Interpretation of Combat Result POLL

[rgrove0172]

After a recent discussion I thought it would be interesting to see how various GM's would interpret and describe a similar combat result.

In this case the simple allocation of damage.

SITUATION - a 2nd Level Soldier (17 HP) is hit in combat (using Parry) by a 1st level Mook's broadsword. The Mook rolls 11 damage total and has it reduced to 5 by armor. The Soldier takes the damage reducing his HP to 12.

 

[Clovenhoof]

I chose option 2, after some consideration, because even without armour the blow would not have been lethal.
After the recent discussion, I had some afterthoughts to the matter, and my current state of mind is "A hit is a hit after all". Mainly the poison argument pointed me in that direction. A hit with a poisoned weapon is always at least physical contact, like a scratch, allowing the poison to enter your bloodstream. So other "hits" can be similar scratches, bruises, anything that would hurt you in real life.
In fact - for non-poisoned weapons - the "saved by armour, but you get a bruise" is a good explanation for most hits.

 

[Strom]

Sorry I'm slow :lol:

In your situation, as you described it with the 2nd level solider, he takes 5 hp of damage. Your asking how we as GM's would describe the blow?

But regardless of how we do describe it - the solider is still taking 5 hp? Do I have that right?

So, if you do not choose option 3, then the PC would not take the 5 hp off his/her character sheet. Right? Because they would not know the amount of the hit.

If I have it right, I'm the GM that picked number 3. I think a hit that does 30% damage to a PC's overall hp should be described as above.

 

[rgrove0172]

Character takes the damage off his HP regardless. Im talking about how the GM describes the result. Does he say the character got hit or not? Does he say it resulted in an injury or not? How does the loss of 5 HP actually effect this character in realistic terms?

Personally, I would describe it as a minor wound, heck its a third of his HP! I might even check to see if the character was Shaken or Stunned by the blow and levy a -1 hindrance for a few rounds. I see it as a wound, some GMs would not as it was just his first few HP.

Thats what im looking for. There has been a lot of talk about what HP actually represent and such, Im wondering how the GMs around here actually play the game given their opinions.

 

[VincentDarlage]

I can't answer that one. I am likely to use any of the three depending on my mood or how important the fight is to the session. I don't think there should be a hard-and-fast rule here at all. Just do what seems right in the moment, otherwise it will just be over-analysed.

 

[Trodax]

Option #2.

I do go by "a hit is a hit". However, because of how fast you recover those hit points by natural healing in Conan, I really make sure that all non-incapacitating (ie. you're still above 0 hp) are mostly bruises and cuts.

 

[argo]

I could go with any of them, not because a "hit is always a hit" or because "HP aren't really damage". No, the point of the other thread was that abstract HP can change between the two depending on the need/whim of the moment - with some general guidelines.

You can also try tailoring your response to the player's desire. If I know that the player likes to think of his character as a "tank" - that he defines himself as the "knight in armor" then I would be more likely to pick option #2. If I know that the player likes to think of himself as "worlds greatest swordsman" then I would be more likely to pick option #3.

Being creative in combat descriptions is how I try to avoid combat bogging down into "I hit, I deal damage, repeat".

Later.

 

[VincentDarlage]

Being creative in combat descriptions is how I try to avoid combat bogging down into "I hit, I deal damage, repeat".

"War should be a vital, creative process." ~Shaka Zulu, from the mini-series.

 

[rgrove0172]

I would agree completely, creativity is the key to making it interesting but you have to be consistent as well.

If you describe something a certain way, it has to play out that way in my opinion. So if you for example elect to describe a hit as "You take the hit on your breast plate, the air whistling from your lungs as you stagger backward. The armor saved your skin but you feel your ribs aching beneath." Then it should effect the character in some way - either an arbitrary -1 hindrance for a few rounds, a prolonged healing rate - something. Just adding local color but ignoring how it would really affect the player is kind of lazy in my opinion. Thats kind of where Ive been going with this thread all along.

 

[argo]

Then it should effect the character in some way - either an arbitrary -1 hindrance for a few rounds, a prolonged healing rate - something. Just adding local color but ignoring how it would really affect the player is kind of lazy in my opinion. Thats kind of where Ive been going with this thread all along.

It does affect the character... he looses HP. The rest is just flavor text.

The d20 system has a certain level of abstraction built into it. Some things fall below the level of granularity in the system and are not dealt with. Its just the way this system is built. Some systems have a finer resolutioun (Shadowrun damage) some systems have more abstraction (Feng Shui "damage"). However, one thing I have learned through experience, and also through speaking with other d20 gamers, is that trying to screw with the level of abstraction in d20 (particularly when it comes to HP ) is asking for trouble. It tolerates tinkering with less grace than other parts of the system.


Now, I do agree with you that a GM should be somewhat consistent in his descriptions, to try and help the players imerse themselves in the game. However, I do not believe that a poll like this one is really going to be constructive. Posing a single example of a hit is too specific of a case to draw the sort of general conclusions you seem to be looking for. Not only will every example you provide have a slightly different description, but every GM who comes in will want to provide a slightly different description, or three as evidenced by the number of people here saying that they would choose multiple options.

I think that this is the sort of place where a GM needs to excercise his "narative voice". Find something that feels comftorable for you and try to be consistent with your group.

