Centipedes of Doom?

[Vadrus]

The lack of general Hit Points is going to cause some odd results it seems, basically unless you are lucky or use precise strikes it will always be more dangerous to fight creatures with large numbers of target locations.

It is going to take forever to take down something like a chaos centipede (silly and extreme example) or a scorpionman (common opponent in many RQ campaigns). Even a centaur is likely to be much harder to kill than a Troll even if their CON+SIZ were the same.

I can see many people bringing general HP back in as a house rule, I certainly will


Vadrus

 

[Rurik]

Beware of Walktapi.

 

[Urox]

basically unless you are lucky or use precise strikes it will always be more dangerous to fight creatures with large numbers of target locations.

While I haven't analyzed it, I suspect the same may be true of heavily armored foes -- since Crits don't ignore armor (you need a precise strike for that), even max damage may mostly bounce in some cases.

It is possible that the damage & resistance scales have been changed in MQ to account for the changed criticals (which would be a bummer in that it will require extra conversion for using old RQ materials).

 

[Vadrus]

Aye Scorpionmen are going to be really tough as they tend to have decent armour and extra locations.

Nice group of six, give one a chaos rune and the 3d6 damage no armour spell, the rest 2-h mauls or swords, a sprinkling of chaos features and of course each with an nice poison sting and watch the carnage :twisted:

Ouch


Vadrus

 

[Newtus]

We got stuck in our playtest game, using the prerelease version 1.5 of the playtest rules, on the issue of lack of general hit points.

We had this Broo that kept on going at us, despite lack of any limbs. It was a very Monty Python Black Knight moment.

Saying this I had a quick butchers at the combat/damage rules this morning and the explainations seem to be much clearer. I'll be testing the rules tonight with a couple of human pcs , and now some characters with non-human hit locations, to see if the lack of Total HP still fubars the game.

 

[iamtim]

If you cut the leg off of a chaos centipede, do you really think that it should make a hill o' beans worth of difference in ANY system? It's... a centipede. The loss of a few legs should be laughable to it.

Thus, precise strikes. Target the body, bring that shit down to negative and kill the beast; don't waste time trying to kill it by cutting it's legs off. Again, it's... a centipede.

 

[Vadrus]

Aye the Centipede was a silly example but the Scorpionman or centaur are not. Given the same CON+SIZ total as someone using the humanoid template they are going to be much tougher to kill for anyone who's skill lvl makes using precise strikes impractical.

So far from the quick glimpse of the rules I've managed at lunch time there are far too many anomalies that I don't think I'll be able to live with. However I am reserving final judgement until I've read it all thoroughly and tried them out for a few sessions.


Vadrus

 

[iamtim]

But it wasn't a silly example; extreme, maybe, but my premise holds against a scorpion man or a centaur; don't try and kill them by hacking at their legs. They've got more legs than a human.

Sure, if your goal is to bring it down so you can make a clean shot to the head or chest, go for it. But I think it's silly to assume you can kill a multi-legged creature by hacking at it's legs. Again, that's what precise strikes are for, and that's why there's a head and chest location.

 

[homerjsinnott]

But it wasn't a silly example; extreme, maybe, but my premise holds against a scorpion man or a centaur; don't try and kill them by hacking at their legs. They've got more legs than a human.

You're not wrong.

But I think it's silly to assume you can kill a multi-legged creature by hacking at it's legs.

Yeh! you just can't kill a horse by cutting its legs off. Man, it just keeps on going!
And don't talk to me about cows. :roll:

 

[iamtim]

Yeh! you just can't kill a horse by cutting its legs off. Man, it just keeps on going!
And don't talk to me about cows. :roll:

:roll: is right, because horses and cows are so like chaos centipedes, scorpionmen, and centaurs. Nope, nothing mundane and non-fantastic about horses and cows. Why, I remember this one time I was running an Orlanthi who had to take on a whole group of cows, all by himself!

 

[SteveMND]

Examples aside, if i'm reading this correctly, the concern appears to be valid.

All other things being equal, with the loss of general HP in the game, a creature with more hit locations -- regardless of whether they are vitals or not -- will be harder to kill than a creature with fewer hit locations, due to the simple fact that incoming damage will tend to be spread out more.

This is not due to any question of vitals or the like, but rather a issue created by the mechanics used.

 

[iamtim]

All other things being equal, with the loss of general HP in the game, a creature with more hit locations -- regardless of whether they are vitals or not -- will be harder to kill than a creature with fewer hit locations, due to the simple fact that incoming damage will tend to be spread out more.

If you do nothing but strike at random locations, you're right. If, however, you use the system as I think the intent was and do precise strikes to the head or chest (in the case of a multiple legged creature), I think you'll find the results to be pleasing.

