Damage Revisited

[Atgxtg]

No, of course not, its an abstract. But it is one that is fairly straightforward, easy to understand.

Easy to understand but almost entirely wrong.

[qupte]

The amount of punishment a body can take does vary from body to body, what an HP represents is a portion of that. Thus in my example a body could take 11 of that type of hit and end up in a state where the body would die before long.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Atgxtg

[Guest Vile Traveller]

That's why I think impales should really be applied AFTER the armor.

I agree, especially give that an impale simulates a hit in a "vital" location, which is usually where armour is the strongest. This kind of breaks down with limbs (because joints are the most delicate locations and also the most difficult to armour), but I draw the line at different damage systems for different locations ...

[SDLeary]

No, not really. It's not that a body can take a certain amount of punishment, but the seriousness of the individual injuries. That is where hit points break down. Mathematically ten one pits hits are the same as one ten point hit. In BRP that is nearly true. But in real life, those ten 1 point hits are probably not life threatening.

No, but probably enough to take you out of the action at least due to unconsciousness or fatigue.

Yes, people can take some fantastic injuries and still function. ThHat's because in most cases it's not the injury that stops people, it's their reaction to it. Very few hits can actually stop somebody dead in the tracks. Yes, some hits will cause somebody to loose consciousness from blood loss, but that takes time. THe reason why people drop prone is becuase the freak out when they git hit, and kinda brainwash themselves into thinking they are dying. It's the same reason why animals can take lots of punishment, even a mortal hit and still keep going. They are too "dumb" to realize that they are dead.

Pain is often an issue as well though. Once someones pain threshold is exceeded, they will often black out, regardless of the actual severity of the wound. Real shock is also a contributor, though rarely causes a person to loose consciousness when the injury initially occurs.

And there are some systems that model this sort of wounding mechanic well, or at least better than BRP's HP mechanic. Not all of them are unplayable. A wound threshold severity method isn't any more complex that tracking Hit points.

No, not all are unplayable... harsh term on my part. Lets say they also tend to have other issues, that when combined with more accurate modeling of injury make them much less enjoyable to play; your mileage may vary.

But there is not 1/11th (actually 1/12th in BRP) magic number. Like I said it doesn"t really work that way. And doing so in BRP just leads to stupid situations like the guy getting killed by a bunch of pinpricks to his feet.

Again, 1/11th or 1/12th of the damage a body can take is still a significant amount of damage. Now, I will agree that the character may not be dead at that point. In fact, I generally use negative 1/2 CON or CON for actual death. At zero HP however, they are truly out of the fight. Nothing, not even a critical Heroic (CON xX) roll will allow them to continue. They are unconscious or comatose.

Feel it sure. Be impaired by it, maybe. Get killed by it, no. Not even it I had taken the other ten points of damage.

I generally agree with you here, though I would say that actual impairment would depend on the nature of the damage, not just the amount. And you could effectively get killed by it. If a Giant stomps the whole party, you are effectively dead.

The problem with that is some attacks just won't penetrate some armors. Period. This isn't so much a matter of personal armor, as there are joints are areas that might not be fully protected, but it is a big factor with cover. If somebody is ducked down behind a steel plate, then they not going to get hurt by a pistol round-unless they pop their head up or leave something sticking out. That's why I think impales should really be applied AFTER the armor.

Sorry, I may have missed something with this quote. I agree that a pistol round wouldn't penetrate a steel plate, at least enough to do more than scratch the person hiding behind, depending on the thickness of the plate (5.7mm rounds and 4.6mm rounds might be different depending on the plate). Isn't this kind of instance modeled in a reduced chance to actually hit the person behind cover?

I think the RQ6 method od choosing crits and special might help. My big objection is linking the effect of the special./crit directly to the weapon damage die. If the special/crit effect were independt of weapon damage die it would help. Like an impale adding a flat bonus to damage or some such. That way a high skilled character with a low damage weapon is more of a threat than a low skilled character with a weapon that has a high damage die.

I wasn't thinking of RQ6s method, but Chaosium's RQ2 method. In cRQ2, an Impale was the total amount of damage the weapon could do, plus the weapons damage rolled again. In their example, Rurik using a spear that impaled would do 7 points (1d6+1 for short spear), plus an additional 1d6+1.

Now, RQ6s method could work, but I have issues with being able to choose the effect after the fact, ESPECIALLY with missile weapons. (they may have mitigated things somewhat, haven't made it that far in the book yet, basing things of mRQII/Legend).

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

I agree, especially give that an impale simulates a hit in a "vital" location, which is usually where armour is the strongest. This kind of breaks down with limbs (because joints are the most delicate locations and also the most difficult to armour), but I draw the line at different damage systems for different locations ...

Except that a weapon, even if the armor is penetrated, is going to slow down a bit during penetration. This might be an insignificant amount, as with most modern firearms and say Late Medieval/Early Renaissance Plate, but with more archaic weapons enough to possibly reduce the damage by a notable amount.

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

Which would be modeled quite accurately by applying the impale modfier AFTER armor.

FOr example, let's say somebody is wearing 5 point armor (bezainted) and is hit by an attack that does 1D6. Now in standard BRP you roll 2D6 for the impale, which greatly improves your chance of penetrating the armor (or shield). In fact, the increase armor penetration is probably the major benefit of an impale in BRP.

But, if the damage were doubled AFTER armor, then that attack is much less dangerous to that man in 5 point armor.

[Atgxtg]

No, but probably enough to take you out of the action at least due to unconsciousness or fatigue.

No, it's not. That the thing, real life data proves the opposite. People tend to ignore those pesky minor injuries during a fight, and often don't even notice them until later, when the adrenaline wears off. You won't take somebody out of a fight with a minor hit to a foot.

Police had to change their training methods because of this. They used to think that if they were attacked by someone wielding a knife, they could just shoot them. Now they are taught to be ready to defend as even with a good hit, it will probably take at least ten seconds for the knife wielder to "bleed out" and that's more than enough time for the guy to inflict serious or even lethal injury on the shooter.

Pain is often an issue as well though. Once someones pain threshold is exceeded, they will often black out, regardless of the actual severity of the wound. Real shock is also a contributor, though rarely causes a person to loose consciousness when the injury initially occurs.

Not as much as you think. At least not in combat. The vast majority of people stop fighting due to psychological effects. THey see that they are hurt and sort of give up. Again the real world data does not match up with the "conventional wisdom".

Police used to be taught that getting shot was bad, and if they got shot they were dead. Now they are taught that being shot is bad, but not necearily fatal, and the survival rate rose dramatically.

No, not all are unplayable... harsh term on my part. Lets say they also tend to have other issues, that when combined with more accurate modeling of injury make them much less enjoyable to play; your mileage may vary.

