To the Hilt question

[flatscan]

To the Hilt
You take advantage of your enemy’s lack of armour to plunge your weapon into his body and leave it buried in his flesh.
Action: Standard
Prerequisite: Power Attack.
Circumstance: The character must be attacking with a piercing or slashing weapon against an unarmoured opponent.
Effect: The attacker gains a +2 circumstance modifier to his damage roll. However, if the damage rolled with the weapon (before any modifiers for Strength, sneak attacks and bonuses of any kind) is higher than the character’s Strength modifier, the weapon sticks into the enemy, whether he is living or dead.

The attacker or another character, including the one with the weapon stuck in him if he is still alive, can remove a stuck weapon by taking a full-round action and making a Strength check (DC 10). Often characters will find it easier and quicker to draw or pick up an alternate weapon.

A character with a weapon stuck in him sustains 1d6 damage every time he takes a move, standard or full-round action.

Seems pretty clear to me that the above maneuver means the blade is stuck in the victim. I have a player who insists that it gives a free Disarm to the victim as well. Basically he's saying that because of the last sentence he thinks his character can take a Move action without resistance from the Attacker who used the maneuver. I read it as "if the attacker lets go of the blade to draw an alternate weapon then the victim can take a Move and takes the 1d6 damage." The player argues that his PC not being able to Move makes it sort of a Grapple attempt. I decided to give him an opposed Strength check to successfully yank the attacker's weapon out of his hand. Thoughts?

 

[Diabolus]

If the attacker isn't letting go, I like the simple elegance of your solution. I mean clearly the weapon is STUCK (in him).

That said I'd probably add an additional d6 damage to anyone who tries to use the meat of their own body to wrest a weapon from someone. Ouch!

P.S. Young Master Comic Book Trick!

 

[flatscan]

That said I'd probably add an additional d6 damage to anyone who tries to use the meat of their own body to wrest a weapon from someone. Ouch!

Definitely, that falls under a Full Round Action which would cause damage to the victim. :twisted: Or do you mean it would do a total of 2d6 damage to the victim when attempting to pull it out? :shock:

 

[Diabolus]

Rethought it. I'd let them do a disarm action as a standard action and take the 1d6 as normal. Not a "free" action. If they wanted to move away and the badguy didn't want to let go, I'd let them do a contested roll. lose (stay within reach) vs win (dragging badguy along with them)

 

[flatscan]

Rethought it. I'd let them do a disarm action as a standard action and take the 1d6 as normal. Not a "free" action. If they wanted to move away and the badguy didn't want to let go, I'd let them do a contested roll. lose (stay within reach) vs win (dragging badguy along with them)

That weighs heavily in the victim's favor. If you've got even a short sword all the way to the hilt through someone's gut, you as the attacker have an immense amount of control in the situation. I'm alright with the victim spending a Standard action to attempt a Disarm, still provoking Attacks of Opportunity as normal, but I'm thinking about ruling the victim be Staggered as long as the Attacker is still holding whatever sharp, pointy object skewered a kidney or ripped through the victim's stomach. Hmm. Naw, I still think yanking the weapon free of the Attacker's hands would be a Standard action Opposed Strength check. I'd describe it as the Attacker trying to drive the spiked hilt all the way through the opponent while the Victim is pushing the hilt and blade inch by inch straight out, Strength vs. Strength. Hmm, yeah. I think that will work well. :twisted:

 

[Teriudin]

How I read it:

The attacker stuck a weapon in him, and pretty much has to let go unless STR vs Damage roll says otherwise. He can try to grab it back next round, if he so chooses I guess, but at a full round action its not a smart idea. He cannot continue to hold onto the weapon, as that was determined by the weapon damage vs strength roll. If the attacker maintains possesion of the weapon, then it is not stuck in.

When it is the victim's turn, he can use a full round action to take the weapon out, ignore it and do whatever (both taking 1d6) or just stand there in pain and not take any additional damage. There is no grapple, and no contact between the two.

Your PC was right, and you were giving the attacker an extra bonus by allowing him to hold on to the weapon. That's fine, it's your game after all, but it is adding something to the manuever that doesn't exist in the book.

I guess you can view it as a "Disarm" but in the same way that shooting an arrow disarms 1 arrow from the archer. The move is intending to skewer your opponent, with the risk that the weapon gets stuck in.

 

[Trodax]

This might be a bit unrelated to the original question, but I have a slight problem with To The Hilt. Because of the way hit points work (you have a bunch of them, basically) and especially how fast natural healing is, I always describe loss of hp in battle as minor wounds, scratches, and fatigue. Well, that is up until someone actually gets killed, because then it is all of a suddenly a caved in skull, severed arm, or whatever other grisly fate strikes my fancy. Even critical hits or massive damage that fails to kill would only be a glancing hit to the skull or something. To The Hilt sort of messes with this because the name and description strongly imply that the weapon actually impales you, but I think it stretches believability for people to have swords buried in their gut and be fully healed of that wound in 24 hours.

How would you guys describe a successful use of To The Hilt that actually doesn't manage to kill the victim?

 

[LucaCherstich]

Well, the only explanation is ... this is the CONAN RPG!
Not bloody boring Rolemaster!
Conan rpg is grittier and more realistic than just normal d20 ... but it is still the CONAN rpg, where "greater than life" men fight and die.
If it is good for the story you can heal EVERYTHING.
Crazy & unrealistic situation can happen, if they have sense with the story!
Remember that at the beginning of "A Witch Shall be Born" REH described Conan as Crucified! He survived that, and he survived even the fall of the cross, and after that, without even drinking a drop of water, he rode a horse for hours to the Zuagir camp!!!
This is clearly UNREALISTIC but it was fun to read it (and I imagine it should be fun to play, with plenty of Fort. Saves to do).

 

[Krushnak]

All those bulging muscles got in the way and took most of the damage leaving all the squishy organs intact.

If a character 'walks off' a to the hilt then now would be the time to throw diseases at them, especially if they didnt seek any treatment for it.

 

[flatscan]

I guess you can view it as a "Disarm" but in the same way that shooting an arrow disarms 1 arrow from the archer. The move is intending to skewer your opponent, with the risk that the weapon gets stuck in.

Does the handle suddenly grow hot as to cause the Attacker to let go of the weapon? The Attacker risks getting the weapon stuck, as in he cannot swing the sword at an opponent until he pulls it out. That's the disadvantage to using the manuever. There's no wording in that that even suggests the Attacker must let go of the weapon. :roll:

 

[Teriudin]

I may be reading into it a bit to make the leap that the attacker lets go of the weapon, but the attacker does not gain any mechanical benefit to holding on to the weapon, does not gain the ability to move alongside the victim, does not impede the victim's movement other than causing damage.

I think we are both visualizing it differently than the rules allow. Maybe he still holds onto the weapon, but has overextended giving the victim an opportunity to run away.

If it were any type of grapple, then I'd also force the attacker to lose all DV bonuses to parry and dodge as he grapples with the weapon.

 

[Lord Jolly the Scribe]

I think that if a player takes a full round action to draw the weapon from the victim, maybe it can be considered an attack also, and do damage equal to the weapon plus Str. due to the fact that you are aggravatingly "unsheathing" it from a wound. I am by know means medically trained but pulling a weapon from a wound somewhat stopped up by the blade reopens it and causes more damage.

Also, maybe a Heal test to see if an ally can remove the weapon and prevent damage. Kind of like removing a caltrop.

Question though: if I grab for it to remove it, do they get an attack of opportunity on me?