Low Velocity Slams, a Murphy?

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Diomedes

That means there's little reason to ever take it: Do more damage by incurring the same (which your bigger foe is better able to handle) in return for: a smaller chance at an automatic knockdown, and no change at all in the chance for a regular one.

This just means that there's a proper cause-effect for runing your face full-tilt into a thousand-pound horse. :-) Self-correcting behavior.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Diomedes

That means there's little reason to ever take it: Do more damage by incurring the same (which your bigger foe is better able to handle) in return for: a smaller chance at an automatic knockdown, and no change at all in the chance for a regular one.

You say this as if it were a bad thing rather than a good one. If it has those effects, that seems to avoid the OP's objections, or mitigate them.

Bill Stoddard

[Ts_]

Well, here's how I see it:
1. Collision damage should always take place and be consistent with the rest of the game.
2. The question whether someone is knockdowned should be handled by different rules than just the damage. Velocity needs to factor into this. The already existing rules for Knockdown seem most appropriate (and a Shove already uses them).

So, here's the (long) idea ...

The move:
Attacker chooses his move for the purpose of the Slam. The highest is either the maximum distance he could cover in this round (when accelerating for multiple turns) or twice the distance to the target up to his regular move when accelerating from not-max-move (or standing). In other words, after half move distance, the acceleration is complete for the purpose of the slam (but using full move at half distance has drawbacks later on). The lowest speed is the distance to the target (with some very rare high-speed breaking rules maybe needing special treatment).
This gives Velocity. (Do the same for the opponent if he participates actively in the Slam or just happens to be moving.)

The defense:
* In case of a successful dodge, the attacker runs the full chosen Move, and rolls against falling (DX, Acrobatics or some such): at -1 per yard that he overshoots (which only affects attacks with "too much move"), with a bonus for Perfect Balance and penalties for bad footing etc. (Fall location is MoS-based or random. Doesn't matter for now.)
* In case of a successful parry (meaning the defender in particular had a really heavy/big weapon), the defender may chose where the attacker is deflected to: The attacker gets moved just past the defender (left or right) with the outcome as for a successful dodge, or the defender may chose to collide after all: The slam continues (see below). In that case, a successful parry knocked the shield away so that the attacker cannot hide behind it. (Otherwise, why would you ever want to be rammed?)
* In case of a successful block, the defender hides behind his shield and gets the same bonuses for it as the attacker. The slam continues.

The collision:
Figure Collision Damage as usual for this Velocity, that is, as the current Slam rules, me thinks, but without damage bonuses for Shield DB, WM, AoA(Strong) or any such things. You still need to decide whether ST or HP is the right metric, though. Typically, the rules say HP is mass, not ST. The attacker (or a defender with a successful block/parry) may chose the better one.
This damage is simply from the collision. In the case that shields provide cover, apply the damage to the shield but you take 1/5 blunt trauma. You still run into the shield! (You might take more damage if the shield's DR is exceeded.)

The knockback damage:
Take the collision damage that the participants just did, and now add the various bonuses for WM, AoA(Strong) and shield DB. (Weapon Master gives +2 or +1/die, whichever is better, not just a flat +2. DB is a flat bonus, though.) Double this to get the damage for the purpose of knockback.

Recall the knockback rules (B378):
For every ST-2 (min 1) crushing damage, the target gets knocked back one step. There is also a roll to avoid falling. Sounds simple enough.

Adjust this as such: Note the Knockback Distance, which is Knockback damage divided by (ST-2) or (HP-2) (if someone chooses that). This would usually be the amount of yards pushed back. But any distance pushed further than 1 step (usually 1 yard), gives a -3 per yard to the falling roll instead of the usual -1. No one moves more than 1 step in this collision.

Then both roll for falling with the respective penalties, if they take more than ST/2 knockback. (Which implies a bit less than ST/4 collision damage, though not always injury. If no serious pushing occurred, nothing happens.)