Yet's say the statement is entirely subjective. There are quite a few RPGs out there that can model injuries m,ore actually than BRP that are not "much less enjoyable to play". And they have lots of fans who play them and have just as much fun as BRP players.

A simple wound threshold mechanic is hardly any more complex that what BRP has now, and doesn't make BRP any harder to play, or less enjoyable.

Again, 1/11th or 1/12th of the damage a body can take is still a significant amount of damage. Now, I will agree that the character may not be dead at that point. In fact, I generally use negative 1/2 CON or CON for actual death. At zero HP however, they are truly out of the fight. Nothing, not even a critical Heroic (CON xX) roll will allow them to continue. They are unconscious or comatose.

No it isn't significant because there is no such value. It's entirely fictitious.

By BRP rules 0 HP Is dead, you'd need to leave somebody with 1 or 2 HP for them to still be alive, but unconscious.

And the point is, it just doesn't work that way in reality. Let's say for the moment that driving a nail into someone's foot is the equivalent of a 1 point wound. Hypothetically, if you were to drive ten nails into a person's foot, one at a time, threy might black out or be incapacitated by pain, and they might not. They would not be at death door and die with the next nail, nor would they remain unconscious for a week or two while they healed up. THe foot is probably incapacitated but not necessarily the rest of the person.

THey might die from blood loos if they wounds were not treated, but probably not fast enough to matter in a fight. They might die of septicemia if the wounds are lest untreated. Or tentatus. But again, not fast enough to matter in the fight.

They whole hit point mechanic is just wrong, and gives silly results. Somebody who is banged up badly, in the game, drops from a 1 point hit to the foot or hand. In real life that just won't happen. THe guy probably won't even feel that one point hit, let alone pass out because of it.

A bunch of minor wounds do not equal one big wound in effect. But with hit point attrition they are treated the same.

I generally agree with you here, though I would say that actual impairment would depend on the nature of the damage, not just the amount. And you could effectively get killed by it. If a Giant stomps the whole party, you are effectively dead. [/quoute]

THe nature of the damage does affect the nature of the impairment. THe location is usually the key factor. A relatively minor 1 or 2 point hit could take out an eye or chop off a finger. With something like a giant stop, it would depend on how big the giant is, and how much force he could put into that stomp. But if you are talking about a Godzilla sized giant, then yeah, getting stomped on could end your day, assuming you get stomped in a vital hit location or locations. Obviously if Godzilla steps on a tank, and flattens it like a pancake, any PCs inside the tank are dead. But against that's a matter of the amount of damage.

No. If you are using hit locations. The general mechanic was to have the AP apply if the location rolled was behind the cover. So if someone was fighting behind a low wall, and got hit in the abdomen, he'd take the doubled damage dice, which might penetrate the AP. See the problem?

That kinda brings back the arument made against big adds back with a vengeance. The major difficult with max plus rolled is that such attacks will always bypass armor, and are practically assured to take an opponent down, or kill him instantly. THat's why the rule got modfied.

I haven't played RQ6, but have seem a similar "pick after" method work well in Usagi Yojimbo. Come to think of it UY's stab and impale rules might port over well to BRP. Approximately, the way it worked was that when impaled the opponent had to give ground or suffer the added damage. It was neat becuase you could force people out of doorways, and fights were more mobile than in most RPGs. And it made good use of terrain.

[SDLeary]

No, it's not. That the thing, real life data proves the opposite. People tend to ignore those pesky minor injuries during a fight, and often don't even notice them until later, when the adrenaline wears off. You won't take somebody out of a fight with a minor hit to a foot.

I think the issue here is the definition of Minor Wound.

I agree with you about adrenaline mitigating effects of wounds, assuming the situation was such that it could provide the boost prior to injury (combat, drug effects, etc.). Adrenaline effects pumping in after the wound could allow the injured to remain conscious, or perhaps even get up after going down to press another attack.

Police had to change their training methods because of this. They used to think that if they were attacked by someone wielding a knife, they could just shoot them. Now they are taught to be ready to defend as even with a good hit, it will probably take at least ten seconds for the knife wielder to "bleed out" and that's more than enough time for the guy to inflict serious or even lethal injury on the shooter.

To be fair, much of this research and the changes elicited by it had to do with the effects of certain "recreational" drug on the body; enhanced adrenaline secretion, suppression of pain, multiple other effects.

One of the other changes from some of the studies was a change from .38 S&W, to 9mm, and then to .40 S&W, enhancing "takedown" power. Similar arguments and data out of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have prompted participating militaries to reintroduce larger calibre weapons to infantry squads. And for the record, I do feel that despite the effort Sandy put in with Jane's books for the publication of Cthulhu Now, that firearms are somewhat fubared with regards to damage.

Not as much as you think. At least not in combat. The vast majority of people stop fighting due to psychological effects. THey see that they are hurt and sort of give up. Again the real world data does not match up with the "conventional wisdom".

I agree that Morale is a big factor. This is why I support some form of Mook rules; rabble going down after one hit, one "major wound", or some other. But keep in mind that in RPGs we are generally not modeling "the vast majority...". Also...

Police used to be taught that getting shot was bad, and if they got shot they were dead. Now they are taught that being shot is bad, but not necearily fatal, and the survival rate rose dramatically.

If you actually listen to the speeches on this, it is backed up by the fact that we have advanced so far in trauma treatment, not that the wounds themselves are any less severe. It is also tempered by the fact that officers are required in most departments to wear their vests, rather than it just being an option.

Yet's say the statement is entirely subjective. There are quite a few RPGs out there that can model injuries m,ore actually than BRP that are not "much less enjoyable to play". And they have lots of fans who play them and have just as much fun as BRP players.

I don't doubt it. I just haven't found one that fits the way I play, and neither have any (to my knowledge) in the groups that I play with.

A simple wound threshold mechanic is hardly any more complex that what BRP has now, and doesn't make BRP any harder to play, or less enjoyable.

I agree. But to do it within the context of BRP, without a wholesale re-write or creation of yet another iteration, and have it remain visibly BRP should be the goal. Thus an Optional Rule that would be flexible enough to just slot in. Also, it should take into consideration that an ancient culture, while possibly advanced, would not have access to the advanced medical technology that make treating wounds so much more survivable.

Now, on the other hand, your creating a standalone BRP based game tailored for a specific genre, go for it!

No it isn't significant because there is no such value. It's entirely fictitious.

To which value are you referring to here? The fractional HP value, the house-rulled threshold for death, or to the Heroic roll?

If the former, it is implied, as it is a portion of the overall pool for damage absorption in BRP.

