03-19-2018, 05:16 AM | #61 |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: Increasing lethality
You could also say the initial wound must exceed at least HP/8 (rounded up), or some such number, to get bonus damage to the vitals. Maybe it could become HP/10 for Skinny, HP/6 for Fat, and HP/4 for Very Fat. That's just numbers off the top of my head, and first thing in the morning, so it might be a stupid idea after I'm fully awake.
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. |
03-19-2018, 05:26 AM | #62 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Increasing lethality
Quote:
Although I'd say you wouldn't necessarily need to do the last adjustment, as one assumes the heavily built would have more HP already so to do both would potentially be double dipping. |
|
03-19-2018, 05:26 AM | #63 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Increasing lethality
Quote:
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
|
03-19-2018, 05:43 AM | #64 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Increasing lethality
Quote:
This happened while I was serving, and given where I was when I heard about it, some time in 1989-1991. There was a training accident during a live-fire exercise, in which a machinegun giving covering fire didn't switch off the area the men were assaulting through during a battle drill. One of the instructors was hit by a burst of fire from a C9 light machinegun (a Canadian licensed built FN MINIMI) firing 5.56x45mm. He took three hits to his upper legs, and three to his lower body. While he was choppered to a hospital ASAP, he spent a while lying on the ground with only basic battlefield first aid, then what an ambulance crew could carry in to him. While 5.56x45mm isn't a "full power rifle" round, it's pretty good at wounding when fired from a weapon with a decent barrel length, which a C9 has. Assuming no rounds hit his vitals the soldier most likely took 5d x 3 + (HP/2 +1) x 2 damage (yay for crippled limbs not passing extra damage on to the main HP pool). The leg hits put him slightly negative, the three body hits almost certainly force three, maybe four death checks. Using the bleeding rules, with or without the HT (capping direct bullet damage) and MA rules (making bleeding harder to stop), he had plenty of time to bleed more hit points as well. I'd say he was both tough and lucky (being in good health and very fit helped too, no doubt).
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
|
03-19-2018, 08:55 AM | #65 | |
Join Date: Feb 2012
|
Re: Increasing lethality
Quote:
It’s even more coherent with the basic design assumption that damage models penetration and wounding mod models the trasversal area of damage. My HR on firearms are more complex. I use my spreadsheet for damage and wounding mod, but that’s another issue. The core HR are: - Blow-through damage cap is HP*wounding mod. - Specific locations’ wounding mods and caps are multiplied by the weapon’s secondary wounding mod (something like primary wounding mod ^0.8 IIRC) - expanding bullets multiply blow-through value by x (usually 2) and basic damage by 1/(x^0.5) The results are coherent with the real world data I have, apart from an excessive lethality of low-power bullets on a vital hit. |
|
03-19-2018, 10:09 AM | #66 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Increasing lethality
Quote:
But that said I do like it for Pi-! Quote:
On the last point about excessive lethality of low-power bullets on a vital hit. TBH I think it's more about what GURPS calls vitals and how it treats all of them the same. Or put it this way do I think an average of 27pt injury from a 9mm though the heart is excessively lethal? No not at all Same bullet through the Inferior lobe of a lung? Certainly not great*, but not as lethal as above. Still not something you just walk around with and rely on first aid for though! But then I guess you could also argue the Lungs, heart, and liver together are more than 1 in 6 or 17% of the torso (even more so once the default torso was revised to be the chest!) However as I said earlier this is an RPG not a medical text book. So 1 in 6 chance of hitting or -3 to directly target a subsection of tissues in the upper torso that gives 3x injury multiplier, bleeds badly and is hard to treat? Probably about right! *edit: to be clear some hits to the lungs or the area they are in can be very serious and immediately interfere with respiration etc,etc Last edited by Tomsdad; 03-20-2018 at 04:51 AM. |
||
03-19-2018, 12:11 PM | #67 |
Join Date: Feb 2012
|
Re: Increasing lethality
Maybe a 2x for vitals is enough, and high damage rolls and critical hits can account for very good shots bringing large destruction of heart/coronary arteries/spinal cord/aorta.
|
03-19-2018, 03:09 PM | #68 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Increasing lethality
Quote:
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
|
03-19-2018, 03:36 PM | #69 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Increasing lethality
Quote:
|
|
03-19-2018, 03:54 PM | #70 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Increasing lethality
Quote:
But the picture in on 399pg definitely has lungs as vitals. But actually not the liver! So I'm wrong on that. Huh I've really internalised the liver being a GURPS 'vital' wonder if it mentioned anywhere else?! *but again we get into what makes GURPS vitals vital, how does a RPG system model major organ damage either as general set of rules for different organs or for specific rules for specific organs etc, etc. FWIW if I really got into it, I wouldn't treat the kidneys like the heart or the lungs either! Last edited by Tomsdad; 03-19-2018 at 04:03 PM. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|