Monster Hit Points

[Agkistro13]

     I was reading a discussion from some years back about larger monsters seeming to be too fragile, and the useful parts of the conversation revolved around the equation used to calculate hit points.  It occurs to me that there IS a problem, but the problem is NOT that the equation is bad, it's that the different in CON between a Rubble Runner and a Mastodon is about 6.   I can't think of a thing that CON accurately represents if virtually every living being from bug to dream dragon ranges from 2d6 to 2d6+6.  Durability? Absolutely not.  Resistance to things like poison and fatigue? Again, absolutely not. 

   I'm strongly considering raising monster CON across the boards to be roughly equal to their SIZ (with some leeway for big fat monsters and lean wiry monsters), and leaving the equation for hit points alone. 

Interestingly, there is one set of creatures for whom this is already basically true:  Dinosaurs.   A Brontosaurus has 50+ hitpoints because it's CON scales well with it's other physical attributes. I don't know if there's something lore-wise to explain this or if their stats are holdovers from a different edition or what, but as it stands a Brontosaurus gets 3d10+20 CON, while a Mastodon has the same CON as a duck. 

 

I highly doubt that's a meaningful statement about the ecology of Glorantha, and am more inclined to think it's a mechanical oversight, especially since Call of Cthulhu doesn't do the "Everything in the world has about 3d6 CON" thing.  

 

 

[French Desperate WindChild]

Don't know if it is "too" fragile.

I dislike to compare Glorantha with IRL but that could give some insight

A lethal wound is possible with a stone spear even against an elephant.

So HP, for me, should not seen as the "total energy" of a beast / monster (so some proportionality with size), but the capacity to resist any wound from our size opponent.

So are you able, with a critical roll, to kill this size 100 monster. If yes, the CON (so HP) must be not proportional. I consider critical roll only to avoid the AP consideration.

 

or in another calculation, how many critical roll you need to kill a 30D6 size monster ? if you need 15 critical rolls, you are in proportionality CON / SIZ (I assume that you can "one shot" a "our size equivalent" even without critical roll (so 0.5 rate).

[Joerg]

Size is a problem in itself as it requires a certain Strength for the monster to be able move at all, resulting in an unholy damage bonus that tends human-sized targets to go splat when hit unless they use Earth Shield to parry. Making such a monster a glass cannon might feel wrong.

Fighting such a mountain of meat, bones and sharp appendages is rather different from fighting a human-sized opponent. Once you closed the distance to melee reach, missing a hit becomes rather improbable, and hit location will be mainly what is in reach - maybe a choice of two or three adjacent ones, really. Hit quality is a different matter.

Rules for shooting into melee need adjustment, too. Ricochets off hard pieces of armor are more of a problem than accidental hits if your main target is ten times the target area of any allies you might have.

Size brings an armor of flesh, really - when there are two feet of muscle before you meet the bone, severing that leg becomes pretty much impossible. Many a satisfying weapon damage may just cause a superficial flesh wound.

So obviously, even a special hit won't cut it, but might cause bleeding that may eventually make the large beast drop dead.

Instead you want to land critical hits, or target critical locations. Taking out an eye the size of a medium shield makes hitting it less of a problem than causing enough damage to actually make it completely unfunctional. Slashing a major blood vessel might drain enormous amounts of blood, but there are enormous amounts of blood that can be lost. Puncturing a vital organ may take some time to make the discfunction count. Scrambling a bit of brain might make it dumber or lose some senses or control, but needn't take it out of the fight yet.

And of course, while attacking the underbelly might pave the way towards critical organs, you don't want to be there where and when the critter falls.

 

Venom may sound like a good idea, but a typical dose of venom might only hamper a single hit location rather than the entire beast, if that much. Potency might have to be reduced for vast organisms.

 

In the end, the GM needs to answer whether tracking location damage and general hit point damage the usual RuneQuest way makes sense, or whether critters like these need different combat arbitration. The standard rules might give some guidance, but I'd rather wing them for the sake of some semblance of realism than dicing them out.

Parrying a dino tail or a giant's tree-sized club may reduce the impact damage from the blow to the hit location first affected, but not the knockback effect and the subsequent falling damage. Dodging a tail sweep is dodgy, too, unless you can leap or fly or jump into a manhole or other such cover (leaving you prone).