If the defender falls down, he falls where he got pushed to (that is, typically 1 yard behind). The attacker falls to a random hex next to the defender, except that the direction he came from counts as the same field as the defender is in. If they both fell, somehow decide who came up on top. (1d2 ... or just say "The elephant" ;)

Tl;dr:
* The attacker can choose his move between distance and 2*distance (up to maximum speed in that turn).
* The defender can avoid the slam (dodge), redirect it (parry) or choose to collide (block or parry).
* Collision damage is as usual.
* Then apply "damage bonuses" (WM, Shield, AoA ...) and double. Deduce knockback from this. (Full multiples of ST-2.)
* Apply knockback, except that people only get knocked back 1 yard and past that are just much more likely to fall. Everyone who suffers more than ST/2 knockback "damage" has to roll against falling.
* They fall next to each other.

So ... this tries to use the already existing rules and expands on various things. The attacker has an advantage, because he can choose just the right move etc to not get hurt himself and can accumulate some big bonuses to the knockback "damage". (Also, the attacker can choose not to slam the elephant at all.)

Regards
Ts

[Ts_]

And for some numbers:
Two unprotected human fighters ST 10, move 5 against each other:
Collision damage is 10 * 5 / 100 for each, so 0.5d or 1d-2 or something like that.
Knockback damage is (1d-2 + 2 strong)*2 and (1d-2)*2 respectively. So about 2..12 for one and 0 .. 8 for the other. Each has a pretty decent chance to be required to make a falling roll (at knockback damage >= 5). The attacker might also push back the defender by 1 yard. In any case, they can only fall when they take serious damage (1-3 injury) because it's the same roll for damage and knockback. One adults running into another at full speed doesn't seem like such a good idea ... (A Tackle would be different. And DR 1 or 2 or a bit less speed would make a big difference, I suppose. Kids with lower ST running into each other will cause even less damage, but are still likely to fall.)

A weapon master with ST 15, Move 6, a medium shield vs. some strength A animal.
The collision damage is on average 3.5*15*6/100 and 3.5*A*6/100, so 3 points of damage vs. 0.2A of damage.
The WM takes only blunt trauma, so 0.04A injury on average, which is okay up to elephant size (2 injury).
The knockback is on average (3 + 2 shield + 2 WM + 2 AoA strong)*2 = 18 from the WM against the animal, and 0.4 A from the animal.
Meaning that up to ST 36 the WM forces an unmodified falling roll (on average rolls, not always). Up to ST 20, he pushes the opponent back 1 yard, but the falling roll is only at -1, up to ST 10 the falling roll is at -4.

The animal forces a falling roll starting with 0.4 A >= ST 15 / 2, so around A >= 19. At 0.4 A >= 13 (or A >= 32), the WM is pushed back ("bounces off") and has -1 to his roll. At 0.4 >= 2 * 13 (or A >= 65), the WM suffers a -4 to his roll.

At slow speeds, almost nothing happens, except that the weapon master still has a +6 combined bonus, times 2, so can force an (unmodified) falling check on everyone up to ST 24. That seems quite useful, but it is a non-damaging AoA and can be dodged and then the falling resisted. So I guess, this isn't as bad as the current rules ...

Regards
Ts

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Granted, we need to figure things how we get to this point, but you cannot "shove or knock over" anything greater than 12xBL, or 24xBL with a running start. That's 480 lbs. for a ST 10 man, which puts the horse AND the elephant right out of reach.

My personal preference is to make things such that exceeding a limit like that in the most frequent case means that your die roll goes below 3 or something, so you can't roll.

But . . . there's a hard limit already on this on p. B353, though it mayn't be integrated with the collision rules. GM would be fully in his rights to take that ST 10 character and only apply the damage one way: To him.

I never connected the two rules, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Thice nicely solves a lot of my problems.

