Choose Location with ranged weapons

[PhilHibbs]

It has been suggested before, that Choose Location should be "critical only" for ranged weapons. In the "dragon fight" I wrote up earlier, one player shot a fleeing dragon in the head four times in a row. I could have said "You can't see its head, because it's flying away", but that would have been churlish. I could have given it an Evade chance, but it's flying away so can't see who's shooting and when... and if it does look around to see, it's exposing its head which is on -9 out of 11 HP.

Now, I am tempted to go with the "crit only" rule... but that involves breaking my "don't take away things I have given" rule.

Thoughts? Has anyone imposed the "crit only" rule? Taking it away only really leaves Impale, and as they mostly have Boost Damage on their bows, it's kind of irrelevant.

 

[Loz]

I could have said "You can't see its head, because it's flying away", but that would have been churlish.

I don't think it would be churlish. If something has its back to you and is aligned horizontally then hitting the head is going to be difficult. I think this is where allowing Choose Location on a crit only would definitely be allowable, neatly taking into account the positioning of the combatants and the orientation of the foe.

If the dragon's facing an archer, and taking into account the size of its head, then it really should be a no-brainer: its obvious that any desperate archer will aim for its noggin, and have a very good chance of hitting it.

 

[Deleriad]

It has been suggested before, that Choose Location should be "critical only" for ranged weapons. In the "dragon fight" I wrote up earlier, one player shot a fleeing dragon in the head four times in a row. I could have said "You can't see its head, because it's flying away", but that would have been churlish. I could have given it an Evade chance, but it's flying away so can't see who's shooting and when... and if it does look around to see, it's exposing its head which is on -9 out of 11 HP.

Now, I am tempted to go with the "crit only" rule... but that involves breaking my "don't take away things I have given" rule.

Thoughts? Has anyone imposed the "crit only" rule? Taking it away only really leaves Impale, and as they mostly have Boost Damage on their bows, it's kind of irrelevant.

I make it circumstantial. E.g. if a creature is moving quickly or there are factors that make choosing a location difficult then I don't allow it for that particular shot. On the other hand if they want to aim for a location then as long as they aim for at least one location then they can select choose location rather than getting the aiming bonus. I've found that making it critical only is too restrictive.

That said, my players for a variety of reasons rarely get much access to ranged combat so it hasn't often been an issue for me. I am getting ticked off with SkyboltHead though...

In the case you mentioned I would say to the archer, the dragon is flying so you're firing up into the air (-20) against a fast moving target (-20). If you want to aim for the head then roll 1d3 wait that many actions until you can get a clear shot at its head and you don't get the size bonus. Otherwise you can't choose location as a CM. Essentially the head has constantly shifting cover due to flapping wings etc.

 

[Deleriad]

taking into account the size of its head, then it really should be a no-brainer

That would be the hope I guess... 8)

 

[RosenMcStern]

Most skilled marksment hit exactly where they want, so I do not see this as unrealistic. Besides, given the amount of armour a dragon has, hitting the same location again and again is not such a deal. I would rather rule that the Dragon has a chance to Evade with his Fly skill (or Athletics or Evade): it is flying at a speed comparable to that of the arrow, after all, so it is not impossible for it to outmanoeuver the archer. In that case, a successful Evasion that loses the opposed roll negates the manoeuver but not the damage, achieving the result you wish - a hit in a random location.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Most skilled marksment hit exactly where they want, so I do not see this as unrealistic. Besides, given the amount of armour a dragon has, hitting the same location again and again is not such a deal. I would rather rule that the Dragon has a chance to Evade with his Fly skill (or Athletics or Evade): it is flying at a speed comparable to that of the arrow, after all, so it is not impossible for it to outmanoeuver the archer. In that case, a successful Evasion that loses the opposed roll negates the manoeuver but not the damage, achieving the result you wish - a hit in a random location.

I'd play it out that way too. There is no reason the dragon wouldn't be ducking and weaving as it flew away to make itself a more difficult target.

