Forums of the Megaverse®

The thing that most people don't think about is that there are two different mechanisms in RPGs that reflect the accuracy of an attacker.
First, there is the attack roll. This determines whether or not the target is hit at all (or, at times, whether the target is hit hard enough to inflict any damage.
Second, there is the damage roll itself. To some extent, this also reflects the variety in hitting power with melee weapons; a normal human character isn't going to hit with the exact same force every time, so the damage dice reflect, in part, how much energy the character is able to muster up for each hit.
But with many weapons (guns, crossbows, traps, spells, etc), the actual force of the attack should be a constant; the first bullet in a gun has the same amount of force as the second bullet from the gun.

This is where accuracy comes in.
When a character aims a gun and squeezes the trigger, the force behind the bullet remains the same every time.
So why is the damage (potentially) different each time?
Because the bullets hit in different parts of the body.
If, for example, a revolver does 5d6 worth of damage, and the shooter fires 3 times at the same target (or a number of targets that are essentially the same; a group of like-sized humans, for example).
Assume that his strike rolls are all sufficient to inflict some sort of damage on the targets.
The shooter's damage rolls are:
5
15
30

What this means is:
On the first shot, the bullet only grazes the target; it's just a minor flesh wound.
On the second shot, the bullet hits the right area. If the shooter was firing for the torso, the bullet will have hit the main body directly, not just grazed it, and the shot will knock the target (an average human, with 15 HP) unconscious (or partially conscious, but unable to effectively move/act).
On the third shot, the bullet hits the target's heart (or similarly vital organ), outright killing the target (by dropping it to -15 HP).

The rolls mean this because otherwise things don't make sense; it's obvious that a shot that does 5 HP is not a direct bullet to the heart, just as it's obvious that a shot that drops the target to -15 HP isn't just a minor graze.

Which goes back to the point; damage dice represent accuracy.
At least, accuracy within a hit. They show how good the hit is.
All the strike roll does is to determine IF the strike hits, which is only part of the overall accuracy of an attack.

What this means is that, because damage rolled reflects the accuracy of the attack, that the accuracy of of an attack should be reflected in the damage the target recieves.
The problem is, most systems don't operate this way.

For example, in Palladium's system a sniper has +2 to strike because he is accurate.
He has a targeting sight, which gives him +1 to strike.
He has a well-balanced weapon, which gives him another +1 to +2 to strike.
But that doesn't make a lot of sense.

If you have a sniper with a good scope and an accurate weapon, the game mechanisms only give him a better chance of hitting the target's torso, instead of also giving him a better chance to hit a vital organ.
That doesn't make a lot of sense, because surely a sniper with that much accuracy would be able to more easily hit the heart than some guy with a cheap gun, firing with a lot less accuracy.

In the above example, the sniper is just aiming for the Torso of the target.
In Palladium's system, the sniper has the option, if time allows, to instead aim for the target's heart specifically.
In this case, the same formula listed above applies to the new target (the heart).
5 points of damage means that the bullet grazes the heart.
15 points of damage is a pretty direct hit to the heart.
30 points of damage is the best hit possible.

Of course, even 5 points of damage to the HEART is pretty significant (at least, for a normal human).
There are two ways that the rules address this.
1. There is the indication in multiple areas that a called shot to a vital area results in a Critical Hit (x2 damage or more).
2. There are the Common Sense rules regarding firearms; the GM can rule triple damage, or simply declare the target killed outright).

In the case of a critical hit, that 5 points of damage would be at least 10 points of damage. This would leave an average person conscious, but bleeding out heavily, unconscious in just a few rounds.
That's not too bad a representation of a bullet grazing the heart.
If the original roll was 15 points of damage, then it would be doubled to 30 points of damage, which would kill a normal person outright.
Again, not too bad a representation of a bullet to the heart.

Of course, all this is without taking SDC into account.
And it's without taking Natural 20s into account.
And it's assuming that the target is a normal human, not a Juicer or superhuman, or high-level PC.

Anyway, just some random musings.

RPG systems are to some degree abstractions, compromises between something that can maintain a level of suspension of disbelief, while still being... well, playable.

I've never actually analyzed it that way before, KC, and you're right, that does come out a little odd. I suppose part of the random damage roll includes all those random variances that even a world-class sniper can't take into account (like his kill-shot-to-the-heart glancing off a rib or sternum and other such wild chances).

I wonder how workable a system it would be, to have a set damage for each class/caliber of gun, and assign damage as a fraction of that by how much the attacker exceeded the necessary attack roll? The better the roll, the more critical the hit? Mm, no, that falls down with things like called shots to the head, since the higher to-hit numbers means a successful hit would do less damage. Though combining that with your idea of vital area hits being automatically critical...

the_robot wrote:In an issue of The Rifter there were rules for instant kills when sniping. Although, they were for headshots, I'm sure you could easily adjust for a kill-shot through the heart.

I'll find it tomorrow when I'm home.

Rifter #23 - CS TAG article the one you talking about?

I was kinda tired when I posted that, but I'm more awake now, and able to pinpoint something that bugs me about it.
Unless they're making a Called Shot, which takes at least 2 attacks, snipers with the best guns available are equally likely to hit a vital area (heart, etc) as an untrained guy with a cheap throwaway.