By BRP rules 0 HP Is dead, you'd need to leave somebody with 1 or 2 HP for them to still be alive, but unconscious.

Fair enough. But this is a house-rule that has existed in certain circles since RQ came out. This change could be made official and many wouldn't even notice.

And the point is, it just doesn't work that way in reality. Let's say for the moment that driving a nail into someone's foot is the equivalent of a 1 point wound. Hypothetically, if you were to drive ten nails into a person's foot, one at a time, threy might black out or be incapacitated by pain, and they might not. They would not be at death door and die with the next nail, nor would they remain unconscious for a week or two while they healed up. THe foot is probably incapacitated but not necessarily the rest of the person.

THey might die from blood loos if they wounds were not treated, but probably not fast enough to matter in a fight. They might die of septicemia if the wounds are lest untreated. Or tentatus. But again, not fast enough to matter in the fight.

I agree with you here. I wouldn't rule that each one was was a single point of damage. I WOULD require some kind of roll to remain conscious, at least after the second one went in. The whole episode might cost one point, but possibly not; would probably impose a penalty to movement, perhaps to DEX assuming they could get free. A dagger (a broad blade) thrust thru the foot would be another matter though.

Mechanically though, this isn't really all that different from any system that models bodily damage. In any system, you have to decide what is enough to cause damage, whether that is represented by HP or by a threshold system. Whether the system is going to only model actual physical damage, or the effects of damage, etc.

They whole hit point mechanic is just wrong, and gives silly results. Somebody who is banged up badly, in the game, drops from a 1 point hit to the foot or hand. In real life that just won't happen. THe guy probably won't even feel that one point hit, let alone pass out because of it.

A bunch of minor wounds do not equal one big wound in effect. But with hit point attrition they are treated the same.

Its not "wrong". While it can elicit silly results, the GM has ultimate control of the situation. If they are somewhat informed, then they can rule appropriately. Perhaps a treatise for GMs on such issues?

Honestly, it simply sounds like HP are not granular enough for you. Perhaps a large single pool, Sanity sized say, that is used for Fatigue, Damage, and if used Magic Points? (thats just off the top by the way, just a brainstorm)

I generally agree with you here, though I would say that actual impairment would depend on the nature of the damage, not just the amount. And you could effectively get killed by it. If a Giant stomps the whole party, you are effectively dead. [/quoute]

You mean this..?

I would play it this way ONLY if the character were trying to hide, and they had been spotted, unbeknownst to them. I would still impose a penalty to the shooter, but perhaps not Difficult. If the characters were already engaged, then I would impose the Difficult modifier regardless of the use of hit locations, as the targets are moving, perhaps peeking out on occasion, but in general trying to keep as much of themselves out of the line of fire as possible.

OK, I mis-read that.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

Much of this discussion has focused on the general nature of damage in BRP, or using firearms as an example. What about melee? If you use a shifting damage class rather than adds, on what do you base it? Also, with the finite number of die types available, how would you adjust the various weapons that use multiple dice?

In answer to the first, every weapon listed has an associated minimum STR listed in order to be able to use the weapon effectively. Perhaps every X points (5?) of STR over the minimum increases the damage die by one step. Thus, a broadsword with a STR requirement of 9, and say a base damage of 1d8, would increase to 1d10 for a character that had a STR of 14.

This would work in reverse as well, a STR 5 character only being able to get 1d6 out of the weapon, in addition to the skill penalty for STR lower than required.

The issue that I have with this, while feasible for human sized characters, this gets somewhat ridiculous with, say, trolls.

In regards to the second question, I see no solution short of re-statting all the weapon damages. Which could then necessitate re-statting all the Armor, etc. As a result, we get into compatibility issues with supplementary material. A conversion sheet of course helps, but thats always something of a pain to have to refer to.

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

I think the issue here is the definition of Minor Wound.

Actually, any wound. Only a very small percentage of injuries will kill or disable a person instantly. However there is this belief that there is a point of assured results.

I agree with you about adrenaline mitigating effects of wounds, assuming the situation was such that it could provide the boost prior to injury (combat, drug effects, etc.). Adrenaline effects pumping in after the wound could allow the injured to remain conscious, or perhaps even get up after going down to press another attack.

Yup. Generally people don't drop instantly from the "damage" applied by most hits.

To be fair, much of this research and the changes elicited by it had to do with the effects of certain "recreational" drug on the body; enhanced adrenaline secretion, suppression of pain, multiple other effects.

To be fair, no. That's another myth. Again, people think that getting shot takes somebody out of a fight right away, and that is not the case. It depends more of the attritude of the person getting hit. If he goes into panic mode and thinks that he is going to die, then he will probably stop, if he just jets ticked off, then he will probably do some damage before he drops.

One of the other changes from some of the studies was a change from .38 S&W, to 9mm, and then to .40 S&W, enhancing "takedown" power. Similar arguments and data out of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have prompted participating militaries to reintroduce larger calibre weapons to infantry squads. And for the record, I do feel that despite the effort Sandy put in with Jane's books for the publication of Cthulhu Now, that firearms are somewhat fubared with regards to damage.

THe data on takedown power, actually shows that 9mms have the highest "stopping Percentage" of any handgun! THis is less due to any inherient superiority of the 9mm round, but more due to the greater skill and training of police officers compared to the general populace. The cops are better shots, so they hit vital locations more often.

I agree that Morale is a big factor. This is why I support some form of Mook rules; rabble going down after one hit, one "major wound", or some other. But keep in mind that in RPGs we are generally not modeling "the vast majority...". Also...

If you actually listen to the speeches on this, it is backed up by the fact that we have advanced so far in trauma treatment, not that the wounds themselves are any less severe. It is also tempered by the fact that officers are required in most departments to wear their vests, rather than it just being an option.

Yes the treatment has improved, but the way wounds are handled in BRP hasn't been improved since RQ3. In the real world the vast majority of gunshot wounds are not instantly fatal, and most people who get shot survive long enough to receive medical treatment. But in BRP delayed fatalities are few and far between.

I don't doubt it. I just haven't found one that fits the way I play, and neither have any (to my knowledge) in the groups that I play with.

I can think of several, The D6 system, the Silhouette system, Timelords, CORPS, Usagi Yojimbo, and the James Bond RPG, or starters.

I agree. But to do it within the context of BRP, without a wholesale re-write or creation of yet another iteration, and have it remain visibly BRP should be the goal. Thus an Optional Rule that would be flexible enough to just slot in. Also, it should take into consideration that an ancient culture, while possibly advanced, would not have access to the advanced medical technology that make treating wounds so much more survivable.

A wound threshold mechanic is not a rewrite of the system.