 

[Deleriad]

That reminds me. Something I've not used yet as a GM but plan to is for large creatures to use outmanoeuvre against PCs. E.g. the dragon is surrounded by 6 enemies but its lashing tail, constantly threatening bite and so on makes it hard for most of them to take a decent shot at it. I see no reason why a flying (or even running) creature couldn't do the same against archers.

The CA 'economy' of RQII is really brutal if a single large creature is facing multiple opponents. E.g. a dragon facing 6 PCs in BRP or older RQ would usually be facing 6 meaningful attacks a round and defending against 1 or 2 of them. In RQII it is likely to be facing 18-20 attacks per round and only defending 1-2 of them.

Nothing stopping NPCs using outmanoeuvre against PCs.

 

[PhilHibbs]

I'd play it out that way too. There is no reason the dragon wouldn't be ducking and weaving as it flew away to make itself a more difficult target.

I'll bear that in mind in future, but in this case I wasn't too unhappy to let it go as it did. He had four shots, because he only had four boosted arrows. Each shot either had to crit or get a 4 on his d4 damage modifier in order to do any damage at all, as it had 11 points of armour. Three out of four shots were enough to take it down to -11 and automatic unconsciousness, the fourth was a crit that felled the last flying Orlanthi.

 

[PhilHibbs]

Nothing stopping NPCs using outmanoeuvre against PCs.

The outnumbered Orlanthi did start doing that when the PC came in with his naginata.

 

[Ultor]

That reminds me. Something I've not used yet as a GM but plan to is for large creatures to use outmanoeuvre against PCs. E.g. the dragon is surrounded by 6 enemies but its lashing tail, constantly threatening bite and so on makes it hard for most of them to take a decent shot at it. I see no reason why a flying (or even running) creature couldn't do the same against archers.

The CA 'economy' of RQII is really brutal if a single large creature is facing multiple opponents. E.g. a dragon facing 6 PCs in BRP or older RQ would usually be facing 6 meaningful attacks a round and defending against 1 or 2 of them. In RQII it is likely to be facing 18-20 attacks per round and only defending 1-2 of them.

Nothing stopping NPCs using outmanoeuvre against PCs.

This.

I've found that when facing an otherwise terrifying monster with high skills but normal CAs, the PCs in a 3-person party have been able to take it down in a round or two.

Now outmanoeuvre might be appropriate for some monsters to deploy on the party but it isn't for, eg, a Chaos Minotaur (it also takes some real imagination in some circumstances to describe just *how* it has outmanoeuvred the entire party).

I'm tempted to design some extra traits for this sort of monster eg 'Terrifying: PCs will be so intimidated by fighting this monster that they need to make a Persistence check to attack it at all, and if they succeed they halve their normal CAs' but that needs a bit more thought.

Otherwise, solo large predatory monsters need the trifecta of high AP, high attack/parry skill and at least 2 CAs per combat opponent to be a challenge to a moderately skilled party.

Or perhaps my party has just rolled consistently well...

 

[PhilHibbs]

I've found that when facing an otherwise terrifying monster with high skills but normal CAs, the PCs in a 3-person party have been able to take it down in a round or two...
Or perhaps my party has just rolled consistently well...

Same here - the end of Golden Liberation Society was over before anyone had their third CA, and the giant crab lasted three melee rounds.

 

[Deleriad]

The extra traits are not unreasonable if you ask me. For example, in a Conan like S&S setting you could have the ability to:

Out-muscle. Use Brawn vs Evade skill to 'outmanoeuvre' opponents. (Think of the stereotypical muscle-bound barbarian swinging his sword in such a wide arc that all fall before him.)

Out-size. Use maybe Combat-style vs Persistence to 'outmanoeuvre' opponents. Great for big, scary monsters.

Out-fly. Use Athletics vs Combat-style to 'outmanoeuvre' archers.

Also use reach actively. A monster like a dragon has to be closed with before it can be attacked. A dragon is likely to respond to a closing attempt with a counter-attack rather than opposing it and lets face it if it beats your Evade, you're dead.

Generally RQ has the tools to make things work either in place already or capable of being extended. Thing is the CA system can really catch you out if you're a GM because there is a huge imbalance in CAs which you need to be aware of.

