03-26-2013, 04:15 PM | #61 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Face & Neck location damage multiplier
Quote:
75%, right? Those are the chances of being unable to act, not the chances of being able to act.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
03-26-2013, 04:50 PM | #62 | ||||||||||||||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Face & Neck location damage multiplier
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The there is greater correlation between the second two than the first two. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yes you can be rude if you want, however the face is situated at the front of the head, agree or disagree? How doe that impact on the discussion that wounds though the face will tend to end up in the head and neck. Quote:
Quote:
Than hits on the limbs, look if you want to have an actual debate then fine, but this kind of nonsense is just wasting our time. Quote:
I think you knew this Quote:
|
||||||||||||||
03-26-2013, 04:59 PM | #63 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Face & Neck location damage multiplier
Quote:
But your right, structure is important too. Let's see leg: thick continuous long bones that are designed to support the whole bodie's weight, and the rest is almost all muscle (including some of the largest in the body), and the neck is? So all else isn't really equal either. This is getting a touch desperate isn't it? Quote:
You know what since we've got to 'necks are harder to sever than legs because they are thinner' and an honest to god debate as to weather the face is on the front of the head, I think we've really gone past the point of diminishing returns here, cheers for the replies but I'm out. Last edited by Tomsdad; 03-26-2013 at 05:04 PM. |
||
03-26-2013, 06:00 PM | #64 | ||||||||||||
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Face & Neck location damage multiplier
Quote:
You just spewed a heap of links which pertain to ultimate demise, not to second by second combat. If you've got references on neck shots being a great way to take people down in second by second combat, that might actually have some relevance. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Let me try to show you my experience, here: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Unfortunately that means that the only thing we might be able to infer about face wounding is that it's better than other places that weren't covered by the armor. Which is not news. Quote:
Short form: your assumptions about what makes something hard to chop through may in fact be very wrong.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
||||||||||||
03-26-2013, 10:35 PM | #65 |
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
|
Re: Face & Neck location damage multiplier
All the available evidence suggests that necks are a lot harder to sever (especially in combat) than legs. I'm guessing that it has something to do with the head being above the centre of gravity and the legs being below it.
__________________
Compact Castles gives the gamer an instant portfolio of genuine, real-world castle floorplans to use in any historical, low-tech, or fantasy game setting. Last edited by DanHoward; 03-26-2013 at 11:22 PM. |
03-27-2013, 12:54 AM | #66 | |
GURPS Line Editor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
Re: Face & Neck location damage multiplier
Quote:
For legs in particular, there's also the secondary factor of them being unlikely to be swept aside by the force of a blow, and thus more likely to be cut. Necks tend to recoil, turning would-be severing blows into shallower cuts. When you add it up, the most likely cut to the neck in combat is a low-powered side-to-side cut that whacks the neck and gashes it, then slides upward or downward to injure the jaw or the shoulder. The most likely cut to the leg is a high-powered downward cut that bites into the thigh of a front-extended leg and slices through.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com> GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News] |
|
03-27-2013, 01:50 AM | #67 | ||||||||
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Re: Face & Neck location damage multiplier
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well, 50% chance for immediate death or mortal wound. That's not counting other threats, such as bleeding out. Quote:
The only thing about the neck that would be more immediately incapacitating than a hit to the vitals would be if you hit the spine... which is how it is in GURPS. A major wound to the spine leaves the target paralyzed below that point. Any blow that does not sever the spine, however, is not particularly notable for instantly stopping the target. Within seconds, and with high chances of bleeding out? Sure. But we've already got that. Quote:
And by "just enough" we're talking 2-3 death checks. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(Chances listed for each roll is the chance of success. Also corrected for using the wrong knockdown-failure-KO target, which I had accidentally set one too high) Chance to be unable to act next turn: Leg: 6-point injury. Major wound forces a knockdown roll against HT, with failure resulting in stun (50%). Neck: 16-point injury. Major wound forces a knockdown roll against HT, with failure resulting in stun (50%). Before their next turn, they have to make a HT roll to stay conscious (50%) if they wish to act. This leaves a (50% * 50% = ) 25% success rate, or a chance of being unable to act next turn of 75%. Face: 12-point injury. Major wound forces a knockdown roll against HT-5, with failure resulting in stun (4.6%). Before their next turn, they have to make a HT roll to stay conscious (50%) if they wish to act. This leaves a (4.6% * 50% = ) 2.3% success rate, or a chance of being unable to act next turn of 97.7%. Brain: 24-point injury. Death check required (50%). Major wound forces a knockdown roll against HT-10, with failure resulting in stun (1.9%). Before their next turn, they have to make a HT roll, at -1 due to being below -1 * HT to stay conscious (37.5%) if they wish to act. This leaves a (50% * 1.9% * 37.5% = ) 0.35% success rate, or a chance of being unable to act next turn of 99.65%. (For some reason, I had inverted and rounded the wrong way to get 99.3% instead) Chance to be rendered unconscious or dead: Leg: Major wound forces a knockdown roll against HT; failure by 5 results in unconsciousness. Effective target is HT+5 (95.4%), resulting in a failure rate of 4.6%. Neck: Major wound forces a knockdown roll against HT; failure by 5 results in unconsciousness. Effective target is HT+5 (95.4%). Remaining conscious into the next turn requires a HT roll (50%). Chance to succeed is (95.4% * 50% = ) 47.7%, resulting in a failure rate of 52.3%. Face: Major wound forces a knockdown roll against HT-5; failure by 5 results in unconsciousness. Effective target is HT (50%). Remaining conscious into the next turn requires a HT roll (50%). Chance to succeed is (50% * 50% = ) 25%, resulting in a failure rate of 75%. Brain: Death check required (50%). Major wound forces a knockdown roll against HT-10; failure by 5 results in unconsciousness. Effective target is HT-5 (4.6%). Remaining conscious into the next turn requires a HT roll, at -1 for being below -1 * HT (37.5%). Chance to succeed is (50% * 4.6% * 37.5% = ) 0.86%, resulting in a failure rate of 99.14% (Which I rounded to ~99%). And we end on another strawman. Awesome. |
||||||||
03-27-2013, 03:13 AM | #68 | |
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
|
Re: Face & Neck location damage multiplier
Quote:
__________________
Compact Castles gives the gamer an instant portfolio of genuine, real-world castle floorplans to use in any historical, low-tech, or fantasy game setting. Last edited by DanHoward; 03-27-2013 at 03:34 AM. |
|
04-01-2013, 02:51 AM | #69 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Face & Neck location damage multiplier
Sorry late reply, had to clear everything at work before going on holiday, and just had the Easter weekend.
Quote:
Also if by all evidence you mean it happened a lot less, then that would include the difficulties of hitting the target as well as I said earlier? An effective skill person of 12 has a 50% chance of hitting a leg or arm (before defence) but only a 16% chance of hitting a neck. I'd argue that makes strikes to the neck in combat as pretty much the province of the very highly skilled, and thus comparatively rare. There's a double effect going on here, not only is an average skilled combatant gong to be much less likely to complete such an attack, knowing this he's also much less likely to attempt such an attack. Conversely a higher skilled combatant can chose to go for the neck or shave 2 points of his opponents defence with a deceptive attack (there's obviously a lot more to it than just these two options of course, but my point is just being able to do so doesn't mean it would be the choice 100% of the time) Basically all available evidence seems to be it didn't happen very often is fine as an overall statement for the likelihood in combat, however when that's applied to how hard it is to chop through a neck with a sword in isolation it's like saying gun shots through eyes were very rare therefore eyes must be particularly resistant to bullets. My point being the GURPS system already takes into account the difficulty of doing something 'in combat' so I'm not sure it needs to count it twice as it were in this particular situation. Quote:
Either legs are sticking out (like arms) and subject to downward strikes and not braced, or they are more directly under the body and thus not subject to downward strikes? Basically perpendicular strikes to the arm I can see, much more unlikely to the leg unless you're a chorus girl or actually attacking with that leg. I guess you could have you leading leg is an extended lunge that would be both perpendicular to downward strikes and braced (taking your weight) but even then such extended lunges are going to be rare as they run pretty much counter to all footwork and balance instruction in combat. I'd argue an extended lunge is at the least a committed attack if not an all out attack (and TBF it would seem to fit more under a all out attack long as per MA). Remember unless its a perpendicular strike any angle more acute than 90 is going to increase the amount of arm and leg that has to be severed. Something more likely from downward strikes to the leg as by definition they are downward. More over I think you are over stating the bracing effect of legs when talking the bodies weight (i.e being below the centre of gravity) if it was truly the case that legs will take damage enough to be destroyed before moving away from the point of damage, rugby players legs would break before they fell over more often then they do. If this was being used to describe a small difference on effect than fine but we're not. If we go back to my example of the blow severing both legs (12 damage) that is a 100% certainty of doing so (assuming the to hit roll was good enough which is factor of accuracy not strength of blow), if the same blow was applied to the neck (and assuming it takes the first HT roll to be failed to indicate a chance of decapitation*) there's only 50% chance of the neck being severed by this blow. Also unless the person is sitting with his legs out stretched this blow is very unlikely to be a downward strike, but a transverse one. As I said at the beginning of this thread I'm happy to have neck strikes as rare but I think that's adequately shown by a -5 to hit vs. a -2 to hit limbs. I'd argue it should be harder to hit a neck than a skull just for reasons of restricted angles of attack (as you point out) and target size alone. If the argument is that all theses factors combine to make damaging the neck more difficult then OK but that doesn't seem to be how other small targets are treated in the system. If necks recoil then so do heads from transverse blows, vitals are hard to target due to size, placement and surrounding tissue etc. *I'd argue death from later failed HT rolls from such would be from bleeding out, decapitation being an immediate effect. Last edited by Tomsdad; 04-01-2013 at 11:22 AM. |
||
04-01-2013, 03:00 AM | #70 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Face & Neck location damage multiplier
Quote:
*although these are cancelled out of your moving significantly faster than your target. There's also the point that cavalry troops have for the last couple of centuries (at least although the following distinctions are less clear cut the further back you go) been A). more highly skilled/elite than most combatants on the field, and B). more likely to to be equipped with a weapon capable of attacking in the way being discussed, and C). more likely to be in combat situations were severing necks is feasible at all. So yes I can well imagine that most decapitations were inflicted by mounted troops, and that might well be because their blows are better placed to do so, but its also because they were better at it, better equipped to do it and more likely to be in a situation to do it. If I had to guess most decapitations came from foot troops fleeing and being run down by pursuing sword wielding cavalry? However that's because such a scenario stacks in favour of doing so. Accordingly I go back to point I made to Kromm, if the decision to make necks so hard to sever RAW (especially when compared to legs and arms) is due to a combination of effects other then just the physical effort involved on cutting through tissue, why then do we have rules for those factors separately as well. Last edited by Tomsdad; 04-01-2013 at 05:11 AM. |
|
Tags |
hit location, hit locations |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|