And as far as culture goes, it's a moot point currently, as with the hit point mechanic, characters are dead, and the ability to treat injuries after the battle is not a factor in BRP. In BRP, if a character survives the fight, he won't die later from those wounds. barring a fumbled first aid roll, or the one major wound on the table that reduces CON.

Now, on the other hand, your creating a standalone BRP based game tailored for a specific genre, go for it!

That could be done too. But what I'm suggesting is much less radial than that. In fact it's already in BRP to some extent with the major wound concept. Basically woulds could be compared to the target's total hit points and classified in servility by the result.

To which value are you referring to here? The fractional HP value, the house-ruled threshold for death, or to the Heroic roll?

What I was referring to it the concept that a person can "take" a set number of "points" of damage before he ceases to function. ANd that 1/11th or 1/12th of that is signficant towards reaching that total. Wounds are separate injrueis not a cumulative result.

If the former, it is implied, as it is a portion of the overall pool for damage absorption in BRP.

Yes, and it is fictions and does't not mirror real combat very well. Look, if somebody take a 14 point chest hit from an impale, it makes some sense that the guy drops and is out of the fight or dead. But the idea that fourteen separate 1 point wounds are just as bad is wrong.

Fair enough. But this is a house-rule that has existed in certain circles since RQ came out. This change could be made official and many wouldn't even notice.

One I don't think that the house rule is that widespread. In fact, I never heard of it until now. Secondly, that doesn't validate it as an official rule.

I agree with you here. I wouldn't rule that each one was was a single point of damage. I WOULD require some kind of roll to remain conscious, at least after the second one went in. The whole episode might cost one point, but possibly not; would probably impose a penalty to movement, perhaps to DEX assuming they could get free. A dagger (a broad blade) thrust thru the foot would be another matter though.

That is what I was getting at. What I think BRP could benefit from is some actual mechanic for dealing with the injury. Right now. if a hit doesn't disable a hit location (if used) or inflict a major wound, or reduce you down to unconsciousness level, it has no effect.

Mechanically though, this isn't really all that different from any system that models bodily damage. In any system, you have to decide what is enough to cause damage, whether that is represented by HP or by a threshold system. Whether the system is going to only model actual physical damage, or the effects of damage, etc.

It's the cumulative nature of the hit point system that get's silly. Look at the stats for small creatures such as hawks. IN the RPG they could kill a man with a handful of attacks simply by hit point attrition. In reality, while hawk could hurt a man, any maybe even take out an eye, it is unliikely to kill a man with a handful of attacks. Injure him, yes, Injure him severely, possibly, but unlikely.

Its not "wrong". While it can elicit silly results, the GM has ultimate control of the situation. If they are somewhat informed, then they can rule appropriately. Perhaps a treatise for GMs on such issues?

It is wrong. It is based on a flawed idea. And a Gm is hardly going to be able to overrule the rules on virtually every fight without presenting some sort of clearly defined alternative. And most GMs have been led to believe that hit point attrition is realistic.

Honestly, it simply sounds like HP are not granular enough for you. Perhaps a large single pool, Sanity sized say, that is used for Fatigue, Damage, and if used Magic Points? (thats just off the top by the way, just a brainstorm)

More the opposite. Hit points are used like a bank account, and people die when they are overdrawn, regardless of the nature of the expenses. I'd rather see the actual injuries being more important that the cumulative HP losses.

I would play it this way ONLY if the character were trying to hide, and they had been spotted, unbeknownst to them. I would still impose a penalty to the shooter, but perhaps not Difficult. If the characters were already engaged, then I would impose the Difficult modifier regardless of the use of hit locations, as the targets are moving, perhaps peeking out on occasion, but in general trying to keep as much of themselves out of the line of fire as possible.

So if somebody was walking along behind a 4 foot high steel barrier, and got shot in the legs, you wouldn't apply the benefits of the wall unless the guy were trying to hide? I don't think that is what you mean is it?

Edited December 12, 2012 by Atgxtg

[Atgxtg]

In regards to the second question, I see no solution short of re-statting all the weapon damages. Which could then necessitate re-statting all the Armor, etc. As a result, we get into compatibility issues with supplementary material. A conversion sheet of course helps, but thats always something of a pain to have to refer to.

SDLeary

Uh, I think I have a possible solution here. Weapons could be rated by Damage Class (DC). THe DC could be either the maximum damage rolled or the average damage. That way all existing weapons could be assigned DCs based on their current damages. A dagger would be DC 5 or 6, A basard sword DC7 or 11 and so on.

Any shifts in damage would shift DC, and the progression would be fairly easy to follow. Only a handful of weapons do multiple dice damage (greatsword, halberd, pike) and they would just shift up and down DCs like any other weapon.

[SDLeary]

Uh, I think I have a possible solution here. Weapons could be rated by Damage Class (DC). THe DC could be either the maximum damage rolled or the average damage. That way all existing weapons could be assigned DCs based on their current damages. A dagger would be DC 5 or 6, A basard sword DC7 or 11 and so on.

Any shifts in damage would shift DC, and the progression would be fairly easy to follow. Only a handful of weapons do multiple dice damage (greatsword, halberd, pike) and they would just shift up and down DCs like any other weapon.

So armor would protect vs a Damage Class? How would a Hero overcome his foe if he has a dagger and they are armed with spears? Possible (though very difficult, and assuming one of the opponents don't crit him first) in BRP. Does the Strength of a hero increase the damage class? Special hits, crits, etc.?

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

So armor would protect vs a Damage Class?

It would reduce the Damage Class. For example, armor that provides a -1 DC reduction would reduce an attack that did 1D8+1 to 1D6+1 (or turn an attack that did 1D10 to one that did 1D8 if you get rid of the plusses) This is nearly the same as the current method, but allows for some armors to be proof against attacks below a certain damage threshold. Note that this would also make if fairly easy to tweak armor against certain types of attack if desired. Plate could be more effective against cutting attacks that bludgeoning attacks and so on. If desired.

How would a Hero overcome his foe if he has a dagger and they are armed with spears?

Much the same way he does now. At least as far as damage classes and armor goes. If you want to factor in for reach and such, that's a separate issue.

Possible (though very difficult, and assuming one of the opponents don't crit him first) in BRP. Does the Strength of a hero increase the damage class? Special hits, crits, etc.?

STR would increase the DC of melee weapons, and some missile weapons, and could indirectly affect other missile weapons (a stronger man could pull back a greater draw weight), but the DC for weapons like lasers and firearms would not be affected by STR.