The other thing that bothers me is how critical hits are handled.
If a pistol does 5d6 points of damage, that should mean that 30 represents the total energy of the bullet (minus the friction of air, etc).
If you roll a natural 20, then the gun can suddenly inflict up to 60 points of damage. This shouldn't happen, because it's not like occasionally a bullet will shoot out with twice the normal force.

Perhaps a Critical shot should simply inflict maximum damage for the weapon.

oddly enough I have been thinking about the relatinship between strike rolls and damage. Anything that hit's with 20+ points to spare should be an auto full damage, so 5d6=30. But to go the full rout you would have to divide the damage and strike roll by the 20 sider

so say you have a 3d6 weapon;
Min=3=2-4
Poor=6=7-11
Avg=9=11-15
Good=12=16-18
Max=18=19+

and then it just gets messy from there cuz then you have to figure all of the damages and build a matric UGH

though if you just say you get average damage if you roll 10+ over the other guy or 3/4 for 15+ or max for 20+ that would be a bit better but I guess the fun of rolling dice is seeing all sixes come up and a story to tell with it when you blast the balrog

Zylo wrote:
My group tried that once (for our PF and N&S games) and boy was it scary. Instead of doing X2 damage you did max weapon + normal weapon dice + PS bonus on a critical. I actually liked it because everyone hates getting a crit and rolling low damage, but you can lose more characters to those big hits.
.

I like that, but for guns only. So if you rolled a 20 for strike and a 6 for damage on a 6d6 weapon, then it would do 36+6 damage. Makes more sense than double, i.e. 72 damage.

I can even see that working for melee weapons, except that some might not like it. Maybe for melee weapons, since there can be suck a variation between each hit, have a critical do double the damage roll plus half of the weapon's max damage.

Zylo wrote:My group was talking about that last night (while flipping through Aces & Eights) about a story where a guy was shot in the chest with a .22 pistol and dropped dead. It didn't cause severe damage or massive bleeding, it hit him perfectly in the heart and basically turned it off.

What's really scary is that a mediocre fastball pitch can do exactly the same thing. It's a condition called commotio cordis.

Considering the idea of better-to-hit-doing-more-damage systems, it makes me wonder if (in that case) dodge ought to be altered to be a damage reduction effect instead of an all-or-nothing hit/miss rule. The higher the attacker rolls, the more damage he'll do. The higher the defender rolls to dodge, the more their roll reduces the success of the attacker's roll, lowering the damage. Thus, if the defender's dodge roll totals higher than the attack roll, no damage.

Geez this gets convoluted.

makes sense to me that was along my line of thinking

How about something relativly simple, but requires just a little more math while you're playing...

# of dice normally rolled for damage with given attack multiplied by the difference between the attacker's roll to strike and the defender's unsuccessful roll to Parry or Dodge, to a maximum of the attack's normal maximum damage.

Or simply: Difference between attack and defense x dice of damage.

Example: You have a gun that normally deals 3D6. You shoot someone (total of 17 to hit) and he tries to dodge (total of 13 to Dodge). Your difference is 4. normally, three dice of damage so it becomes 3x4= 12 damage. What if you roll a total of 22 and he rolls a total of 6? Difference of 16? Well, 16x3 is 48, but the maximum of 3D6 is 18 so you deal 18 damage.

"Well what about someone who doesn't bother dodging? Decides to just take the damage?" Well, personally I think it's easier to deal more damage if the target isn't defending. So, assume that the target has a 4, and base your difference against 4. Why 4? Because in Palladium any natural roll under 4 is a miss.

Hmm? How about it?

Shadowmagic wrote:To make more sense, melee weapons should have a set damage modified by a variable damage bonus and accuracy. Range weapons should have a set damage modified by accuracy.

Exactly.

The accuracy modifier would be the max damage modified by the full strike roll as a %(d20 x 5). A roll of 19 total would be max damage times .95. A nat 20 would still be double damage and a modified 24, for example, would be max damage times 1.2, a minor critical.

I'd have 20 be full damage, and lesser strikes be less damage.

I don't subscribe to the partial parry or dodge as you are allowed to roll with certain types of damage already.

Well, a partial dodge should reduce damage a bit because it throws off their aim.
Unless the round misses the vital organ they were aiming at, and hits a different vital organ instead.

I attempted to flaw it but it seems pretty good even with dice other than d6

Killer Cyborg wrote:When a character aims a gun and squeezes the trigger, the force behind the bullet remains the same every time.
So why is the damage (potentially) different each time?

Because atmospheric conditions between the shooter and the target can change.
Because, despite modern manufacturing techniques, propellant loads can differ between rounds.
Because the wound channel generated by the projectile will not always be the same.

Mantisking wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:When a character aims a gun and squeezes the trigger, the force behind the bullet remains the same every time.
So why is the damage (potentially) different each time?

Because atmospheric conditions between the shooter and the target can change.
Because, despite modern manufacturing techniques, propellant loads can differ between rounds.
Because the wound channel generated by the projectile will not always be the same.

A gun that does 5d6 damage has a range of 5-30 damage.
Atmospheric conditions wouldn't reduce a bullet from 30 damage down to 5.
A low powder charge might, but any manufacturer with that level of unpredictability would be run out of business.

Wound channel is the winner.
And it's another way of saying "where the bullet hits".