All I can really add to that is to repeat myslef from the previous thread. As a general guideline I feel the HP from Zero down to Neg 10 are good for "serious injuries", the HP from Positive 10 down to Zero are good for "flesh wounds" and so long as the character stays above about 20 or so HP any damage is just flavor text. Massive Damage throws a monkey wrench in it because if you fail your massive damage save then it must be a "serious injury" regardless of your HP total.

Hope that helps, I really wish I could do more.

 

[Trodax]

If you describe something a certain way, it has to play out that way in my opinion. So if you for example elect to describe a hit as "You take the hit on your breast plate, the air whistling from your lungs as you stagger backward. The armor saved your skin but you feel your ribs aching beneath." Then it should effect the character in some way - either an arbitrary -1 hindrance for a few rounds, a prolonged healing rate - something.

I agree with argo that fiddling with the hp system in this way is probably not a great idea. If you introduce this type of small modifiers and situational rules, it will make d20 combat vastly more complex (and, IMO, with no real gain).

As a general guideline I feel the HP from Zero down to Neg 10 are good for "serious injuries", the HP from Positive 10 down to Zero are good for "flesh wounds" and so long as the character stays above about 20 or so HP any damage is just flavor text. Massive Damage throws a monkey wrench in it because if you fail your massive damage save then it must be a "serious injury" regardless of your HP total.

Those are good guidelines.

 

[rgrove0172]

If you introduce this type of small modifiers and situational rules, it will make d20 combat vastly more complex (and, IMO, with no real gain).

I can understand not wanting to clutter the system, such is always a valid concern, but to say situational modifiers and providing for detailed effects of wounds and injuries is without gain is kind of short sighted. It has tremendous gain, adding richness and detail to the otherwise mechanical combat system. Granted, it would require some additional effort and may not be for everyone but it would certainly improve an element of the game.

 

[Krushnak]

ive been working on a system of 'massive hits' where depending on how much you beat someones DV you cause additional effects to the attack, extra damage, bleeding , limb damage or severing etc. a crit automatically gives you the first effect or moves it up by one.

basically if you beat the dv by 5 you cause a minor effect, by 10 a moderate, 15 serious and 20 fatal.

as for introducing extra penalties for losing ordinary hp i think it's a bad idea. all it really does is encourages the pc's to not be heroic and overly cautious.

 

[rgrove0172]

For the moment Ive decided on a quick and easy system wherein a critical hit threat forces a FORT save or a serious injury is taken. The difficulty of the save is determined by the amount of damage done in the hit. A chart of possible injuries is consulted to determine the possible effects, based on the degree the save is failed.

Essentially it makes any critical roll potentially dangerous, regardless of how lame the combatant. Granted, its only like a 5 or sometimes 10% chance, and your character does have the ability to save, but there is that chance, and a blown save can be really bad.

We play tested it in our last session and the effect was immediate. Instantly that guy with a crappy bow launching arrows from atop a building became a very real threat. He missed most of the time, only hit once (which was blocked by armor) but everytime he cast an arrow the target twinged a little, dreading that natural 20. The fear of such a result returned some of the insecurity to combat and made fighting a bit less forecasted.

I like the effect it had on our game, even though it was only used twice in the whole session, and the character SAVED on one, barely missed for a minor result on the other. The threat really made a change in the way they viewed a battle. Im still on the look out for other possibilities but this one seems to address the issues we were concerned about.

 

[Clovenhoof]

You came up with that implementation quite quickly. ^^
I see some good and some bad things about this:

Good: makes players fear a bit for their health, since you can't rely on your HP reserves to get away unscathed.

Bad: I twitch any time I hear or read "chart" or "table". I should add that I have a strong aversion against systems like Rolemaster (Rulemonster), MERP and others that roll on some forsaken chart every other minute.

Also, if the effects of a successful crit/failed save are immediate, expect your players to go for methods that cause a lot of threats, like Scimitar with Improved Crit feat or something, for 30% crit chance rather than "5 or sometimg 10%". Maybe your players are not like that (mine aren't either, they simply don't know the system well enough), but when implementing a new feature I'd always check how it can be exploited.

So maybe a rule is in order that these additional effects _only_ occur on a natural 20, regardless of the weapon.

 

[rgrove0172]

Thanks for the input Clovenhoof.

The chart I mentioned is pretty straight forward, indicating a bonus HP loss, general hindrance modifier and healing requirement. For example -

Serious Injury / 25% HP loss (5) / -4 hindrance / Stunned 2 rnds / 14 days to heal.

The GM could describe this as a smashed calf, causing 25% loss in HP over the next 5 rounds, stunning the character for the next 2 rounds and yielding a general -4 mod to applicable actions for the next couple of weeks.

They are very much guidelines rather than hard and fast rules. My players have been briefed on it and understand I will be implementing the details, but will be able to see where they are stemming from.

There are only 5 different results by the way. Light, Moderate, Serious, Critical and Incapacitating, so after about three trips through the chart, you have it memorized.

As far as the muliple critical hit weapons, Im torn where they are concerned. You have a valid point, but I rather like the way the rule elevates the usefullness of some weapons that are short on damage but heavy on critical occurance. A bow is a bit more nasty now etc. As for my players taking advantage. No, they arent the type. Their pick of weapons is more for the LOOK than the effect.