I do think that I like the Stand Fast extra effort option, and I may start using it. By may, I mean I will.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Granted, we need to figure things how we get to this point, but you cannot "shove or knock over" anything greater than 12xBL, or 24xBL with a running start. That's 480 lbs. for a ST 10 man, which puts the horse AND the elephant right out of reach.

Good point!

My personal preference is to make things such that exceeding a limit like that in the most frequent case means that your die roll goes below 3 or something, so you can't roll.

Wouldn't the simplest thing then be to use the 12 and 24xBL limits as the definition of immovable objects on B431? Most creatures will also count as "hard" by those rules.

Originally Posted by whswhs

You say this as if it were a bad thing rather than a good one. If it has those effects, that seems to avoid the OP's objections, or mitigate them.

Then you have the problem of "How do I simulate dropping my shoulder into the slam, or some other technique for slamming effectively". Right now that's AoA:Strong. Also what about Shields and Sumo Wrestling?

[Maz]

Couldn't an Easy fix to this simply be to let the damage bonus instead be a percentage bonus to ST BEFORE the calculation?

So instead of AOA:strong giving +2 to the damage die. Then just let it increase the ST by +20%? And the same for a DB:2 shield or Sumo Wrestling and so on?


So in the Move 1 HP:10 example.
The human doing Strong with a DB:2 shield is going to get ((10+2+2)*1)/100 = 1d-2 instead of 1d-3+4= 1d+1
It's still better for him than 1d-3 he would get without the AOA and the Shield, but only by a small margin instead of by over 100% as it is now. At higher speed using the AOA and the shield will be more important as the small bonsu makes a bigger impact.



This suggestion has the benefit of not changing anything about the RAW calculation or the bonuses items/skills/manoeuvres give it just apply them earlier. They still make a difference but not as game-changing as now. It would also mean that a big strong man would get an increased benefit fro mit, unliek nwo where everyone get the same bonus (this is especially weird for AOA:strong that normally gives a higher bonus for stronger chars).



- On a related note I have always house ruled that you may add you encumbrance level to the damage on the basic that if your loaded with weight you should smash into things harder. I use encumbrance levels mainly for ease of reference and because people aren't going to actively aim for it, as speed it usually better anyway.
- On another related note. I have considered changing the formula to be based on ST instead of HP mostly because I have seen people exploit it as HP only cost 2 points and is good for a lot of things. And with a small 1 pt perk you can get up to 100% of ST. One player has made this his "thing" in a DF game where he is a SM+1 half-ogre with Move:10 and 40 HP... that's 4d of damage even before his Sumo Wrestling and other modifiers. And even though he had to pay 38 pts for those extra 20 HP that's a drop in the ocean of points for such a high benefits. After all, it also means he have a major wound score of- and are only crippled at- 21 dam. And can take 80 injury before the first death-roll. It's not a big problem, it's a cool stick, it's just a bit problematic when he can then also deal massive damage for those same 38 pts.
- And a final slightly OT note. Am I the only one fractioning the damage dies above 1d? So that it's not just "hit +0,5 and get +1d". I just drop the whole numbers and multiply by 3,5 and round off and then add it. So for instance both 1,43=1d+2 and 1,53=1d+2. I made a quick-reference to stick on my GM screen.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Well, this got me thinking. I think the simplest solution is to treat low-damage slams as a kinda "deci-scale" damage. Rather than dividing by 100 in the formula, divide by 10. Work out the damage for this, figure the knockdown off that deci-scale damage, then convert it back to normal-scale damage by dividing by 10 and dropping fractions to apply actual injury. It takes more dice and a little more math, but it makes the damage much smoother for low-damage slams.

For the example of the ST10 man making a 1-yard All-Out (Strong) charge on a ST40 elephant, this makes them do 1d+2 vs 4d deci-scale damage for purposes of knockdown (Likely resulting in the slammer getting knocked down himself), then converted to normal-scale for actual damage, resulting in the elephant being uninjured and the man likely taking 1hp in damage. The chances of the man knocking down the elephant is still present, but very unlikely (Something like 1-in-eight-thousand chance of automatic knockdown, and still quite unlikely to result in even a roll for knockdown). Even a Focused Fury Shield Rush with large shield and Weapon Master bonuses only makes it 1d+8 vs 4d, still giving the edge to the elephant (Though if anybody should be able to pull it off, that guy is it!).