 

[PhilHibbs]

Thing is the CA system can really catch you out if you're a GM because there is a huge imbalance in CAs which you need to be aware of.

I took advantage of this - I didn't want to have to track the stats of a dozen bad guys, the players were on a military ship full of soldiers, so I just sent in 4 ridiculously tooled-up rune-level opponents. They all had 5 CAs each. That let them parry up to 6 successful attacks against them, which should be enough to fend off 4 people each, and probably have CAs left over to kill someone at the end of the round. So even though there were 10 soldiers at the back of the boat, by the time the PCs realised that they needed to leave their Protective Circle and tip the balance, three soldiers were dead and the two Orlanthi were barely scratched.

 

[DamonJynx]

Thing is the CA system can really catch you out if you're a GM because there is a huge imbalance in CAs which you need to be aware of.

I took advantage of this - I didn't want to have to track the stats of a dozen bad guys...

This is an area I need to work on, I haven't quite yet figured out how to challenge the party (mostly 5 players) with opponents of similar-ish skill levels. One thing that does do me in a lot though, is the choose location CM.
In the Elric campaign I've started a couple of the PC's belong to the Deathbringers Cult (Chardros & Hionhurn - the two Chaos Lords of death) and always go for the head, as they use 2H weapons it's over quickly for the NPC's. I wanted to use an optional rule of a penalty to Combat skills to help counteract this, but as the players explained, their PC's aren't interested in simply ending the fight, they want to kill their opponents.

Any suggestions?

It won't be an issue much longer for one of them however, as it's likely he'll be apothesising soon! His Pact skill is now in the 90's and he dedicates every kill to Chardros. I don't think he's read the rules 100% regarding Cults in the YK, despite my repeated hints to do so, so I hope he doesn't get too upset when Chardros calls him to serve at a dramatically appropriate, though highly inconvenient moment!

 

[PhilHibbs]

One thing that does do me in a lot though, is the choose location CM.
In the Elric campaign I've started a couple of the PC's belong to the Deathbringers Cult (Chardros & Hionhurn - the two Chaos Lords of death) and always go for the head, as they use 2H weapons it's over quickly for the NPC's.

Any suggestions?

Headless monsters?

 

[DamonJynx]

One thing that does do me in a lot though, is the choose location CM.
In the Elric campaign I've started a couple of the PC's belong to the Deathbringers Cult (Chardros & Hionhurn - the two Chaos Lords of death) and always go for the head, as they use 2H weapons it's over quickly for the NPC's.

Any suggestions?

Headless monsters?

Oh, Phil. Tell me when to stop laughing!

Whilst that is an interesting suggestion and has it's merits, I was hoping for something a little more practical given the human centric nature of the setting.

 

[Jujitsudave]

Have the enemies constantly attack the PC's heads?

 

[PhilHibbs]

One thing that does do me in a lot though, is the choose location CM.
In the Elric campaign I've started a couple of the PC's belong to the Deathbringers Cult (Chardros & Hionhurn - the two Chaos Lords of death) and always go for the head, as they use 2H weapons it's over quickly for the NPC's.

Any suggestions?

Headless monsters?

Oh, Phil. Tell me when to stop laughing!

Whilst that is an interesting suggestion and has it's merits, I was hoping for something a little more practical given the human centric nature of the setting.

This is the setting that has fire-breathing scorpionsharks, right? No-one will even bat an eye at a headless demon or three! :lol:

 

[ThatGuy]

Another option is to enforce the repetitive CM optional rule on pg. 89 of tue core book. It gives the opponent an advantage based on predictable combat tactics.

That can at least make players think about whether or not they want to continue to risk the repetitive CM. I use this rule and find it sometimes deters and sometimes doesn't, depending on the stakes of the fight. I find low stakes= not so repetitive. High stakes= more repetitive and risky.

 

[DamonJynx]

This is the setting that has fire-breathing scorpionsharks, right? No-one will even bat an eye at a headless demon or three! :lol:

Not quite, but near enough :wink: