03-04-2021, 12:37 PM | #101 | |||
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
|
Re: Hit Points...to be, or not to be?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, I think I get the point. Some people survive absurd situations, yes.
__________________
“He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.” |
|||
03-04-2021, 01:24 PM | #103 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Hit Points...to be, or not to be?
Quote:
While rare, people have survived terminal velocity falls. That said, if it wrecks the GM's and/or players' Sense of Disbelief for such things to happen in the game, that's where the "obviously lethal" rule comes into play.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
|
03-04-2021, 01:36 PM | #104 | |
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
|
Re: Hit Points...to be, or not to be?
Quote:
Okay, now I need to save those names to the next time the GM tries to kill me by throwing me from a high place. xD
__________________
“He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.” |
|
03-04-2021, 02:34 PM | #105 |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Hit Points...to be, or not to be?
Honestly, you've got a not-horrible shot of survival under normal GURPS rules. Terminal velocity for a human ranges from Move 60 (spread eagle) to Move 100 (diving), for damage ranging from 6d (spread eagle, normal surface) to 20d (diving, hard surface) for a character with HP 10. Certainly at the high end survival is pretty much impossible (less than a 10% chance of rolling less than a 60), but otherwise your chances are better than you'd expect (and probably better than is realistic, but whatever) - average damage in that first case is only enough to call for a single death check, for instance.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
03-04-2021, 03:19 PM | #106 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Hit Points...to be, or not to be?
Quote:
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
|
03-04-2021, 05:02 PM | #107 |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Hit Points...to be, or not to be?
True, I had forgotten normal ground was considered hard. 12d is rather more serious, but you still have a surprisingly high chance of survival, at least initially - 42 Injury (the average for HP 10) would call for three death checks, for a 12.5% chance of survival (and if you survive, a ~16.7% chance - roll 7 or higher - of staying conscious, at least as long as you don't don't take any combat maneuvers). Characters with above-average HT have markedly better chances (HP doesn't make a difference, however, as higher HP also means higher fall damage). If you fail to stay conscious, chances aren't great for your survival - you've got a 50% chance of waking up after 12 hours, and failing that will die without medical assistance. If the GM rules that you are bleeding, of course, you'll most likely bleed out in those 12 hours (rolling against HT-8 means you lose 1 HP on anything above a 4 - which stops bleeding outright, on account of being a Critical Success - and lose 3 HP on a roll of 12 or higher, and the bleeding is per minute).
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
03-05-2021, 10:22 AM | #108 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
|
Re: Hit Points...to be, or not to be?
If I read the rules right, as long as you have a good enough armor you can halve the damage you take from falling by falling on a spike (because blunt trauma rules).
__________________
“When you arise in the morning think of what a privilege it is to be alive, to think, to enjoy, to love ...” Marcus Aurelius |
03-05-2021, 11:19 AM | #109 | |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: Hit Points...to be, or not to be?
Quote:
That can be avoided by GM judgment in when to apply the "special effect" but it seems like maybe now that we have Spine in MA that this special effect should be ignored for neck attacks and instead only be a special effect of spine attacks. There could just be a broader variety of spine attacks. I only know of three right now in reading MA137: 1) crush/cut/impale/pierce/TBburn from rear targeting torsoSpine at -8We seem to lack: a) random non-cut torsoSpine from rearIn the last case, it seems like it would make sense to allow some exceptions via some kind of optional rules: 1) a "wrap-shot" where attack from front/sides but reach hand behind opponent to target them from the rear: maybe something like -1 from left/right, -2 from the sidey-fronts and -3 from absolute front? 2) some kind of "attack through cover" where the neck HP or torso HP provides "cover DR" to protect the spine in a way it doesn't from the rear. I'd guess something like 50% hp for neck and 100% hp for torso. |
|
03-05-2021, 12:45 PM | #110 | ||
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Hit Points...to be, or not to be?
Quote:
I don't like that sort of thing, but let's not lambaste it for something it never said in the first place. Quote:
(If all attacks had rolled hit locations and you had a different kind of table for it maybe that could wind up working, but that's a very different mechanics lineage from GURPS. And usually seems like a clunky one.)
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
||
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|