Specials and criticals would NOT increase the DC, but would increase the damage rolled. THat way somebody cannot punch through half inch think plate with a .22 just because they rolled good. But, what they could do is make a called shot at a penalty to try and hit a spot where there is a gap in the armor. Just how hard that would be would depend on the nature and coverage of the armor, and the type of weapon being used. So a man with a dagger might have to aim at the back of the legs, joints or eyeslits of a foe dressed in full Gothic plate to be effective. Unless he was really strong or had some magic that could boost the weapon to the point where it could cut through the plate.

[SDLeary]

It would reduce the Damage Class. For example, armor that provides a -1 DC reduction would reduce an attack that did 1D8+1 to 1D6+1 (or turn an attack that did 1D10 to one that did 1D8 if you get rid of the plusses) This is nearly the same as the current method, but allows for some armors to be proof against attacks below a certain damage threshold. Note that this would also make if fairly easy to tweak armor against certain types of attack if desired. Plate could be more effective against cutting attacks that bludgeoning attacks and so on. If desired.

Ok. Makes sense. Have you thought what the break-points might be? Tough Leather say -1 DC, Cuirboilli -2, Maille -2 vs blades, but +- 0 vs bludgeoning, etc.?

How would this work in a game that didn't use Locations and had variable armor to compensate, as in default BRP or Stormbringer?

STR would increase the DC of melee weapons, and some missile weapons, and could indirectly affect other missile weapons (a stronger man could pull back a greater draw weight), but the DC for weapons like lasers and firearms would not be affected by STR.

Would the steps used in the current Damage bonus chart be used? I would think not as that would increase damage class rapidly. And, if a stronger (and larger?) character can push thru stronger armor on a regular basis, then wouldn't it also follow that their added strength and size would also allow them to do more damage once they have punched thru the armor, or even if their opponent wore no armor at all?

Specials and criticals would NOT increase the DC, but would increase the damage rolled. THat way somebody cannot punch through half inch think plate with a .22 just because they rolled good. But, what they could do is make a called shot at a penalty to try and hit a spot where there is a gap in the armor. Just how hard that would be would depend on the nature and coverage of the armor, and the type of weapon being used. So a man with a dagger might have to aim at the back of the legs, joints or eyeslits of a foe dressed in full Gothic plate to be effective. Unless he was really strong or had some magic that could boost the weapon to the point where it could cut through the plate.

That makes sense. It would also allow Special or Critical effects to take effect after penetrating armor, as mentioned up-thread. Though it also suggests that weapons still would need to be re-statted. A dagger doing 1d4 AFTER punching thru armor just doesn't sound right.

Doesn't this get a bit strange though as you move up to, say, Goranthan trolls or larger beasties? Also, what about if a weapon gets bumped beyond 1d12? Would the next step really be 1d20, assuming that you still wanted the weapons to be able to "graze" an opponent?

SDLeary

Edited December 20, 2012 by SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

Ok. Makes sense. Have you thought what the break-points might be? Tough Leather say -1 DC, Cuirboilli -2, Maille -2 vs blades, but +- 0 vs bludgeoning, etc.?

Not to much yet, since it is still in the early stages. To start with I'd go with 1 point of armor =-1DC. But that's just a start. I will have to look at weapon damages to see if I can match it up that easily.

One nice bit will be the ability to mix armor types. We could make armor more or less effective against firearms, for example.

How would this work in a game that didn't use Locations and had variable armor to compensate, as in default BRP or Stormbringer?

Oh, good one. Of the top of my head, I'd say I'd have to use a variable DC reduction. If I can link up 1DC to 1 point of armor,. I could use the armor ratings as listed. That would be good, right?

Would the steps used in the current Damage bonus chart be used? I would think not as that would increase damage class rapidly.

No. I was thinking of a more gradual progression. Basically something like a DC upgrade per 5 points of STR+SIZ rather than a full D6 per 16.

And, if a stronger (and larger?) character can push thru stronger armor on a regular basis, then wouldn't it also follow that their added strength and size would also allow them to do more damage once they have punched thru the armor, or even if their opponent wore no armor at all?

Exactly. THier higher STR/SIZ would up thier DC so they would do more damage.

That makes sense. It would also allow Special or Critical effects to take effect after penetrating armor, as mentioned up-thread. Though it also suggests that weapons still would need to be re-statted. A dagger doing 1d4 AFTER punching thru armor just doesn't sound right.

Doesn't this get a bit strange though as you move up to, say, Goranthan trolls or larger beasties? Also, what about if a weapon gets bumped beyond 1d12? Would the next step really be 1d20, assuming that you still wanted the weapons to be able to "graze" an opponent?

Well, what I'm working with is something like this:

1D2

1D4

1D6

1D8

1D10

1D10+1D2 or 2D6

1D10+1D4

1D10+1D6 or 2D8

1D10+1D8

2D10

Now addressing your questions;

Let's say a dagger did 1D4+2, but due to STR+SIZ the wielder got a +2DC shift. He would be up to 1D8+2. But, if his opponent was wearing 2 point armor, the damage would drop down to 1D4+2. An impale would double this damage. THis means that if the target was wearing heavy armor the dagger might not do any damage, unless the wielder was aiming for a lightly protected location, or perhaps bypassed with a critical.

We could also get rid of the minimum adds by upping the die size, although if we did so, I'd want to revert the dagger back to RQ1 damage (1D6) to keep is below the shortsword (1D6+1 adjusted to 1D8)

As far a larger foes go, it is actually a bit more generous to the PCs than the standard method, since thier armor will reduce the damage rolled against them, and the smoothed progression will reduce the damage slightly as well.

Damage greater than 1D12 (not used in BRP, but replaced with 2D6 or 1D10+1D2) just moves on up on the chart, which repeats. So if could easily handle a dragon that did something like 6D10 damage with a claw. At least better than the poor guy on the receiving end of said claw. The result isn't much different from the standard rules at that level. Overkill is still overkill.

[SDLeary]

Not to much yet, since it is still in the early stages. To start with I'd go with 1 point of armor =-1DC. But that's just a start. I will have to look at weapon damages to see if I can match it up that easily.

One nice bit will be the ability to mix armor types. We could make armor more or less effective against firearms, for example.

I think that 1 ap = 1 dc sounds a bit off. Cuirboilli for example is described as often being able to turn a gladius, but a -3DC would make it impervious.

Oh, good one. Of the top of my head, I'd say I'd have to use a variable DC reduction. If I can link up 1DC to 1 point of armor,. I could use the armor ratings as listed. That would be good, right?

That would be a good option, the best in fact. I think in order to achieve that though, you are going to have to tackle damage of weapons somewhat. See above.

No. I was thinking of a more gradual progression. Basically something like a DC upgrade per 5 points of STR+SIZ rather than a full D6 per 16.