The main question then is simply when to invoke the rule. I'd probably say anytime both participants would be rolling less than 1 full die before any damage bonuses, which yes, would make most human-scale collisions use that system. The resolution is just too low otherwise.

[Ts_]

Originally Posted by Maz

Couldn't an Easy fix to this simply be to let the damage bonus instead be a percentage bonus to ST BEFORE the calculation?

Well, you still end up with weirdness at slow speeds. It's less likely, that is true, but a human would have some chance to auto-KD an elephant at slow speeds when rolling 1d-2 vs 1d-1, but would have almost no chance at high speeds when it's more like 5d vs 2d.

Originally Posted by Maz

This suggestion has the benefit of not changing anything about the RAW calculation or the bonuses items/skills/manoeuvres give it just apply them earlier.

True. But the entire resolution for who gets knocked down is weird because it only compares relative damage. I would try to get rid of that and require some minimum effectiveness to KD someone. What I wrote above, that you need to do at least ST/2 "damage" on the double-knockback (only) attack with all the bonuses, translates mostly into: Equally strong slammers need to move at about Move 5 to 7 before they need to roll against knockdown.

Originally Posted by Maz

It would also mean that a big strong man would get an increased benefit fro mit, unliek nwo where everyone get the same bonus (this is especially weird for AOA:strong that normally gives a higher bonus for stronger chars).

Well, I suggested this for the WM but AoA(Strong) would be a good candidate as well: Use the usual formula of +2 or +1/die, whichever is better. It leaves some of the oddness at low dice values, but combined with some minimum damage, that's not too bad.
That increases the average damage by 1/3.5 (+1 on each die), so roughly 30%. You could get the same increase in damage (on average) by raising the ST by those 30%. So that's pretty similar to your suggestion, just using the existing formulae.

Originally Posted by Maz

On a related note I have always house ruled that you may add you encumbrance level to the damage on the basic that if your loaded with weight you should smash into things harder.

Yep, should be okay except it's another fixed bonus. ;)

And speaking of fixed bonuses, that cause madness at low speeds: Can we get rid of the damage bonus for shield DB? A shield is already really useful, but I don't see why it adds damage. Does the elephant get a slam bonus for his tusks (Strikers)? How about his forehead?

Originally Posted by Maz

And a final slightly OT note. Am I the only one fractioning the damage dies above 1d? So that it's not just "hit +0,5 and get +1d". I just drop the whole numbers and multiply by 3,5 and round off and then add it. So for instance both 1,43=1d+2 and 1,53=1d+2. I made a quick-reference to stick on my GM screen.

Someone complained about the weird jump from, say, 1d to 2d. There some steps in between would certainly be helpful.

Regards
Ts

[Ts_]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

Well, this got me thinking. I think the simplest solution is to treat low-damage slams as a kinda "deci-scale" damage. Rather than dividing by 100 in the formula, divide by 10. Work out the damage for this, figure the knockdown off that deci-scale damage, then convert it back to normal-scale damage by dividing by 10 and dropping fractions to apply actual injury. It takes more dice and a little more math, but it makes the damage much smoother for low-damage slams.

True, the rounding is weird. But: The bonuses should scale as well. The WM is going to have a +60 bonus on this deci-scale roll. So in a 1-yard slam it would be something like 1d+60 for the WM vs. 5d for the elephant.

Think of it this way: If you could slam at move 0, the ST of the participants wouldn't factor into it at all. Only the bonuses would, and the attacker is the only one that gets a bonus. So it doesn't matter how finely you resolve the roll, it's still huge bonuses vs nothing.

Regards
Ts