Player characters might try to get astride huge monsters. I don't think that Grapple skill applies, but do Ride or Climb after a successful Jump?

[Geoff R Evil]

There is no doubt the rules as they stand don’t work well for huge creatures.

I find I have to roleplay it out, as @joerg says, make it feel real. But dealing with the splat damage they do, that’s the real issue. Melee against such things is almost suicidal. Missile damage is mostly ineffective.

I can also see that no one rule will fix them all. Scale is a factor. How does one have any chance to even itch the Crimson Bat with a hit? Or a true dragon for that matter? Whereas maybe a small giant or dinosaur is defeatable  with existing rules.

So my recommendation, if you need a huge monster for your chars, make sure there is plenty of opportunity to find ways to get to a weak spot or to equip them with an ability to fight such a thing, much as Orlanth always did in his quests.

[Akhôrahil]

Big monsters are nowhere near as dangerous aesthetics should be, agree. They go down very easy and their attacks are usually easily negated through deductions. A nine meter giant should be a terrifying opponent, but is actually kinda meh, something a reasonably experienced fighty adventurer should be able to solo.

(Elementals are the worst, though. 10 cubic meters of elemental ought to be a horrific opponent, but they go down as soon as you poke them.)

Edited June 19 by Akhôrahil

[Nozbat]

On 6/14/2024 at 11:19 AM, Joerg said:

Player characters might try to get astride huge monsters. I don't think that Grapple skill applies, but do Ride or Climb after a successful Jump?

Does that require a Ride (Dinosaur or Giant or Dragon) skill?

I generally agree with the principle of what people are saying and when I think about it, big monsters don't work too well. But really you don't meet these creatures often and if you do, it is a serious quest. Serious quest means geared up with heavy stuff to take out what would surely would be the culminating scene where it might be ok for a few PCs to get ignominiously splatted by a Giant Club or sat on by a True Dragon.

The last time my players fought a Giant, they realised it couldn't be killed and tricked it to move off to somewhere else. The Giant was short-sighted and had some serious intellectual difficulties .. probably around processing and interpreting events. Easy to trick and gives a satisfying (non-splat) ending to the scene.

Unless there's a significant reason why these creatures need to be interacted with, I can't really think of a rationale for them to be considered as a possible opponent 

[Akhôrahil]

33 minutes ago, Nozbat said:

Unless there's a significant reason why these creatures need to be interacted with, I can't really think of a rationale for them to be considered as a possible opponent 

Dinosaurs, Giants and several Chaos monsters simply eat people (or worse, your herds!). That's a solid rationale for either simply being attacked by them, or having to go out and kill them or drive them off for a reward. Adventuring 101.

[Squaredeal Sten]

I have run a herd of ankylosaurs in Borderlands.  They were eating  Duke Raus fields, and they eat a lot:  That's the rationale for the fight.  IIRC they were eventually turned away with fire.  With their armor they were very hard to penetrate.  An Advenurer would get knocked down, knocked back, but if the Adventurer made her DEX roll. not trampled.  I think it made an interesting engaging encounter. Perhaps the trample rules are a little too forgiving because the knocked down adventurer would bounce up before being trampled  because the ankylosaur has a low DEX.   6⁵

But just stepping up and trying to slug it out shouldn't be safe.  The system rightly puts a premium on the Adventurers showing some ingenuity.

[Nozbat]

I'd forgotten about the Ankylosaurs in Borderlands. And I accept what both of you have said about possible rationales and it meets my criteria for a significant reason (Raus' underlings will starve to death etc) .. but fighting does not mean getting out your spear and attaching the rocket propelled grenade.. 

Bring on the Pied Piper of Pavis and charm the big beasties away.. Engage the Giant in a riddling contest.. give the dragon some secret lore ...particularly if it's obvious you can't get through the skin/ muscle/ scales/ etc .. the players need to be clever to solve the problem, unless Violence is always an option... in which case... there will be fatalities 

[radmonger]

5 hours ago, Nozbat said:

Serious quest means geared up with heavy stuff to take out what would surely would be the culminating scene where it might be ok for a few PCs to get ignominiously splatted by a Giant Club or sat on by a True Dragon.

Isn't that the opposite of the actual problem with the rules? Unless I am getting some aspect of the RAW wrong, anything short of a True Dragon dies to the same routine combat tactics, no thinking or preparation required. Outnumber it, reduce it's chance to hit to 05%, roll dice until someone gets a special.