Would this be zeroed at average (23.5)? Assuming so, then we seem to be looking at 2 to 3 damage classes for STR18 SIZ18. That sounds reasonable.

Well, what I'm working with is something like this:

1D2

1D4

1D6

1D8

1D10

1D10+1D2 or 2D6

1D10+1D4

1D10+1D6 or 2D8

1D10+1D8

2D10

I would suggest keeping d12 in there, just so that we can avoid the previously mentioned issue of weapon adds/multiple dice not being able to cause low enough damage/scratches.

Now addressing your questions;

Let's say a dagger did 1D4+2, but due to STR+SIZ the wielder got a +2DC shift. He would be up to 1D8+2. But, if his opponent was wearing 2 point armor, the damage would drop down to 1D4+2. An impale would double this damage. THis means that if the target was wearing heavy armor the dagger might not do any damage, unless the wielder was aiming for a lightly protected location, or perhaps bypassed with a critical.

Gotcha

We could also get rid of the minimum adds by upping the die size, although if we did so, I'd want to revert the dagger back to RQ1 damage (1D6) to keep is below the shortsword (1D6+1 adjusted to 1D8)

I would advise against this. Daggers are already way too effective against unarmored foes. If you UP this AFTER (even if you are only really adjusting the average) punching thru armor, then it will be even more unbalanced. In fact, dagger should probably be taken down to 1d4, or perhaps even 1d3.

As far a larger foes go, it is actually a bit more generous to the PCs than the standard method, since thier armor will reduce the damage rolled against them, and the smoothed progression will reduce the damage slightly as well.

Makes sense.

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

I think that 1 ap = 1 dc sounds a bit off. Cuirboilli for example is described as often being able to turn a gladius, but a -3DC would make it impervious.

No, becuase the average person in BRP has a damage bonus of 1D4. That's two steps on the table, so a gladius would get through. Either 1D4+1 or 1D6 depending of if we get rid of the plussed.

That would be a good option, the best in fact. I think in order to achieve that though, you are going to have to tackle damage of weapons somewhat. See above.

I think IO might have to tweak weapon damages slightly. Mostly It will be factoring in for the dbm, and probably getting rid of the plusses for a die increase. So an average person using a shortsword (1D6+1+1D4) would get bumped up to 1D10+1 or 1D12, or 2D6.

Would this be zeroed at average (23.5)? Assuming so, then we seem to be looking at 2 to 3 damage classes for STR18 SIZ18. That sounds reasonable.

It would probably be zero'd out at 20, maybe even 15. Reason being that the average person in BRP gets a +1D4 DB (I wished they had shifted the table in RQ3 when they upped the average SIZ. The breakpoint was orginally where is was to account for people who were a bit bigger and/or stronger getting a bonus. When average SIZ went up from 10.5 to 13, they should have added 2 or 3 to the breakpoint on the db table to compensate).

In fact, what I might try is a Pendragon approach with a base DC by STR+SIZ and then giving a DC modifier for weapon used. It might be a bit simpler, as people can do something like divide by 5 easy enough and not need to look it up on a table. THat way I could zero out the dagger or shortsword.

I would suggest keeping d12 in there, just so that we can avoid the previously mentioned issue of weapon adds/multiple dice not being able to cause low enough damage/scratches.

That might be a good idea. I'm note sure why they dumped the D12 in RQ2. Although we will still see the problem of multiple dice past that. Although as long as the number of dice stay small the minimum isn't so bad. A minimum of 2 points isn't so bad.

I would advise against this. Daggers are already way too effective against unarmored foes. If you UP this AFTER (even if you are only really adjusting the average) punching thru armor, then it will be even more unbalanced. In fact, dagger should probably be taken down to 1d4, or perhaps even 1d3.

!d4+2 does seem a bit much. The old 1D6 wasn't bad, but with the db getting increased daggers have become way to effective. Still a big knife should be nearly as effective as a shortsword. Maybe keep 1D6 for the big fighting knives and 1D4 or 1D2 for smaller knives. I need to keep them good enough to be lethal, but probably as some effect of skill.

Makes sense.

SDLeary

Yes, the hard bit is making it all work smoothly with the existing system without doing a major overhaul, or creating new, or forseen problems. For example, RQ/BRP has already treated db as a separate component and this method would probably requiring intregating db with the weapon damage. Some things, like crtical hits might need to be altered to reflect this. Probably a flat add or DC shift for a crit rather than straight max. Otherwise unarmed foes get it much worse than armored foes. Probably too much worse.

[SDLeary]

No, becuase the average person in BRP has a damage bonus of 1D4. That's two steps on the table, so a gladius would get through. Either 1D4+1 or 1D6 depending of if we get rid of the plussed.

Ah, yes, on the table you presented above. For some reason I was envisioning the normal Damage Bonus table break points.

I think IO might have to tweak weapon damages slightly. Mostly It will be factoring in for the dbm, and probably getting rid of the plusses for a die increase. So an average person using a shortsword (1D6+1+1D4) would get bumped up to 1D10+1 or 1D12, or 2D6.

Thats probably the best route. Plusses are already disappearing from the BRP-like games just to make things a bit quicker. I would still zero the damage bonus mod for DC at average. The potential for 6 (shortsword) points of damage after punching thru armor is still a hell of a lot.

In fact, what I might try is a Pendragon approach with a base DC by STR+SIZ and then giving a DC modifier for weapon used. It might be a bit simpler, as people can do something like divide by 5 easy enough and not need to look it up on a table. THat way I could zero out the dagger or shortsword.

That would work too as long as you then give a static base to armor. You wouldn't want Maille -2DC bladed, -0 bludgeoning and a bounus to Mace vs Maille.

That might be a good idea. I'm note sure why they dumped the D12 in RQ2. Although we will still see the problem of multiple dice past that. Although as long as the number of dice stay small the minimum isn't so bad. A minimum of 2 points isn't so bad.

Its still there, but only for the Pike. Three got rid of it completely.

!d4+2 does seem a bit much. The old 1D6 wasn't bad, but with the db getting increased daggers have become way to effective. Still a big knife should be nearly as effective as a shortsword. Maybe keep 1D6 for the big fighting knives and 1D4 or 1D2 for smaller knives. I need to keep them good enough to be lethal, but probably as some effect of skill.

I would go 1d6 for Shortswords (gladius, seax, xiphos), 1d4 for fighting knives and daggers, and 1d3 or 1d2 for smaller blades.

Yes, the hard bit is making it all work smoothly with the existing system without doing a major overhaul, or creating new, or forseen problems. For example, RQ/BRP has already treated db as a separate component and this method would probably requiring intregating db with the weapon damage. Some things, like crtical hits might need to be altered to reflect this. Probably a flat add or DC shift for a crit rather than straight max. Otherwise unarmed foes get it much worse than armored foes. Probably too much worse.

