clean headshots often.
Isn't there a simple/ fast/ way to implement these concepts? Or is it truly a gordian knot and best left untouched?
We played with Strategic Targeting for years. It's not that useful unless you have lots of skill in Strategic Targeting skill. In any event, here's a summary of how it works:
Normal attack = d100 + OB - DB; lookup the result on the weapon table and use the indicated crit chart.
Strategic attack = d100 + OB - DB - 20 + Min(StrategicTargetSkill - LocationModifier, 0); lookup the result on the weapon table, but use both the indicated crit chart and the Strategic Targeting crit chart.
So, a normal attack might be at +75 (+100 OB - 25 DB). A strategic attack vs. the head (with +45 in Strategic Targeting skill) would be 75 - 20 + (45 - 75) = +25.
Note that in general, head shots aren't as effective as neck shots. The neck is only an additional penalty of 20, but the BAM for the neck is only 1 vs. 4 for the head. In other words you need to inflict 4 times as many structural hits to the head. For years one of my players had a Rogue with a dagger, Strategic Targeting, Closing and Ambush. He would spend 2-3 rounds getting into position (closing and/or stalking), but once he was in position, it was one-shot, one-kill. He used a dagger because he hated fumbling.
His targets took to wearing metal gorgets for protection. So, the mage learned an Arcane metal spell that let him crumple a small metal object (such as a gorget) at distance. Those two were a great combo!
-
Peter Mork;
What was the Rogues nick name if he had one?
MDC
-
I don't remember that Hael ever had a nickname. Alas.
-
Bummer there is no official name.....but:
Maybe the Apple Killer (Apple for short) for hitting people in the Addams Apple or the Hole Killer for just putting one hole in his targets.
MDC