 

[canology]

You are all aware that humans (and I assume cows, horses centaurs, etc) can die from taking a Major Wound to a limb? Once the limb goes to negative its normal hit points you have to roll to remain conscious at the end of every combat round, and without treatment you will simply die in CON+POW combat rounds.
Even simply having a limb knocked negative means it's useless and you loose the next 1d4 combat actions.
I might make a house rule where multiple limbs with major wounds divide the time it takes to die, but in general I am not seeing the problem here...

I don't have my old RQ stuff handy, but I seem to recall that insects (including scorpionmen) did not take general HP damage from leg hits, so this whole argument seems like a bit of a straw man.

 

[SteveMND]

If, however, you use the system as I think the intent was and do precise strikes to the head or chest (in the case of a multiple legged creature), I think you'll find the results to be pleasing.

I'm sure that is the case, but the significant penalties associated with making a Precise Shot means that for the majority of most PC's careers, it's not going to be a very reliable option...

 

[Enpeze]

the question is: Is MRQ as deadly as RQ? Or ist it just deadly if you hit the right locations?

To me its seems the latter, but I dont have played the game, so maybe I am wrong in this subject.

The fact that you can die if your arm is off, is like RQ3 and this sounds good to me.

On the other hand, and this seems no minor issue, if a human has 7 hitlocations with an average of 5 points on it, this human could be hit 7 times with each 5 damage (which is not a small wound) and it is not near death, despite loosing 35 HP, which would be enough in RQ3 to kill 3 humans.

 

[iamtim]

I'm sure that is the case, but the significant penalties associated with making a Precise Shot means that for the majority of most PC's careers, it's not going to be a very reliable option...

I guess what I'm trying to say is...

Who, in their right mind, in a system as potentially deadly as RuneQuest (because *EVERY* version of RQ is far more deadly than *ANY* version of D&D and most other games), is going to send their character up against something like a scorpionman or chaos centipede and only try and chop off it's legs?

If you do, you deserve whatever's coming to you, which will most likely be a dead character.

These debates we're going through regarding some of the MRQ rules seem very strongly to me to be entirely theoretical, scientific debates that won't make a hill o' beans worth of difference on the gaming table. Because it won't come in to play all that much. Because you -- as a player -- I'm guessing will be damned sure to come up with other methods of attack besides trying to cut a multi-legged beast's legs off. You'll be taking the precise shots. You'll be retreating to ranged combat, or better yet trying your damnedest to not get into melee combat range with a scorpionman or chaos centipede. Or magic. Or ambush. Or whatever.

See my point? Theoretically, sure, you're probably right. In a combat simulation, it probably works the way you say. But at the gaming table? It's probably going to be significantly different.

 

[homerjsinnott]

I'm sure that is the case, but the significant penalties associated with making a Precise Shot means that for the majority of most PC's careers, it's not going to be a very reliable option...

I guess what I'm trying to say is...

Who, in their right mind, in a system as potentially deadly as RuneQuest (because *EVERY* version of RQ is far more deadly than *ANY* version of D&D and most other games), is going to send their character up against something like a scorpionman or chaos centipede and only try and chop off it's legs?

If you do, you deserve whatever's coming to you, which will most likely be a dead character.

These debates we're going through regarding some of the MRQ rules seem very strongly to me to be entirely theoretical, scientific debates that won't make a hill o' beans worth of difference on the gaming table. Because it won't come in to play all that much. Because you -- as a player -- I'm guessing will be damned sure to come up with other methods of attack besides trying to cut a multi-legged beast's legs off. You'll be taking the precise shots. You'll be retreating to ranged combat, or better yet trying your damnedest to not get into melee combat range with a scorpionman or chaos centipede. Or magic. Or ambush. Or whatever.

See my point? Theoretically, sure, you're probably right. In a combat simulation, it probably works the way you say. But at the gaming table? It's probably going to be significantly different.

I'm not sure what you are saying. You seem to be saying that you can't kill things by chopping their legs off. Which in this mess of a system seems to be right.
You also see to be saying that in most combats, people would and should aim their blows. Which again in this mess of a system seems to be right.

However in any half way decent roleplaying system with hit locations, is bollocks.

 

[iamtim]

I'm not sure what you are saying.

I'm trying to say that what works in theory doesn't always work at the gaming table.

Experimenting by setting up a cold, sterile, mock combat between a chaos centipede and a character will probably return the results that have been bemoaned in this thread.

Throwing an actual chaos centipede at an actual character in an actual game will probably not return the same results, because the player has a vested interest in seeing his character survive and will not just sit there and coldly hack at the monster. No, the player is going to get inventive and have the character do precise shots or discover some other way to kill the monster with as little damage to his character as possible.

 

[andakitty]

This is true. My old Stormbringer group would trap the centipede somehow and fill it full of poisoned arrows or some such. They learned to never, ever give the enemy any sort of break.

 

[iamtim]

This is true. My old Stormbringer group would trap the centipede somehow and fill it full of poisoned arrows or some such. They learned to never, ever give the enemy any sort of break.

RIGHT! Exactly.