They should get it much worse than armored foes, if hit. Armor should impose other penalties for its use. In RQ6 for example, armor reduces Athletics, movement, and reaction. Unarmored foes would still presumably have a shield, dodge, or be good parrying with their weapon (I think weapon parries would have to be worked on the most).

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

Ah, yes, on the table you presented above. For some reason I was envisioning the normal Damage Bonus table break points.

From RQ3 on, normal humans are right on the cusp of the +1D4 db.

[SDLeary]

So you'd shift back to RQ2 damages? Not bad. The dilemma in RQ/BRP has always been to keep weapons dangerous enough that tey can kill or incapacitate with a single blow, yet generally don't.

Except for criticals and specials which have that potential, depending upon weapon. Oh, and Fumbles. Moving the damages back to RQ2 certainly make a bit more sense if we want more "realistic" damages where the effects of lack of immediate treatment and long term injury (Major Wounds).

If I used a base DC from STR+SIZ, then I'd put the armor adjustments with the weapons and/or armor.

Thats what I'm suggesting. But you don't want multiple similar options, such as variable DC modifiers for a type of armor (as suggested earlier in the thread) AND a weapon modifier vs. a particular type of armor. I would suggest a base modifier from STR+SIZ, a base DC based upon armor type (material and construction) and any additional modifiers based upon weapon type. This allows for less common weapon modifiers, such as advantage against a specific type of defense, such as a modifier for Axe against Shields.

Nope. They got rid of D12s entirely in the RQ2 errata (the loose leaf that was included in most of not all copies of RQ2). THe errta mentions replacing all instances of D12 with 2D6. So even the pike is 2D6+1, not 1D12+1, and has been that way for 30 years plus.

Ah yes. I was looking at the table, and totally missing the first line of errata in the front cover.

Not that much worse. Basically, how hard a weapon can hit is not a factor of the armor. A sword, ax, bullet, only travels so fast, and nly has so much momentum and energy. Armor takes some of the "edge" off an attack, and disperses some of the energy, but lack of it doesn''t add to the attack. Otherwise you end up "double dipping". For instance, a bear claw should not have "more effective" crticals than a sword or bullet. Yes, the bear has more muscle and weight behind his claw, but the sword is a much more efficient design.

I think if the special/crtiical effects were fixed, unarmored people would take it worse just by not being able to reduce the damage.

OK, thats fair. How do you factor Dodge into this? I'm assuming that we are still dealing with BRP Success Levels, as opposed to simple effects/success level as in RQ3. If this is the case, does a successful Dodge reduce the DC of the weapon, assuming Dodge Success vs. Special Attack Success, etc.?

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

Except for criticals and specials which have that potential, depending upon weapon. Oh, and Fumbles. Moving the damages back to RQ2 certainly make a bit more sense if we want more "realistic" damages where the effects of lack of immediate treatment and long term injury (Major Wounds).

Yeah, although I'd like to put thing like shock and wound deterioration itn there somewhere. One of the drawbacks to the generic hit point system is that if a wound doesn't drop a character immediately, it never will. Same will kills for the most part. What's I'd like to see is a roll to resist the pain when hit, and wounds getting worse if not treated/ That way, we can have lower, more realtistic damages. Something like losing 1 HP even so many (CON?) rounds, minutes or hours unless treated would help.

Thats what I'm suggesting. But you don't want multiple similar options, such as variable DC modifiers for a type of armor (as suggested earlier in the thread) AND a weapon modifier vs. a particular type of armor. I would suggest a base modifier from STR+SIZ, a base DC based upon armor type (material and construction) and any additional modifiers based upon weapon type. This allows for less common weapon modifiers, such as advantage against a specific type of defense, such as a modifier for Axe against Shields.

I don't think there is a problem with both a weapon vs. armor mod and a variable roll for armor. They aren't really the same thing. The variable armor represents gaps in the armor's coverage/protection while the weapon mod reflects a weapon being more or less effective against a specific type of armor.

Ah yes. I was looking at the table, and totally missing the first line of errata in the front cover.

Ooh, in the front cover. My copy just had in on a loose-leaf insert. That said, I'm not certain of the wisdom of dropping the D12. It probably made it slightly less expensive to buy dice, but I think everybody has D12s these day, anyway.

OK, thats fair. How do you factor Dodge into this? I'm assuming that we are still dealing with BRP Success Levels, as opposed to simple effects/success level as in RQ3. If this is the case, does a successful Dodge reduce the DC of the weapon, assuming Dodge Success vs. Special Attack Success, etc.?

SDLeary

I'd like to have dodge reduce the DC of the attack. That way you could get glancing blows from partial dodges, and get rid of some of the all or nothing effect with dodges. Perhaps dodging could reduce the DC to 1/2 , a special 1/4, instead of or as an alternative to a flat modifier? Probably the dodgers choice. So for a weapk attack the flat minus is best, but with a big hit, the 1/2 DC might be best.

[SDLeary]

Yeah, although I'd like to put thing like shock and wound deterioration itn there somewhere. One of the drawbacks to the generic hit point system is that if a wound doesn't drop a character immediately, it never will. Same will kills for the most part. What's I'd like to see is a roll to resist the pain when hit, and wounds getting worse if not treated/ That way, we can have lower, more realtistic damages. Something like losing 1 HP even so many (CON?) rounds, minutes or hours unless treated would help.

I would say minutes, at least for bleeding. That way the effect would still occur on game time; on the Turn rather than the Round.

I don't think there is a problem with both a weapon vs. armor mod and a variable roll for armor. They aren't really the same thing. The variable armor represents gaps in the armor's coverage/protection while the weapon mod reflects a weapon being more or less effective against a specific type of armor.

Poor choice of words on my part. I meant that we don't want stacking DC modifiers for a particular type of attack. For example, Maille being -5 DC vs Edged but only -1 vs Bludgeoning; then also have a Mace have a modifier vs Maille.

Its somewhat stating the obvious, but I find that when I keep things like this in mind, I don't expend effort needlessly when a brainstorm comes; unless its good enough to encourage me to change tack completely.

I'd like to have dodge reduce the DC of the attack. That way you could get glancing blows from partial dodges, and get rid of some of the all or nothing effect with dodges. Perhaps dodging could reduce the DC to 1/2 , a special 1/4, instead of or as an alternative to a flat modifier? Probably the dodgers choice. So for a weapk attack the flat minus is best, but with a big hit, the 1/2 DC might be best.

Success = DC reduced to Half, Special = DC reduced to a Quarter, Critical = Completely out of the way of the blow sounds good here. Keeps it simple.