Partly this is realism; people do hunt african elephant with bows for fun, and with spears for food and prestige.

https://bibliographie.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10900/114207/human-elephant_17-lewis.pdf?sequence=2

 

 

[Akhôrahil]

Skill tanking is ridiculous. My house rule is that reductions like Impede Chaos or high  skill can at maximum halve the unmodified combat skill. This works alright, and doesn’t completely trivialize giants and dinosaurs.

But yeah, by the printed rules, a PC-sized group of moderately experienced Humakti will take down Cwim hard, something the game doesn’t really intend.

Edited June 19 by Akhôrahil

[Nozbat]

In my view, combat should always be a risk, jeopardy and uncertainty have to be part of it if the players choose to get into combat. They need to be clever about what they do, just as our ancestors in fighting mammoths with fire-sharpened sticks needed to be clever. If every combat is certain to come out in favour of the players, it will soon have no meaning. 

As @Akhôrahil says.. houserule it if there is a SOP to reduce large or dangerous opponents to minimum chance to succeed by using excessive magic. I’d also be thinking in terms of a strategic ‘arms’ race.. if the anti-chaotic side come up with some ability to reduce chaos’s chances of winning, it is likely to be quickly countered by a, say, anti-Storm Bull spell… possibly called the Castration of the Bull? Or something similarly derogatory to them. And I just had a thought of what I’ll now invent a term for.. to be known henceforth as the Grendel syndrome.. the players use up all their magic overcoming the opponent and just as they finish ..along comes the mother/ partner/ colleague of the defeated creature .. it might stop them using excessive magical power in one combat for.. as we all know.. the mother is worse.

I tend to play in a low magic world, so injury is a serious issue and makes players reluctant to engage in combat unless they have overwhelming odds, tactical advantage or can be sure of taking out the opponents quickly. Even then they know that an injury can occur because the opponent is lucky and can keep them sidelined for weeks while their injuries recover. 

I would also use psychological terror if there are large or dangerous opponents. The players can be told of a trail of destruction, see the evidence and consequences of the opponents capabilities, or witness the horrific death of a GMC. It has a sobering effect on players and they should at least go into planning mode. Anticipatory anxiety is great for GMs. I often get interesting ideas from my players as they go through plans and try to counter every eventuality. Some I use at the time.. others I store for the future.

8 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

something the game doesn’t really intend.

My final thought is ..if the game doesn’t intend it… don’t allow it.. but talk it through with the players as to why it shouldn’t be. 
 

In the end it’s all about MGF.. if everything becomes routine.. what’s the point?

[French Desperate WindChild]

On 6/15/2024 at 4:41 PM, Geoff R Evil said:

But dealing with the splat damage they do, that’s the real issue. Melee against such things is almost suicidal. Missile damage is mostly ineffective.

I can also see that no one rule will fix them all.

But what is the issue the rule may fix ? is it too easy to kill a monster or too hard ?

I hope that fighting a 50 m monster with human size melee weapon is  near impossible without dozen or more losses

I hope that using a standard bow against the same opponent is ridiculous.

I hope that casting a disruption spell against a divinity (the crimson bat for example) is just like casting disruption against the block hoping to get a nice truestone

 

But there is a very little  chance to success and that's fine too (in my opinion).

 

However, if players decide to fight in a standard way such monsters, I will not try to change the rules because the probability to lose all pcs is huge. That's the players choice to challenge the unchallengeable.

When the GM proposes a confrontation against this kind of opponent, I hope she knows the players able to find a way to win - or to escape - in another smart way than just use a sword and a shield: @Squaredeal Sten's use of fire to scare off monsters who fear fire is a smart illustration. if you (the pc) have time and no idea, find a library, ask a LM / Buserian initiate and look for some ideas (heroquest, trap, ...). If you are facing right now, well flee or be inventive.

 

Edited June 19 by French Desperate WindChild

[Squaredeal Sten]

As i recall the ankylosaur encounter. one player decided to charge it with a Lance.  She did just barely prnetrate the shell and wound it. but it then tried to trample. got a knock back but not a knock down. and both the Adventurer and the horse got up before getting trampled.

I recall at least one adventurer got a tail attack, which is pretty deadly but a low % to hit.

All in all I found the rules pretty forgiving of taking dangerous choices.