Moving within the same realm, what about other defenses. Weapon parries and Shield blocks/parries? Flat DC reduction?

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

I would say minutes, at least for bleeding. That way the effect would still occur on game time; on the Turn rather than the Round.

I'd like to tie that to wound severity. A person who takes a 8 point wound is probably losing blood faster than a guy who takes a 1 point wound.

One of the things about old RQ (and most related systems) that I'm not fond of is that damage is taken all at once. There is no worries about things getting worse, and no real need to treat injuries. Bt the rules, if it doesn't kill or main you right off, it won't, and you don't get penalized for ignoring it. Yeah, you might be low on HP and drop later from a minor hit, but that's not the same thing.

Poor choice of words on my part. I meant that we don't want stacking DC modifiers for a particular type of attack. For example, Maille being -5 DC vs Edged but only -1 vs Bludgeoning; then also have a Mace have a modifier vs Maille

Ah, okay. I agree with that. Modfiers will either by by weapon, or by armor/attack. not both. Armor is probably simplier (as there are fewer types) but weapon might be better for handling special case weapons. One cornern is that any new weapon or armor type will requirse revising prexisting mods.

Looks like the weapon/armor mods would be best as an optional rule, right? That way it can be ignored by those who don't want to deal with it.

Its somewhat stating the obvious, but I find that when I keep things like this in mind, I don't expend effort needlessly when a brainstorm comes; unless its good enough to encourage me to change tack completely.

Sounds good to me. Sometimes, especially over the net, I mention ideas, but fail to explain the effects of those ideas because they are "obvious" then realize down the road that nobody else noticed what I had thought was obvious. I ran into that a lot with my desire to use a formulaic approach to writing up stats for vehicles, equipment and creatures. One of the most obvious benefits to me is the ability to plug in data into a spreadsheet or program and letting the computer automate the process and spit out the stats. Good, usable stats that are internally consistent. The critter writeup formulas have reached the point where the other guy who is working on it can (and has) added another couple hundred critters in an afternoon just by plugging in real world data.

So stating the obvious makes sense to me.

Success = DC reduced to Half, Special = DC reduced to a Quarter, Critical = Completely out of the way of the blow sounds good here. Keeps it simple.

Moving within the same realm, what about other defenses. Weapon parries and Shield blocks/parries? Flat DC reduction?

SDLeary

Hmm, how about DC reduction based one skill and/or success level? With a modifier for weapon type. A sword might do better than an axe. A shield might parry better than a sword, and so on.

[Toadmaster]

On the hit point end of things, I liked the system used in FASA's Behind Enemy Lines. Instead of just using hit points it had wound categories, light, moderate, severe and dead.

Light wounds could provide a penalty to agility (leg hit), weapon skill (arm hit) or no effect (scratch wound). Effects of light wounds were cumulative, so multiple light wounds would decrease the characters abilities (-1), but never became life threatening.

Moderate wounds caused a loss of 1d6-3 stamina points (essentially hit points, which was a 2d6 score), so repeated moderate wounds could eventually lead to death. They also caused penalties to agility or weapon skill, but cost 1/2 the skill level vs -1 for light wounds. They forced an endurance roll to avoid being knocked unconscious, and reduced the endurance stat (after the roll) by the same amount as stamina, so repeated moderate wounds were more likely to put a character out of the fight.

Severe wounds cost 2d6 stamina (so a decent chance of outright death), and reduced strength, agility and weapons skill to 0. Again forced an endurance roll to remain conscious and reduced endurance by the same amount as stamina.

Instant death is self explanitory.

Additionally there were bleeding rules that applied to moderate and severe wounds.

There were seperate wound tables for different situations. For example the hard cover table leaned heavily towards severe wound and death, with the assumption that if there was a hit it was due to someone sticking their head over a wall for a peek, or failing to notice an opening in the wall aimed at their torso. Flame throwers, artillery etc also had seperate tables. Hand to hand combat had a seperate but similar system.

Task Force Games Delta Force RPG (same author) used a similar system, but added modifiers to the wound roll for things like weapon type, range, character stats etc.

I never paid much attention to either game until a few years ago, but they have some pretty quick, easy and realistic feeling combat rules that would not be that difficult to port over to BRP. Behind Enemy Lines was a kind of a cross between an RPG and a small unit war game, but Delta Force took it a step further towards the RPG side and added a lot more detail.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Toadmaster

[Atgxtg]

That;s pretty similar to what I had in mind.

BEL, Delta Force, James Bond, Timelords, CORPS, D6 Star Wars, and several other RPGs use some osrt of wounding system with decent results. The Silhouette system adds another wrinkle to it by comparing the damage taken to a wound threshold to determine the severity of a given wound. I think such a system would work well in BRP.

Instead of keeping a running tally of hit points, and using a HP attrition systemn, the damage could be compared to a character's HP total to determine the severity of a given injury. Bt having wound catergories rather than points, the adds tot he rolls won't have quite the same impact they have now.

[SDLeary]

Light wounds could provide a penalty to agility (leg hit), weapon skill (arm hit) or no effect (scratch wound). Effects of light wounds were cumulative, so multiple light wounds would decrease the characters abilities (-1), but never became life threatening.

Moderate wounds caused a loss of 1d6-3 stamina points (essentially hit points, which was a 2d6 score), so repeated moderate wounds could eventually lead to death. They also caused penalties to agility or weapon skill, but cost 1/2 the skill level vs -1 for light wounds. They forced an endurance roll to avoid being knocked unconscious, and reduced the endurance stat (after the roll) by the same amount as stamina, so repeated moderate wounds were more likely to put a character out of the fight.

Severe wounds cost 2d6 stamina (so a decent chance of outright death), and reduced strength, agility and weapons skill to 0. Again forced an endurance roll to remain conscious and reduced endurance by the same amount as stamina.

I like this, and it could be somewhat easily integrated as an optional system in BRP. HP retaining their use as Stamina listed in this example.

There were seperate wound tables for different situations. For example the hard cover table leaned heavily towards severe wound and death, with the assumption that if there was a hit it was due to someone sticking their head over a wall for a peek, or failing to notice an opening in the wall aimed at their torso. Flame throwers, artillery etc also had seperate tables. Hand to hand combat had a seperate but similar system.

Not so fond of this. Additional tables during combat are bad imho. In fact, I find the current Major Wound tables a pain. Fixed effects for Special/Critical/Major Wounds always contribute to the continuity/flow of combat. The exception to this being the Fumble Table. No one seems to mind pausing to finding out what happens to their unlucky comrade, hoping for the old RQ "Hit self do max damage" result!

SDLeary