In a different campaign the group encountred an Allosaur and simply. cast Slow on it and ran away.  

 

[Malin]

On 6/19/2024 at 2:08 AM, radmonger said:

Outnumber it, reduce it's chance to hit to 05%, roll dice until someone gets a special.

I might have been missing something in the rules, but how?

[radmonger]

27 minutes ago, Malin said:

I might have been missing something in the rules, but how?

https://rqwiki.chaosium.com/rules/the-game-system.html#abilities-above-100

Quote

If the highest rated participant in an opposed resolution has an ability rating in excess of 100%, the difference between 100% and their ability rating is subtracted from the ability of everyone in the contest (including themselves).

As in RQ:G weapon skill counts for parry, and there are several magical ways to double or more your weapon skill, then combatants not using or countering those methods will normally be reduced to relying on the 'always 5% chance to hit' rule.

This is known as skill tanking, which a lot of people, including me, house rule away, but remains rules-as-written.

 

[Malin]

1 hour ago, radmonger said:

s in RQ:G weapon skill counts for parry, and there are several magical ways to double or more your weapon skill, then combatants not using or countering those methods will normally be reduced to relying on the 'always 5% chance to hit' rule.

I do know that one, but correct me if I am wrong, having above 100% weapon skill reduces the opponent's chance to PARRY, not their chance to attack. They need above 100% parry to reduce the opponent's chance of attack.

Quote

An adventurer has augmented their Broadsword skill to 135%. Everyone facing that adventurer in melee combat while that skill is above 100% must reduce their chance to parry that attack by 35%

But that is beside the point, what I was wondering about was what this has to do with outnumbering? That was what confused me in your post, because the only outnumbering rules that I have seen are the ones that reduce your chance to parry/dodge by 20% per additional attack.

[radmonger]

11 minutes ago, Malin said:

They need above 100% parry to reduce the opponent's chance of attack.

In RQ:G, there is no parry skill, only weapon skill. I don't think there is a way to _interpret_ the rules, as opposed to _changing_ them, that doesn't reduce chance to hit.

Outnumbering is superfluous, it just means you just need to have any one of several people roll a special before the monster rolls <5%. 

 

 

[Akhôrahil]

3 hours ago, Malin said:

I might have been missing something in the rules, but how?

"Abilities above 100%", p. 144 in teh Core rules.

The routine way of obliterating large but only moderately skillful opponents in RQG is pushing your skill way above 100% and dumping the opponent down to a 5% chance of success. This really is far too easy, and tends to trivialize opponents like giants, large animals, and dinosaurs.

1 hour ago, Malin said:

I do know that one, but correct me if I am wrong, having above 100% weapon skill reduces the opponent's chance to PARRY, not their chance to attack. They need above 100% parry to reduce the opponent's chance of attack.

This applies to any opposed roll - see the example of Move Silently vs. Search on the same page, for instance.

Edited June 20 by Akhôrahil

[Malin]

I know that technically there is no "parry" skill as you can parry with your weapon and attack with your shield. So I guess you could augment your shield way above 100% or use your weapon to parry since a failed attack vs a successful parry does nothing to the weapon. I get it now. Huh. That's a massively exploitable hole.

Though on the other hand, pc's with augmented skills in their 150%s I can see taking down dinosaurs and mammoths on their own, that makes sense. It's the massive monstrosities that turn weird.

Thank you for the explanation everyone! I have just never run a big weird monster as is out of the box, and never had to deal with players exploiting the rules like that... I like my weird special rules way too much.

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, Malin said:

I know that technically there is no "parry" skill as you can parry with your weapon and attack with your shield. So I guess you could augment your shield way above 100% or use your weapon to parry since a failed attack vs a successful parry does nothing to the weapon. I get it now. Huh. That's a massively exploitable hole.

Though on the other hand, pc's with augmented skills in their 150%s I can see taking down dinosaurs and mammoths on their own, that makes sense. It's the massive monstrosities that turn weird.

Thank you for the explanation everyone! I have just never run a big weird monster as is out of the box, and never had to deal with players exploiting the rules like that... I like my weird special rules way too much.

Like I mentioned above, limiting the reduction to half of the printed skill helps a lot (extensively tested in my campaign). A massive creature with 5% to hit is negligible, but one with 25% is still scary.

This also applies to Impede Chaos, which otherwise gets downright crazy when you dump 5+ Rune Points into it. You’d think Berserk is the signature Storm Bull magic, but even with this nerf, Impede Chaos gets seen a lot more often in play. (That said, you haven’t seen a Berserker until you’ve seen someone fully Bear-transformed, berserking, Impede:d and buffed to the gills by the other PCs. That’s a force of nature, for the day when spending 25+ Rune Points seems called for.)

Edited June 20 by Akhôrahil

[mfbrandi]

31 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Like I mentioned above, limiting the reduction to half of the printed skill helps a lot (extensively tested in my campaign). A massive creature with 5% to hit is negligible, but one with 25% is still scary.

But isn’t the underlying problem trying to apply melee — duelling, even — rules to a non-melee situation? If I am really good at waving my sword around, that won’t help me against a howitzer, an avalanche, or a building falling on me. It is not a matter of degree, my fighting skill is just irrelevant. Isn’t getting stomped by a mountain-sized giant like that? Dodge might help, but only if I am right on the edge of the area the foot will cover.

I am not saying your house rule isn’t better than RAW, just questioning whether this is a situation in which either would apply. The point is surely that IF your skill makes things tougher for the other party, then if your skill is > 100%, some form of scaling down is required. But if I have Switchblade 300%, Godzilla doesn’t care … at all.

I always liked Graham Walmsley’s rule for fighting monsters:

• If you fight any creature you meet, you will die.
  Thus, in these core rules, there are no combat rules or health levels.
  Instead, roll to hide or escape.

[Akhôrahil]

19 minutes ago, mfbrandi said:

But isn’t the underlying problem trying to apply melee — duelling, even — rules to a non-melee situation? If I am really good at waving my sword around, that won’t help me against a howitzer, an avalanche, or a building falling on me. It is not a matter of degree, my fighting skill is just irrelevant. Isn’t getting stomped by a mountain-sized giant like that? Dodge might help, but only if I am right on the edge of the area the foot will cover.

I am not saying your house rule isn’t better than RAW, just questioning whether this is a situation in which either would apply. The point is surely that IF your skill makes things tougher for the other party, then if your skill is > 100%, some form of scaling down is required. But if I have Switchblade 300%, Godzilla doesn’t care … at all.

This is all true, but it would require a substantial system overhaul (one I believe is called for, but also non-trivial to design well). A lot of RPGs are bad at representing size and power properly, and RQ is certainly included. My suggestion is an easy emergency patch, not a proper solution.

This isn’t even just about huge opponents - your switchblade mentioned isn’t going to be all that good at parrying a maul, either.

My rules-intuition here is that you should start tracking wrapon sizes and penalize using weapons that aren’t big enough for the job. Doesn’t Mythras do this? And plus, you could make weapon reach important in the same solution, the way it isn’t now. Maybe even rescue shields from their current awful state?

 

Edited June 20 by Akhôrahil

[Malin]

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

This also applies to Impede Chaos, which otherwise gets downright crazy when you dump 5+ Rune Points into it.

I have a Babeester Gor with a hero ability, which is basically just Impede Chaos, and yes, it can go right mad. Though to be fair her Axe-trance is scary enough.

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

Like I mentioned above, limiting the reduction to half of the printed skill helps a lot (extensively tested in my campaign).

Yeah, that sounds like a smart way of doing it for the more reasonable monsters.

17 minutes ago, mfbrandi said:

If I am really good at waving my sword around, that won’t help me against a howitzer, an avalanche, or a building falling on me. It is not a matter of degree, my fighting skill is just irrelevant.

Yeah, I absolutely agree with you there. The truly big ones my players have fought outside the hero plane have either been "fought" by avoiding them and escaping, or in some cases, been fought with special rules, just like I handle warbands and other smaller skirmishers. And, most of the time that has just been to drive it off...

[Akhôrahil]

1 minute ago, Malin said:

Yeah, I absolutely agree with you there. The truly big ones my players have fought outside the hero plane have either been "fought" by avoiding them and escaping, or in some cases, been fought with special rules, just like I handle warbands and other smaller skirmishers. And, most of the time that has just been to drive it off...

It will be super interesting to see if the heroquesting rules handle this. Fighting a Giant in the real world should be a lot about the physics and really tough, while Giant-killing in an HQ might be about other things, like your Hate Giants passion.